Dual Water Systems: Characterization

and Performance for Distribution of

Reclaimed Water

Web Report #4333

Subject Area: Infrastructure

Dual Water Systems: Characterization
and Performance for Distribution of
Reclaimed Water

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

About the Water Research Foundation
The Water Research Foundation is a member-supported, international, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that
sponsors research that enables water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals to provide
safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.

The Foundation’s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve this
mission, the Foundation sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including resources, treatment,
and distribution. Nearly 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and manufacturers in North America and
abroad contribute subscription payments to support the Foundation’s work. Additional funding comes
from collaborative partnerships with other national and international organizations and the U.S. federal
government, allowing for resources to be leveraged, expertise to be shared, and broad-based knowledge
to be developed and disseminated.

From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, the Foundation’s staff directs and supports the efforts of
more than 800 volunteers who serve on the Board of Trustees and various committees. These volunteers
represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to select and monitor research
studies that benefit the entire drinking water community.

Research results are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the Website,
Webcasts, workshops, and periodicals.

The Foundation serves as a cooperative program providing subscribers the opportunity to pool their
resources and build upon each others’ expertise. By applying Foundation research findings, subscribers
can save substantial costs and stay on the leading edge of drinking water science and technology. Since
its inception, the Foundation has supplied the water community with more than $460 million in applied
research value.

More information about the Foundation and how to become a subscriber is available at www.WaterRF.org.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Dual Water Systems: Characterization
and Performance for Distribution of
Reclaimed Water

Prepared by:
Neil S. Grigg
Colorado State University
and
Peter D. Rogers and Stephanie Edmiston
University of Texas at Tyler

Jointly sponsored by:

Water Research Foundation
6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235

Water Environment Research Foundation

635 Slaters Lane, Suite G-110, Alexandria, VA 22314
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington D.C.

Published by:

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 DISCLAIMER

This study was jointly funded by the Water Research Foundation (Foundation), Water
Environment Research Foundation (WERF), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Cooperative Agreement No. CR-83419201. The Foundation, WERF, and EPA assume
no responsibility for the content of the research study reported in this publication or for
the opinions or statements of fact expressed in the report. The mention of trade names
for com-mercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of the
Foundation, WERF, or EPA. This report is presented solely for informational purposes.

Copyright © 2013
by Water Research Foundation

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced
or otherwise utilized without permission.

Printed in the U.S.A.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 CONTENTS

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................... viii  

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. ix  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ x  

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND .......................................... 1  

Project Background......................................................................................................... 1  
Definitions and Perceptions of Dual Water Systems ...................................................... 3  
Use of Project Results by Utilities and for Policy Studies.............................................. 4  

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: LESSONS FROM RESEARCH AND

EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................................................ 7  
Evolution of Dual Systems ............................................................................................. 7  
Purposes of Dual Systems............................................................................................... 8  
Water Quality and Public Health Aspects ...................................................................... 9  
Water Reclamation and Reuse ...................................................................................... 11  
Experience with Water Reuse Systems......................................................................... 11  
USEPA Guidelines........................................................................................................ 15  
Costs and rate-setting .................................................................................................... 16  
Asset and Operations Management .............................................................................. 19  
Institutional Arrangements............................................................................................ 20  

CHAPTER 3: CLASSIFICATION OF DUAL WATER SYSTEMS .......................................... 25  

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 25  
Classification system .................................................................................................... 26  

CHAPTER 4: PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND DATA COLLECTION ....................... 33  

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 33  
Water Safety and Public Health Protection ............................................................... 33  
Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals .................................................................... 34  
Total Cost (of Potable and Non-Potable Systems) ................................................... 34  
Risk and Reliability of supply? .................................................................................. 35  
Implementation and Operational Results................................................................... 35  
Evaluation Questions .................................................................................................... 36  

CHAPTER 5: RETROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF DUAL WATER

SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................... 37  
Introduction and Dataset ............................................................................................... 37  
Conclusions from the Research Literature .................................................................... 38  
Water Safety and Public Health Protection .................................................................. 41  
Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals ....................................................................... 41  
Risk and reliability ........................................................................................................ 43  

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Total Cost (of Potable and Non-Potable Systems) ....................................................... 45  
Implementation and Operational Results ...................................................................... 46  

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 49  

Inventory and Classification System ............................................................................ 50  
Objectives of systems ................................................................................................... 51  
Performance OF Dual water Systems ........................................................................... 51  
Future of Dual Water Systems ...................................................................................... 53  

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 55  

ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 59  

APPENDIX A: CATALOG OF DUAL SYSTEMS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES ............ 61  

APPENDIX B: CATALOG OF DUAL SYSTEMS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES .......... 69  

APPENDIX C: LIST OF CASE STUDIES .................................................................................. 73  

APPENDIX D: THIRTY-SEVEN CASE STUDIES ................................................................... 75  

Overview – Case Study Reports ................................................................................... 75  
Apopka Public Services Department, Apopka, FL ....................................................... 76  
Austin Water Utility, Austin, TX.................................................................................. 80  
Burbank Water and Power, Burbank, CA ..................................................................... 85  
Cape Coral Utility Division, Cape Coral, FL ............................................................... 90  
Cary Public Works & Utilities Department, Cary, NC................................................. 94  
City of Chandler, Water Distribution, Chandler, AZ.................................................. 101  
Denver Water, Denver, CO ......................................................................................... 106  
City of Dunedin, Dunedin, FL .................................................................................... 111  
East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA ..................................................... 115  
El Paso Water Utility, El Paso, TX ............................................................................. 122  
City of Eustis Public Utilities Department, Eustis, FL ............................................... 128  
Gwinnett County Water Resources, Lawrenceville, GA ............................................ 132  
Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, CA ..................................................................... 137  
City of Largo, Largo, FL............................................................................................. 143  
Las Vegas Valley Water District, Las Vegas, NV ...................................................... 147  
Livermore Water Resource Division, Livermore, CA ................................................ 154  
City of Olympia Public Works Department (LOTT Alliance), Olympia, WA .......... 159  
Marin Municipal Water District, Corte Madera, CA .................................................. 163  
Ocala Water and Sewer Department, Ocala, FL ......................................................... 167  
Odessa Utilities Department, Odessa, TX .................................................................. 171  
City of Orlando Wastewater Department, Orlando, FL .............................................. 175  
City of Oviedo Public Works Department, Oviedo, FL ............................................. 182  
Pinellas County Utilities, Clearwater, FL ................................................................... 189  
Pittsburg Public Works, Pittsburg, CA ....................................................................... 193  
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department, Raleigh, NC ......................................... 197  

vi

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Redwood City Public Works Services, Redwood City, CA ....................................... 201  
San Antonio Water System, San Antionio, TX .......................................................... 206  
City of San Diego Public Utilities Department, San Diego, CA ................................ 211  
Santa Barbara Public Works Dept.-Water Resouces Div., Santa Barbara, CA .......... 217  
City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department, Santa Rosa, CA ......................................... 222  
St. Pete Beach Public Services Department, St. Pete Beach, FL ................................ 228  
City of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, FL ................................................................... 232  
Tallahassee Underground Utilities, Tallahassee, FL .................................................. 238  
Tampa Water Department, Tampa, FL ....................................................................... 243  
Tucson Water, Tucson, AZ ......................................................................................... 250  
City of Winter Springs Public Works/Utility, Winter Springs, FL............................. 257  
City of Yelm Public Works Department, Yelm, WA ................................................. 263  

vii

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 FOREWORD

The Water Research Foundation (Foundation) is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to the

development and implementation of scientifically sound research designed to help drinking
water utilities respond to regulatory requirements and address high-priority concerns. The
Foundation’s research agenda is developed through a process of consultation with Foundation
subscribers and other drinking water professionals. The Foundation’s Board of Trustees and
other professional volunteers help prioritize and select research projects for funding based upon
current and future industry needs, applicability, and past work. The Foundation sponsors
research projects through the Focus Area, Emerging Opportunities, and Tailored Collaboration
programs, as well as various joint research efforts with organizations such as the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
This publication is a result of a research project fully funded or funded in part by
Foundation subscribers. The Foundation’s subscription program provides a cost-effective and
collaborative method for funding research in the public interest. The research investment that
underpins this report will intrinsically increase in value as the findings are applied in
communities throughout the world. Foundation research projects are managed closely from their
inception to the final report by the staff and a large cadre of volunteers who willingly contribute
their time and expertise. The Foundation provides planning, management, and technical
oversight and awards contracts to other institutions such as water utilities, universities, and
engineering firms to conduct the research.
A broad spectrum of water supply issues is addressed by the Foundation's research
agenda, including resources, treatment and operations, distribution and storage, water quality and
analysis, toxicology, economics, and management. The ultimate purpose of the coordinated
effort is to assist water suppliers to provide a reliable supply of safe and affordable drinking
water to consumers. The true benefits of the Foundation’s research are realized when the results
are implemented at the utility level. The Foundation's staff and Board of Trustees are pleased to
offer this publication as a contribution toward that end.

Roy L. Wolfe, Ph.D. Robert C. Renner, P.E.

Chair, Board of Trustees Executive Director
Water Research Foundation Water Research Foundation

viii

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research team appreciates the support they received from the Water Research
Foundation staff, including Maureen Hodgins, the Project Manager; Valerie Roundy and Ginnie
Harrington, Project Coordinators; and Peggy Falor Contract Administrator. Frank Blaha's
assistance is also appreciated, especially in the early stages of formulating the project concept
and in coordination with U.S. EPA and its Innovative Infrastructure Research Committee.
The members of the Project Advisory Committee were very helpful in formulating the
project and reviewing interim results. They included Bob Castle, Water Quality Manager for the
Marin Municipal Water District and JianYang, an Environmental Engineer who works with
Innovation & Environmental Stewardship for American Water. Bob contributed substantially to
the project with his valuable insights from long experience and focused responsibility with water
reuse in California. Jian paid careful attention to the project progress and interim report, and
contributed insights from his experience.
We received very valuable help from the utilities that sponsored our workshops and field
visits in Florida, California and Texas. In Florida, Dave Bracciano of Tampa Bay Water and
Irvin Kety of the Largo system helped us a great deal in planning and organizing a very useful
event. In Oakland, our event was organized in conjunction with a meeting of the Northern
California Chapter of the WateReuse Association, and Anita Jain of Whitley Burchett &
Associates and Curtis Lam of HydroScience Engineers helped us make the arrangements.
We would like especially to thank Daniel A. Okun, who is now deceased but who
inspired us to think more deeply about the possibilities of dual water systems. The AWWA
(2009) manual on distribution of reclaimed water includes a dedication and a longer explanation
of Dan's contributions.

ix

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OBJECTIVES

This report is a retrospective assessment of dual water systems, which are two
distribution systems operating jointly, one to supply potable and the other to supply non-potable
water. While dual systems can be used to distribute any source of non-potable water, the
assessment of their performance for this report focuses on reclaimed water, which is the most
common source.
The report responds to USEPA’s Sustainable Water Infrastructure Initiative, which
identified dual water systems as a potential technology to improve water safety and reduce the
cost of drinking water distribution infrastructure. This concept draws on the need to improve
drinking water safety while also addressing infrastructure gaps. Distribution system risk must
be assessed as the systems age, at the same time that reinvestment levels are lower than needed
(NRC 2006; USEPA, 2007). An assessment of dual water systems’ performance can set the stage
for a strategy to employ dual water systems in the future for appropriate multiple purposes.
The research tasks included an inventory of cases where dual systems have been
implemented; formulation of a protocol to identify claimed benefits, costs and risks; collection of
data (quantitative and anecdotal) to assess performance; display of data in the form of
performance results; and explanations of the results.

BACKGROUND

In addition to the knowledge base for reclaimed water, which focuses on health, safety
and economics, assessment of the effectiveness of dual water systems must also address
infrastructure management systems and operations and maintenance.
The distribution of non-potable water supplies has occurred for many decades, but the use
of dual systems only started to increase significantly after the advent of advanced wastewater
treatment during the 1970s. Now, water reuse is expanding in the U.S., mainly to serve the goals
of extending water supplies and reducing wastewater discharges. Some water reuse occurs from
dedicated lines from wastewater plants to water users and does not involve dual distribution, but
more extensive dual systems are also being implemented.
By the 1980s the literature on water reuse was increasing rapidly. Important information
was published in the Water Reuse Guidelines by USEPA and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (2004). Another important synthesis document is the American Water Works
Association’s (AWWA) (2009) Manual 24 about distribution of reclaimed water. Authors, such
as Okun (2005a) and Asano et. al. (2007), have also published extensively about water reuse.

APPROACH

Because the feasibility of reused water has been studied extensively, this study started
with a focused review of the body of knowledge about the infrastructure used to distribute it,
which involves issues such as failures, maintenance, costs, and other distribution-related
concerns. This was followed by the preparation of an inventory of dual systems to establish
basic statistics of the numbers of systems in existence and to compare these with published

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

claims. This was augmented by the knowledge base about the functions and effectiveness of the
existing systems from the background literature.
Reviewing the performance of the systems presented a challenge because no standard
classification system had been developed and the systems varied widely in scale, type and stage
of development. Therefore, a classification framework was developed to enable comparisons
among similar dual systems and to avoid comparing dissimilar systems. Another issue in the
performance assessment was the need to evaluate parameters relating to different goals, and to
facilitate this, a framework with criteria for multi-objective evaluation was developed. This set
of criteria was used to evaluate the case studies that were compiled from the literature,
interviews, and selected visits. Visits were made to several of the case study utilities in Florida,
Texas and California, where most systems are located. A workshop was held in Florida to
receive feedback about the preliminary results and a workshop session was also held as part of a
meeting of the Northern California Chapter of the WateReuse Association.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

The background literature showed a good understanding about water reuse as an evolving
practice and the inventory of systems confirmed anecdotal reports that practically all U.S. dual
water systems are being implemented to extend use of scarce supplies and offer new options for
wastewater management. This is an important finding because it establishes that the drivers for
increased implementation of dual systems are not focused primarily on the improvement of water
safety or lowering of infrastructure costs but dual systems for distribution of reclaimed water are
being implemented as additions to portfolios for total water management that include augmented
supplies and new options for wastewater management.
The case studies showed that the main uses of water reuse systems are for non-potable
applications such as landscape and agricultural irrigation, toilet flushing, industrial process
water, power plant cooling, wetland nourishment and groundwater recharge. While fire-fighting
uses seem appropriate, they are less common than irrigation and commercial and industrial uses
because of barriers in acceptance by fire departments and the need for reliability in availability of
fire protection water. Also, distribution to residential customers is less common than to
commercial and industrial customers, a finding that reflects the significant administrative
problems of distributing reclaimed water to large numbers of customers.
The project task where reuse applications were identified showed that the number of
systems that qualify to be named dual distribution systems is less than claimed by some
published reports, which did not seek to classify the systems and distinguish them from all uses
of reclaimed water. The system identification task showed an approximate count of 335 systems
in the U.S. This count depends on classification and definitional issues presented in the report.
While different criteria could be used to define dual systems, it seems unlikely that this number
would increase greatly because it covers the major systems in Florida, California, Arizona and
Texas and there is no indication that other states have significant numbers of systems which were
not identified. As a result of the identification phase, it is estimated that the national mileage of
pipe in dual systems is between 10,000 and 20,000 miles, or upwards of one percent of the total
of potable water line mileage on an order-of-magnitude basis.
The literature review and case study analyses showed that, although there have been
isolated incidents of cross-connections, there have been no major public health problems from
the use of reclaimed water in the U.S. While incidents may occur in other countries or in

xi

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

situations with less regulatory scrutiny than the cases of reclaimed water distribution in the U.S.,
the evidence from the lack of incidents in the case surveys and the background literature shows
that water safety and public health issues of dual systems are being managed effectively.
Six service categories are included in the classification system that was developed to
support the assessment. Given that most systems do not serve residential customers, it was not
possible to use standard statistics, such as population served, to classify them. The classification
variables chosen focus on management characteristics, such as whether the utility owns the
infrastructure and water supply for both systems or depends on others; whether it supplies
potable and/or recycled water to other utilities; whether it only distributes potable and/or
recycled water obtained from others; and if it is a cooperative that supplies recycled and/or
potable water. Another set of performance-related variables in the classification system shows
the extent of reclaimed water mileage compared to potable pipe mileage and the production of
reclaimed water as a percentage of potable water production. These parameters measure the
extent to which utilities have extensive mileage of reclaimed water pipeline infrastructure and
whether distribution of reclaimed water is a major part of their water service. The reclaimed
water distributed by 17 of the case study systems ranges from one to ten percent of their potable
water delivery. Another 15 of the utilities distributed from ten to almost sixty percent of their
water delivery as reclaimed water (insufficient data were available to classify the other cases).
The data must be interpreted with caution because other variables are important. For example,
Tallahassee (FL) showed the highest percentage of reclaimed water use (58%), compared to
potable water. This utility uses reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation, which might require
greater quantities on a relative basis than some other uses.
Financing dual water systems will be an important challenge in the future. While the
WateReuse Association offers guidance for rate-setting, more comprehensive guidance for it and
other institutional issues and challenges will be needed. The project found that financial
feasibility and institutional constraints, such as balancing regulation and management controls,
are the primary issues confronting the increasing use of reclaimed water.
The assessment of effectiveness was measured across several categories of goals because
of the multiple objectives of the systems. It studied how effectively a dual water system met the
following goals; 1-extend scarce water resources, 2-increase wastewater management options, 3-
increase the safety of potable water, 4-decrease the total cost of providing potable water, and 5-
environmental objectives.
As dual water systems extend water supplies and help with water conservation, they
become part of total portfolios of water supply options, particularly for outdoor and industrial
uses, including cooling. They can offer new options to improve wastewater management and
reduce the need for and cost of wastewater treatment and disposal. In evaluating this reason to
implement them, utilities must take a total water management view that considers cost of both
water supply and wastewater systems.
Cost accounting and rate-setting systems for dual water systems need further
development. When the direct cost for non-potable water is compared to its direct revenue from
commodity charges, non-potable water systems generally lose money. However, if the total
costs and benefits of distributing non-potable supplies in dual systems are considered, the
systems are more feasible from a financial standpoint. These include goals such as extending
scarce water supplies, reducing wastewater discharges, and deferring or avoiding capital
investments in treatment facilities.

xii

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 To be reliable, non-potable water systems require seasonal storage. Although the
supplies are more interruptible than potable water, utilities do not want reliability to be low
because as the case studies show, customers still rely on recycled water. Residential customers
increase the risk and complexity of operating dual water systems. Therefore, most new systems
are connecting industrial, agricultural and public sector customers, rather than implementing
residential services. This focus away from residential customers also reflects the higher burden
placed on dual system operators to inspect backflow and cross connection facilities on private
properties. This added burden explains one of the institutional issues inhibiting greater
implementation of dual systems.

APPLICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

A utility seeking to extend use of water supplies and expand options for wastewater
management may use the information in the report to consider a dual water system. The study’s
findings can also be used to inform state and local policy on regulatory control of the distribution
of reclaimed water. A regional or state program, such as the Cooperative Funding Initiative
program by Southwest Florida Water Management District, to encourage and help to support
dual systems can help to coordinate and stimulate new system development. In addition to
financial subsidies, these programs help to coordinate policy and to provide solidarity among the
community of utilities that is facing issues of reclaimed water distribution.
At its inception, the project focus was on whether dual systems could improve water
safety and offer options to offset infrastructure funding and management problems. The study
concluded that dual systems are not being implemented as a strategy to keep drinking water safe,
affordable and reliable. It is apparent that the focus is on creation of new options for water
management portfolios. Just as in a stock portfolio, the owner spreads risk by diversifying and
not depending on one option alone. In the same way, by implementing water reuse in some
situations utilities may gain large advantages. It seems appropriate that some utilities view this
as an application of total water management.
In addition to distribution of reclaimed wastewater, dual systems can be used to distribute
raw water. In the West, new demands are creating a need to consider irrigation water as a
secondary supply to offset the need to develop new potable sources. Irrigation water comes at
different levels of quality and it can be treated or sometimes used without treatment for non-
potable uses. In all regions, demands for raw water for cooling and some industrial processes
also creates a need for dual systems. Finally, at the site level the recycling of water through gray
water systems creates an analogous application for non-potable supplies at the small scale.
These developments point to our finding that although reuse of treated wastewater through dual
systems is the major trend, other additions to the total water management portfolio are occurring
as well. These new developments do not fit traditional perceptions of infrastructure or
operations and they will be a challenge to control. However, they offer new and flexible options
to help overcome looming water scarcity and quality concerns.
Dual systems have good possibilities but are not appropriate in all situations. Utilities
must decide if their unique situations warrant the additional cost and complexity of
implementing dual water systems. Although dual water systems are complex and expensive,
there has been enough success with them to see that they can have an important future within
overall urban water systems. One can envision possibilities, such as locating water-using
industries and energy plants near wastewater treatment plants, so as to pick off low-hanging fruit

xiii

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

for application of non-potable supplies. Dual systems might also be part of future non-
conventional water and wastewater systems. These are intriguing possibilities, but there are also
many situations with adequate source water and few issues with wastewater disposal. In those
cases the added complexity and costs of dual water systems make them less attractive.

xiv

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND

The distribution of reclaimed water through dual piping systems has emerged as an
important strategy for augmenting water supplies, disposing of wastewater and reducing
demands on environmental water sources. In a dual water system the piping is separated and
non-potable water is distributed along with potable water. Reclaimed water from wastewater
treatment plants is the major source of non-potable water in the United States, but untreated raw
water and sea water can be used as well.
This report describes a retrospective assessment of the performance of dual water systems
and is provided as part of work done toward the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (2007)
research plan entitled “Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure for the 21st Century.”
The focus of USEPA’s plan is on use of innovative technologies to improve the safety of
drinking water and to overcome infrastructure issues, and it identified dual water systems as a
potential strategy to improve water safety while addressing the funding gap (USEPA, 2002).
The retrospective assessment reported here provides findings for use by utilities and
recommendations for the next steps in studies of the feasibility and implementation of dual water
systems.
The assessment of dual water systems requires that effectiveness across several
categories of goals be evaluated. One category is how they help with the resource issue of
extending water supplies and another is the extent to which they improve wastewater
management outcomes. Both of these objectives have embedded in them the protection of
natural systems, whether source or receiving waters. The safety of dual water systems and
whether any violations of drinking water standards have occurred are also important criteria.
Finally, the total added cost of dual systems is important to know for performance assessment.
The focus of this study is on the specific performance issues of dual water distribution
systems and not on the feasibility of reusing water. Water reuse systems have been studied
extensively, and the study builds on the existing body of knowledge to add insight about the
performance of their distribution infrastructure.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

While the current levels of drinking water safety in the U.S. are good, the high cost and
aging condition of drinking water infrastructure is a cause of concern for the future. In turn, the
cost and condition affect the safety of drinking water as it depends on the physical, hydraulic and
water quality integrity of distribution systems (National Research Council, 2006). Water
distribution systems account for the majority of the capital cost of drinking water systems and
their management is difficult due to their buried location. While age is not the only determinant
of pipe condition, the likelihood of physical, hydraulic or water quality failure generally
increases with pipe age.
While some pipes may last longer than 50 to 75 years, historical growth patterns predict
that an era of high replacement needs has arrived (AWWA, 2001). This replacement era is
beginning at the same time that multiple demands on distribution systems for drinking water, fire
flow and other uses create water quality issues such as increased water age. While the highest
quality of treated water should be maintained all the way to the tap, the reality is that substantial
changes can occur in distribution systems. Data on waterborne disease outbreaks suggest that

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

distribution systems require more attention than they currently receive. Craun and Calderon
(2001) published a survey about outbreaks caused by distribution systems, and when combined
with the National Research Council (2006) study on risks from distribution systems, their study
indicates the need for more attention to the quality of water in distribution systems.
In 2002 the USEPA performed a gap analysis to identify the major financial issues of
maintaining the integrity of distribution systems. This was followed by the National Research
Council (NRC, 2006) study entitled “Drinking Water Distribution Systems: Assessing and
Reducing Risks,” which focused on physical, hydraulic and water quality integrity. The NRC
study identified a number of measures to safeguard drinking water quality, but did not devote
much study to non-traditional measures, such as decentralized treatment or use of dual
distribution systems.
Concerns regarding aging infrastructure and water quality have led to increased interest
in distribution system performance with a focus on new and innovative approaches to ensure
safety while controlling costs and holding risks to tolerable levels. As a result of these concerns
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is studying rule revisions that may address
water distribution systems. As the nation considers its strategies to manage distribution systems,
increased use of dual systems is a visible option.
USEPA’s (2007) research plan focused on improving distribution water quality at the
same time that infrastructure and financing issues are addressed. It identified the need for two
research projects related to dual systems:
1) Retrospective assessments to document the efficiency and performance of in-
service dual systems; and
2) Prospective assessments of dual systems for potable and non-potable uses to develop
criteria for determining applicability, benefits and costs.

This report responds to the retrospective assessment identified in the first project above.
The project proposal was included in a proposal from the Water Environment Research
Foundation (WERF) and the Water Research Foundation (WaterRF) to USEPA for the program
of “Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure for the 21st Century.” After the grant was
awarded, the specific tasks were developed for work at Colorado State University and the
University of Texas at Tyler.
To perform a retrospective assessment of the efficiency and performance of dual
systems requires study of an evolving set of in-service systems, especially those to distribute
reclaimed water. These evolving systems respond to an increasing need to reuse water, for
which a large knowledge base is now available. The terms reuse and recycle are used
interchangeably, and the term water reclamation means the use of treated wastewater.
The project has the following work tasks:
• Development of an inventory of cases where dual systems have been
implemented
• Formulation of a protocol to identify claimed benefits, costs and risks
• Collection of data (quantitative and anecdotal) to assess performance
• Analysis of performance
• Display of data in the form of performance results
• Evaluation of research results in workshops by stakeholder groups
• Explanations of the test and its results.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 In addition, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to evaluate lessons and
experiences about dual systems, including a study of the reclaimed water rules and regulations
for the primary states of water reuse: California, Florida, Texas, and Arizona.

DEFINITIONS AND PERCEPTIONS OF DUAL WATER SYSTEMS

Dual water systems are water systems with source, treatment and distribution
components. During the project a number of different types of dual water systems were studied
and we provided a classification system for them. We were advised by utilities that the
distribution of reclaimed water must be considered in the context of total water use, and Figure
1.1 was prepared to illustrate the general concept.

Figure 1.1 Schematic of a Dual Water System

The schematic shows seven water management processes, beginning with raw water
diversion and ending with disposal of treated water to receiving waters. If raw or reclaimed
water is provided to a distribution system that operates in parallel with the potable water system,
the distribution system is considered as “dual.” If raw or reclaimed water is distributed directly
to a user, it is shown as “direct use of raw or reclaimed water” and is not a dual system.
However, if this direct use is extended to multiple users and a system for distributing non-potable
water increases in scope, then it is emerging as a dual system.
For example, a dedicated line to an industrial customer may extend from a wastewater
treatment plant and, as the utility and the industry gain experience with the system, other
industries and irrigators may seek to use the reclaimed water as well. Then, the system might
evolve further to include applications such as commercial buildings and fire fighting. The
system would not develop from a single decision to implement a dual water system but would
evolve to meet emerging needs.
This incremental development of dual systems explains a perception issue that was
encountered in the project where the technical literature suggested that a large number of dual
systems existed, but initial findings showed fewer-than-expected systems and wide variation in
their types and purposes. As these initial findings were explained to advisory groups, two
discerning questions were directed at the research team: where are all of the reported systems
and how could a utility afford a second system when the first one needs so much investment?
These questions are answered in the report by providing an inventory and classification scheme

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

for the systems and by showing that they are being provided to respond to definite and emerging
needs, mainly to extend water supplies and increase options for wastewater disposal. This is a
different strategy than a top-down utility decision to develop a dual system to improve water
safety or lower infrastructure cost.
The description of dual systems in USEPA’s (2007) report suggests a top-down
approach: “The dual systems approach involves splitting the distribution system into two
systems—one for potable water use only, and the other for firefighting and other non-potable
uses.” This implies a decision to implement the distribution of non-potable water in a new
system that can be planned from the conceptual stage. A top-down decision to retrofit piping as
a dual system would seem to align with the explanations by Okun (1997), who advocated that a
smaller-diameter potable system could provide safer drinking water alongside a larger-diameter
non-potable system used for fire protection and related non-potable uses. His ideas are discussed
in more detail in Chapter 2. Okun's advocacy in promoting the concept of dual systems is
recognized in the AWWA (2009) manual entitled “Planning for the Distribution of Reclaimed
Water.”
The bottom-up view is that dual systems are being implemented incrementally to
distribute reclaimed water as explained in the “Guidelines for Water Reuse” (USEPA and U.S.
Agency for International Development, 2004). The name change of AWWA’s manual is another
indicator of the shift in focus from the dual systems strategy to a strategy that is focused on the
distribution of reclaimed water. The manual explains: “The title (of the original AWWA
Manual M24, Dual Water Systems, published in 1983) has been changed to Planning for the
Distribution of Reclaimed Water to better represent the content of the manual.”
The term "dual water systems" is useful, but the different types of the systems require
clarification to avoid misunderstanding. To adopt a definition, the AWWA (2009) manual
presents a clear picture of dual systems as: “Two separate water piping systems distributing
water to customers, one carrying potable water and the other conveying lesser-quality water
(e.g., non-potable reclaimed water) for reuse purposes.” This definition seems workable and the
only improvement needed might be to include the cases of distributing non-potable water that is
not reclaimed wastewater, such as the seawater used for toilet flushing in Hong Kong or raw
water used in the West for irrigation. While these applications are comparatively rare compared
to those of reclaimed wastewater, the definition could handle them by shortening it to this: “Two
separate water piping systems distributing water to customers, one carrying potable water and the
other conveying lesser-quality water.” The inference is that non-potable water and lesser-quality
water are equivalent and it is not known why the AWWA committee did not use the term non-
potable.
Although the current status of dual water systems is clear, different types of them are
being implemented. As a result of this and our initial findings as outlined above, we added to the
work of the project the development of a proposed classification framework for dual water
systems (see Chapter 5).

USE OF PROJECT RESULTS BY UTILITIES AND FOR POLICY STUDIES

The goal of the project was to assess the performance of dual water systems to explore
policy options for improving the distribution of drinking water on an overall basis. The
performance evaluation can be used in conjunction with the studies cited earlier that address
policy for drinking water safety, cost and risk management. Presently, national water policy uses

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

regulatory and financial incentives, but strategy for water distribution is implemented mostly at the
local level. While no regulatory options for dual water systems were evaluated in the study, the
project findings about implementation issues could be useful for utility decisions and by regulators.
The authority to decide on water service approaches is at the local level, so national policy
should focus on enabling, support, and governance. Policy questions that arise are:
• Should policy be used to encourage the retrofitting of existing distribution
systems to become dual systems with smaller-diameters which provide higher-
quality potable water?
• Should policy be used to promote dual systems in newly-developing areas?
• Should policy be used to promote a paradigm shift toward future decentralized
systems with combinations of point-of-entry (POE) and point-of use (POU)
treatment and dual distribution systems?

Another policy issue is whether national statistics on dual water systems should be
developed to accompany USEPA’s statistics of public water and wastewater systems. At the
national level, USEPA has developed the Community Water Systems Survey and needs surveys
for drinking water and wastewater. Information on drinking water systems is maintained in the
Safe Drinking Water Information System and information on water quality compliance is
maintained in USEPA’s Permit Compliance System database in the Envirofacts system for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. In addition to these,
AWWA makes periodic surveys of drinking water utilities and distributes the results through its
publications program. Wastewater system surveys do not have as long a history as those for
drinking water and no surveys comparable to AWWA’s are available for wastewater facilities.
How utilities can use the information developed under this project was addressed by the
Innovative Infrastructure Review Committee (IIRC) that advised USEPA on the overall research
program. The committee asked: “How do you envision the end-of-project deliverable to be of
immediate use to utilities?” The team responded that the project is aimed at assessment of the
performance of in-service dual systems and use of the results by utilities depends on their
requirements for this information. Utilities that have water reclamation systems and dual
systems can use the information to compare their own management and results with those of
others. Utilities that do not have dual systems might be able to use the information for future
planning purposes. The report’s performance assessments include categories for water safety,
technical systems, financing and institutional arrangements. These are important issues for
utilities, many of whom are considering how to implement or expand non-potable systems and
how to sustain them in the current economic climate.
The performance assessments can provide data for benchmarking, where utilities could
learn from each other and national policy makers could assess the need for reforms to improve
management.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: LESSONS FROM RESEARCH
AND EXPERIENCE

This chapter sets the stage for assessing the performance of dual systems by reviewing
how they have evolved and the issues associated with their performance. The research literature
about dual systems spans the issues of water reuse and the implementation of new infrastructure
systems. It includes concerns about treatment technologies, emerging chemicals and pathogens,
economics, rates and funding, and public involvement, among others.
The review of literature showed that incentives for reclaimed water use include
urbanization pressures on water supply sources, diminishing natural water resources, and
increasingly stringent wastewater discharge regulations. Reclaimed water is needed especially in
dry regions and reclaimed water projects that target large water users are likely to be more
feasible.
Topics included in the chapter cover the range of issues required to assess the
performance of dual systems including: water quality and public health aspects of dual water
distribution; experience with water reuse systems; distribution system asset and operations
management; and economics and institutional arrangements of dual distribution systems.

EVOLUTION OF DUAL SYSTEMS

To understand how dual water systems are evolving to respond to emerging needs and
have not been widely used until recent decades, it may help to realize that until water treatment
was developed after the 1880s, all of the distributed water was non-potable from the standpoint
of our current practices. This included water for domestic, industrial and fire fighting uses. In
some areas of the world, non-potable water is still distributed in urban networks in cities without
safe drinking water.
After the advent of water treatment processes, the drinking water in distribution systems
was considered as potable treated water. There were a few instances of deliberate distribution of
non-potable water, but the focus was on distributing potable water. Later, it became possible to
reclaim wastewater by uses of advanced sewage treatment and reuse.
Okun’s (1996, 1997, and 2005a,b) reviews are a good starting point to study the
evolution of dual water systems. He cited Haney and Hamann (1965) as the first published paper
on dual systems. Also, the Guidelines for Water Reuse were initiated in the 1980s and contain
numerous examples (USEPA and U.S. Agency for International Development, 2004). The
AWWA (2009) manual on distribution of reclaimed wastewater traced the history of dual
systems from use to supply water fountains in ancient Rome through modern applications that
included use in Baltimore for a steel plant cooling water, a dual system at the Grand Canyon
Village in 1926, use for toilet flushing in Hong Kong dating back to the 1950s, to industrial uses
and power plant cooling applications, to cite a few examples.
International use of reclaimed water seems to be increasing and Okun (2005a) cited uses
in Japan (Maeda, et. al., 1996), where criteria for reclaimed water quality have been proposed.
Area-wide water recycling in the Shinjuku district of Tokyo includes toilet flushing in high-rise
buildings. In a project for the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), Mantovani et
al. (2001) surveyed non-potable water reclamation planning and management practices
worldwide and reviewed 65 non-potable water systems, of which 40 were in the U.S..

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 As a result of these studies it is possible to create a good snapshot of the practice of dual
water distribution in the U.S. and, to a certain extent, in other countries. This snapshot shows an
evolving practice with roots dating to before water treatment and with a current momentum that
is driven mostly by water scarcity and the need to address wastewater treatment.

PURPOSES OF DUAL SYSTEMS

The two perspectives of dual systems (to improve the quality of drinking water systems
or to use them to distribute reclaimed water) focus on the main reasons for creating the systems.
The reason to point out the nuances between the perspectives is to help establish the evaluation
criteria used in this project to assess how well dual systems have performed. There is no conflict
between the two perspectives, and both the USEPA (2004) guidelines and the AWWA (2009)
manual explain the purposes of dual systems as for distribution of non-potable and potable water
in parallel.
The expectation that dual systems could improve drinking water quality is based on the
assumption that by distributing potable water in smaller lines, the water safety could be managed
better than in larger bulk distribution systems. In promoting this expectation, Okun (1996)
explained 19th Century decisions to design water distribution systems to provide fire protection
as well as to serve commercial properties and residential areas. He argued that by increasing
water age, large diameter distribution systems degrade drinking water quality, which could be
improved by distributing potable water in the smaller diameter pipes. By the 1980s, proposals for
direct potable reuse of water were emerging, and Okun (1985) was advocating dual systems
instead of direct reuse. He expressed this view forcefully in a letter to the editor of the Journal,
American Water Works Association (JAWWA) (Okun, 2005a):
“A system designed for drinking water alone would also experience negative pressures,
but would not be nearly so affected because the system would have no hydrants and very few
joints. Much less drinking water would be wasted on fires, training for fighting fires, flushing
sewers, and for cooling children in summer. More important, the small size pipes, possibly
stainless steel, would require few joints. Depending on size, they can be laid from spools, or in
long lengths with welded connections, thereby maintaining drinking water quality. It seems clear
that a system designed for drinking water alone is to be preferred over a system designed for fire
protection.”
The principal investigator of this project collaborated with Okun in an exchange of letters
on this topic and discussed questions that relate to this present report (Grigg, 2005a):
“Will the water supply community continue to install the same type of systems as it has
for well over a hundred years, or will it adapt new designs and management practices to respond
to the many challenges that Dan described? … Based on current experience, the answer for new
systems is that the same practices will be followed. This institutional inertia results from the
many standards, practices, codes, and municipal requirements that guide engineering practice.
To change any system of large scale infrastructure will require a paradigm shift, which is what
Dan is calling for. … In his current letter, he explains that while today’s distribution systems
remain essential for fire flows, their ability to maintain the quality of drinking water has now
been called into question….
The water supply industry … needs a 360-degree technology assessment of the issue,
including the institutional problems. This assessment would include a comprehensive analysis of
distribution system problems, along with assessment of POU, POE, and dual systems as

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

alternatives to the status quo, which features the current systems and rising consumption of
bottled water.”
Although Okun’s advocacy for dual systems was based on perceived advantages to
change the concept for water distribution to smaller-sized and higher-quality potable distribution
lines, he recognized that utilities had to work with what they had, which is an inventory of
larger-diameter pipes that carry fire protection water along with potable water. This is evident
from Okun’s contributions to the AWWA (2009) manual and a recent paper by Digiano, Weaver
and Okun (2009). In other words, although Okun was an advocate for smaller, higher quality
potable water lines, he was realistic in understanding the constraints faced in retrofitting systems.
In fact, Okun (2005a) explained this apparent discrepancy (quoted from the USEPA 2007
research plan): “Today in the U.S., some 2,000 water utilities, large and small, operate dual
systems.” However, even in these systems the drinking water distribution system is still
designed to meet fire flow requirements, so the long-residence-time issue is not resolved. In fact,
if the total flow through the drinking water system declines due to elimination of non-potable
usage, then residence time will increase. A dual system where the possibility of having drinking
water distribution systems being relieved of fire protection has only appeared in a few places in
the U.S.”

WATER QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH ASPECTS

The need for an assessment of public health risks that is included in this report was
identified in the NRC (2006) report, and the research team was asked by a review committee
how it was to be addressed in the study. The team replied that the NRC report focuses on
traditionally designed distribution systems where potable water is distributed for all uses. The
report devoted only a small section to non-traditional systems (such as dual distribution systems),
which it considered not in its charge. It stated that alternative methods of distributing water,
including dual systems (also POU, POE, and community-based treatment systems) need more
research to determine their effectiveness. It also stated: “Such designs, which would be
potentially much more complicated than traditional systems, require considerably more study
regarding their economic feasibility, their maintenance and monitoring requirements, and how to
transition from an existing conventional system to a non-conventional system.”
The primary consideration in assessing safety and public health protection is waterborne
disease outbreaks. The official database for these is by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC, 2011), which manages a national surveillance system for waterborne disease
and outbreaks through a partnership with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
and USEPA. It depends on reports from state public health departments and tracks outbreaks
from drinking water and recreational water. Current data are published in the Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report.
Craun and Calderon (2001) summarized disease outbreaks from distribution systems, but
did not address non-potable systems specifically. Over a 27 year period some 619 episodes were
reported, of which some 18 percent were associated with distribution or plumbing systems. On
an annual basis, few waterborne disease outbreaks are reported from drinking water and none
were evident from non-potable water distribution in our limited review of the CDC reports. The
most recent report on the CDC website was for 2005-2006 and entitled “Surveillance for
Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water not Intended for
Drinking --- United States.” It reported on cases and outbreaks associated with drinking water

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

and water not intended for drinking (WNID, excluding recreational water). Cases and outbreaks
from recreational water are reported separately but we did not consider them.
In 2005-2006, 14 states reported some 28 disease outbreaks, including 20 from drinking
water and six from WNID, with two from water of unknown intent. The 20 drinking water
outbreaks caused illness in some 612 persons and were linked to four deaths. The causative
(etiologic) agents were identified in some 90 percent of the drinking water episodes and included
pathogens, bacteria, viruses, parasites, and mixed agents. Of the six episodes associated with
WNID, it is possible that they could be linked to non-potable water distribution but data to
determine this was not published.
In summary, the major public health concerns are cross-connections and inadvertent use
of reclaimed water as potable water. The team was unable to find any case in the literature of a
serious public health incident from dual water systems in the U.S. As a confirmation, Dr.
Gunther Craun (2011) was contacted to ask if he was aware of any cases. Dr. Craun was
formerly with CDC and had studied outbreaks related to distribution systems. He thought there
were few if any outbreaks and only a few cases of problems of any kind, mainly because there
were so few systems. He thought there might be a few problems with systems in Europe, but
data on these is not available. A list of incidents in California also showed no reported illnesses
from dual systems. However, California regulations are more stringent than those in most other
locales.

10

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE

As most dual water systems are being implemented to distribute reclaimed water, it is
useful to review how the rising interest in reclaimed water came about. The timeline shown in
Figure 2.1 explains their evolution and frames the issues discussed in the report.

Figure 2.1. Chronology of dual systems

Prior to the advent of water treatment with filtration in the 1880s, all distributed water
was untreated. Once water treatment was initiated, then potable water distribution systems
began to expand along with urbanization. As early as 1900 there was interest in alternative
supplies such as treated wastewater for appropriate uses. Use of alternative supplies increased
very slowly until, in the 1970s the increase in wastewater treatment, including advanced
treatment systems, initiated discussions of the possibility of direct potable reuse of wastewater on
a large scale.
However, by the 1980s, it was clear that the public did not want direct potable reuse but
indirect reuse was happening and wastewater could also be reclaimed for non-potable uses. This
led to the current slow but continuing increase in the mileage of transmission and distribution
systems for reclaimed wastewater.
After the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in 1974, existing potable water
distribution systems came under greater scrutiny and the nation became aware of serious
condition issues that affect reliability, water quality and capacity. AWWA (2001) published the
“Dawn of the Replacement Era” to highlight the financial dilemma that this poses to utilities and
taxpayers. Thus, to manage the large inventory of existing potable water distribution systems is
recognized as a daunting task, just at the same time as some utilities are implementing new
systems to distribute reclaimed water.

EXPERIENCE WITH WATER REUSE SYSTEMS

The use of reclaimed water, or water that has been treated to remove contaminants and
then made available for use again, is increasing in the U.S. and in other water-short countries,
such as Australia, which are increasing its use mainly to offset shortages and to supply water are
for non-potable applications such as landscape and agricultural irrigation, toilet flushing,
industrial process water, power plant cooling, wetlands and groundwater recharge.
Although the use of non-potable supplies is not new, there was an increased interest in
water reuse beginning by the 1970s. Asano et. al. (2007) used the year 1960 as a dividing line
for discussion of the changed emphasis. Past milestones he mentioned focused on use of
wastewater even in ancient times up through treated wastewater used in modern times, such as
the 1926 Grand Canyon Village application.
Post-1960 milestones mentioned by Asano et. al. included: 1960 California legislation to
encourage reclamation, 1962 groundwater recharge in Los Angeles County, initiation of the

11

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Water Factory 21 in Orange County in 1975, 1977 initiation of the Irvine Ranch system and the
system in St. Petersburg, Florida, 1984 to 1993 pilot project in Denver, and the 2003 publication
of the recommendations of the California Recycled Water Task Force.
The extensive review by Asano et. al. (2007) included a summary of practices in
California, which has been a pioneer in water reclamation. For example, the authors list the 15
largest reclaimed water producing agencies, beginning with the County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles at 103 million cubic meters (MCM) per year in 2001. The totals for the 15 largest
increased from 167 MCM in 1987 to 380 MCM in 2001, with 13 of the 15 showing large
increases. They also showed how the California Water Plan anticipates continuing large
increases, from the range of 494 to 629 MCM of planned reuse in 2002 to the range of 1875 to
2283 MCM in 2030. On average, this would be about a 4.8 percent annual increase. Additional
reviews and guidelines for system design are also published in handbooks such as by Ysusi
(1999).
Okun (1996) described how water reuse through dual systems has been on the rise in
recent decades: “Accordingly, the production of reclaimed water to replace drinking water that
is used for non-potable purposes in urban areas has begun to receive considerable attention.”
Okun had a long term perspective of water reuse and was able to reach back in time to explain
from a public health perspective how it evolved. He was interested in using the highest quality
sources for drinking water and using lower-quality sources for other uses. To bolster his
arguments, he quoted a United Nations (1958) study that is now over 50 years old: “No higher
quality water, unless there is a surplus of it, should be used for a purpose that can tolerate a lower
grade.” These explanations show the juxtaposition of use of lower-quality water and reclamation
of wastewater for reuse.
Since the 1970s the experience base with reused water has grown substantially, and it is
reflected in the USEPA (2004) guidelines and in a 2010 workshop at the University of North
Carolina, which led to a recommendation that stated: “The growing pressures of population
growth, resource consumption, and climate change are making historical approaches to water
management obsolete. Dramatic changes to water management are necessary during the first
half of this century and must be implemented with great urgency. To address the need, these
new approaches must incorporate greater water and resource efficiency along with further
improvements in public health and social equity. Fortunately the general outline of this new
approach is apparent and includes water reclamation and reuse, rainwater harvesting, and
conservation as central components. The undersigned recommend that all parties involved in
water management reverse traditional biases and conservation, rainwater harvesting, and water
reclamation and reuse be viewed as preferred water supply sources, as appropriate for the
intended use.”
This workshop was in some ways a capstone event to assess the status of water reuse
today. Its recommendation to consider using alternative sources of water is consistent with the
findings of this project that dual water systems can be used productively to distribute these non-
traditional sources of water.
Many actual cases of dual distribution systems have been explained in the technical
literature. As part of this research project, the team reviewed a number of these and new cases
(see Chapters 4 and 5, Appendix B). For examples, the Hong Kong System has been in
operation from the 1950s, and Tang et. al. (2007) explained problems associated with operating a
seawater distribution system. The Engineering Index explained auxiliary water supplies (other

12

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

than domestic purposes) for Bournemouth, Great Yarmouth, Calcutta and Richmond reaching
back over 100 years (Association of Engineering Societies, 1901).
Two systems that have been reviewed extensively are the Irvine Ranch Water District
(IRWD) in Southern California and the Rouse Hill development in Sydney Australia. The
IRWD is included as one of the case studies in this report. The Rouse Hill Recycled project was
reviewed from documents of Sydney Water (2009, 2010). Beginning in 2001, it supplies
recycled water to over 60,000 people in homes and businesses in an area of 13,300 hectares and
is the largest residential water recycling scheme in Australia. The Rouse Hill Recycled Water
Plant supplies up to 1.4 billion liters each year to more than 18,000 homes and businesses for
flushing toilets, watering gardens, washing cars and other outdoor uses. An expansion
completed in December 2008 increased the capacity to up 4.7 billion liters per year for
residential use or the capacity to serve 36,000 homes. The plan is by 2015 to increase water
recycling to 70 billion liters per year or up to 12% of water needs in the Greater Sidney area.
Customers in the Rouse Hill recycled water area use an average of up to 40% less drinking water
than other customers in greater Sydney.
The dual pipe system is known as dual “reticulation”, which is the phrase used in the UK
and Australia for what is called distribution in the U.S. Recycled water pipes and fittings are
colored purple or lilac to distinguish them from the drinking water system. Safety signs are also
required on taps. Tap handles can be removed when not in use. The NSW Health Department
has endorsed the Rouse Hill Water Quality Management Plan for residential dual distribution
(toilet flushing, washing machines, gardens and ornamental ponds); commercial use (toilet
flushing and garden irrigation); parks and recreation irrigation; and fire fighting.
Sydney Water has met AGWR (Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling) requirements
for a risk based management framework for the Rouse Hill scheme with this WQMP, which
incorporates its certified ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 management systems. Sydney Water
considered environmental risks to be low once mitigated due to the high quality of the recycled
water and most health risks were also considered low once mitigated due to robust controls. Due
to lack of direct control of risks several were rated as ‘medium,’ including possibility of incorrect
user installation and modification of plumbing systems (cross connections) and the possibility of
incorrect use of recycled water by users.
Sydney water followed the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling, which were
released in 2006 under the National Water Quality Management Strategy. The Guidelines
provide direction on best practices and are a reference to support beneficial and sustainable
recycling in uses such as agriculture, fire control, municipal, residential and commercial
property, and industry. Sydney Water and NSW Health agreed to apply the risk management
framework in the AGWR to the Rouse Hill Recycled Water Scheme.
A comprehensive hazard identification and risk assessment (HIDRA) procedure was
applied. Water quality is monitored in the distribution system. Sydney Water uses Critical
Control Points (CCPs) and Operational Control Points (OCPs) to manage recycled water
schemes. The WQMP describes satisfaction of users of recycled. A customer complaint history
is maintained. Sydney Water’s (2010) annual report shows robust activity in continuing
development of water recycling activities.
In the absence of health outbreaks it appears that quality control procedures such as those
applied at Rouse Hill are adequate. Further evaluation is needed for study of finance and
maintenance, along with other operational questions. Given the complexity of the utility’s
finances and the ongoing development of recycling facilities such as Rouse Hill, together with

13

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

changes necessary during the financial crisis, it is not possible to assess the financial impacts of
dual systems yet.
Today, the incentives for reclaimed water use include urbanization pressures on water,
diminishing natural water sources, and increasingly stringent wastewater discharge regulations.
Reclaimed water is especially needed in locations with limited potable water sources, such as
Israel. In general, reclaimed water projects that target large water users, such as schools and golf
courses, seem effective in reducing potable water demands and are more likely to be economical
than those that involve residential uses.
Most California systems are located in the Bay area and Southern California. Bischel et.
al. (2010) reported on a survey of Northern California water reuse managers. They cited some
140,000 acre-feet per year used in Northern California in 2001, with 69% used for agricultural
irrigation, 15% for landscape irrigation, 7% for wildlife enhancement or miscellaneous, 4% for
industrial use, and some 2% for groundwater recharge. The most important drivers were
wastewater discharge requirements and the need for water supply. Local and state policies and
the availability of grant funds were also important. Other drivers included environmental issues,
citizen pressures, seawater intrusion, availability of technologies and increased institutional
controls.
In this survey, some 76 percent of the respondents reported that they were involved in
both production and distribution. The total water production for 2001 was equivalent to 46,000
million gallons per year, or an average of 126 mgd. This Northern California recycled water
production is about 0.5 percent of the total national public water use, as reported by the U.S.
Geological Survey (2011) for 2005.
On an overall basis, wastewater drivers were more important in the past, but needs driven
by supplemental water supplies are overtaking them as the most important drivers. Also, water
reuse can be used to enhance environmental areas, and they cited examples such as wetlands
restoration and improvements in water quality.
Hindrances to water reuse focused on capital and O&M costs, availability of grants and
on cost allocation, perceived risks and social attitudes, complexities and regulatory difficulties.
The most important hindrance was cost. Also, the emergence of trace contaminants was of
concern.

14

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

USEPA GUIDELINES

The most extensive report on reclaimed water is “Guidelines for Water Reuse” (USEPA
and US Agency for International Development, 2004). The guidelines were initiated in 1980,
updated in 1992 and the 2004 edition was prepared by CDM, an environmental engineering firm.
Thus, the evolution of the guidelines tracks the rise in wastewater production and water reuse
applications. Their focus is on regulations and methods for use of reclaimed water. Examples of
state regulations are given, and guidelines for planning are suggested.
The guidelines explain two types of reclaimed water systems: those with and without fire
protection. For example, a non-potable system can be furnished for a purpose such as decorative
fountains (even as in ancient Rome) or landscape irrigation, but not have fire protection water. If
the fire protection role is assigned to the non-potable water system, the potable system can be
smaller. These mixed types lead to multiple configurations, which are illustrated in Figure 2.2
from the USEPA guidelines. The figure shows three categories of customers receiving reclaimed
water for urban, agricultural and special need uses. The agricultural customers can include a
range of distribution system types and different types of farms and cropping patterns. The
special needs customers illustrate the case of a single industrial user with a dedicated line. The
urban customers illustrate the dual system and can include residential, commercial, industrial and
public groups. The existence of a dual system for the urban customers then depends on the
existence of a significant length of non-potable piping.

Figure 2.2: Schematic of a Multiple Reuse Distribution System (USEPA, 2004)

The parts of the guidelines that explain design and management issues of reclaimed water
systems are of special interest in this study. These address storage, pumping and distribution.
Storage to enable diurnal flow variation is required and covered storage is desirable due to
biological growth and the need for chlorine residual. Seasonal storage is probably needed as
well, but may be infeasible due to economics. Aquifer storage and recovery might be used, as in
Hillsborough County, Florida.
The distribution system for reclaimed water is similar to the system for potable water
distribution. Reliability is often somewhat less, except in the case of fire protection. Separate
identification is essential to prevent cross contamination. Pressure requirements vary with type

15

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

of user. Some guidelines recommend operating the non-potable system at lower pressures than
the potable system to mitigate cross-connections but the experience indicates that this is difficult
to sustain. On an urban system, high-pressure users might include some landscape irrigation,
industrial processes and cooling water, car washes, fire protection, and toilet flushing in
commercial and industrial buildings. Low-pressure users might include golf course and
landscape irrigation or other recreational users, as well as industrial or cooling tower sites.
Pressures range from minimums of 30 psi for some residential irrigation systems to minimums of
50 psi for larger scale irrigation, car washes, toilet flushing, construction, and some industrial
uses. Using reclaimed water for fire protection may impose additional requirements for pipe
size, pressure and storage.
Reclaimed water lines of ferrous materials present more opportunities for internal and
external corrosion than potable water lines because reclaimed water is more mineralized with
higher conductance and chloride content and lower pH and as the last pipe installed have more
opportunity for stray currents or coating damage (Ryder, 1996). Because reclaimed water lines
are often the last pipe installed, there is an increased opportunity for stray current electrolysis or
coating damage.
The USEPA guidelines describe a number of cases. One that is of particular interest to
this project is Rouse Hill near Sydney, Australia, which is sizing water lines to handle fire flows
and allows potable pipe diameters to be reduced. If utilities replace existing potable water lines
due to water quality problems, they could consider converting the network into a non-potable
system for fire protection and a new and smaller network for potable uses. The report states that
no community has attempted such a conversion so far.

COSTS AND RATE-SETTING

The goals of dual water systems to extend water supplies and provide options for
wastewater disposal have important implications for infrastructure construction and maintenance,
thus possibly increasing the burden on utility finance and workforces. The major cost drivers of
water reclamation are the transmission and distribution systems. Funding can be difficult and the
systems may require subsidies. Substantial capital expenditures are required, including
wastewater treatment, transmission lines, distribution lines and additional operation,
maintenance, and replacement costs. Also an enhanced cross-connection program may add to
the O&M costs. Customers serviced for reused water may be different from the potable water
customers, such as agricultural and golf courses. Even if customers are encouraged to use an
unlimited supply at little to no charge, provisions are required for future conservation. Potential
drop in potable revenues can be challenging, especially if water and wastewater are owned by
different utilities.
Rate-setting for non-potable water must take into account factors of supply, the water
uses, needs to incentivize users, demand management and the multiple benefits to wastewater
management. With so many factors involved, it is to be expected that no standard approach
would be available and that policy for non-potable water rates would be a work in progress in
most utilities.
The literature contains few citations about rate-setting for reclaimed water systems.
Neither AWWA's (2000, 2005) manual on rate-setting nor on water utility management
addresses non-potable water, but the manual from the WateReuse Assocation (Manual of

16

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Practice: How to Develop a Water Reuse Program) contains a section on setting up the charge
schemes and on allocation of cost between reuse water services and wastewater treatment.
As an example of a rate issue, the City of San Diego Water Department (2009) retained
Raftelis and Associates, a financial consulting firm, to do a rate study for recycled water. The
purposes of the study were to review financial aspects of the recycled water operations and
capital programs, calculate the true cost of producing and distributing recycled water,
recommend a pricing structure to recovers all such costs, review rate structures to encourage
demand for recycled water, determine allocation of revenue and expenses to potable water,
wastewater and recycled water and the impacts on customers, and to develop a user-friendly
pricing model for staff use.
The City was involved in negotiations with USEPA about coastal wastewater discharges
and a 1995 court order required it to construct a recycled water system. The City currently has
66-miles of pipeline from 4- to 18-inches in diameter, a 9 MG reservoir and two pump stations.
In addition to the court order, a construction grant required the City to reuse wastewater from the
newly-constructed North City Water Reclamation Plant.
To increase use of recycled water, the City is expanding the distribution system and
seeking new retail customers, and it assists in retrofitting customers to use recycled water. In
addition to some 441retail customers, the City sells wholesale non-potable water to a few small
cities and water districts. Since 2008 it has added the U.S. Border Patrol as a customer for
construction use and irrigation and Caltrans for freeway landscaping irrigation.
Based on the rate study, the system is operating in a deficit condition. For FY 2008 total
revenue requirements for operation and maintenance (excluding tertiary treatment costs), rate-
funded capital costs and debt service were about $8.8 million. If past capital investments are
amortized over 14 years and recovered from recycled water, the annual revenue requirements
would increase to $16.4 million. Rate revenues and credits from other providers are about $5.8
million, making a net deficit of $10.6 million as of 2008.
Although most customers are retail users, the majority of the water use is by wholesale
users. The study considered the sensitivity of rates to use and that future sales will be dependent
on expansion of the distribution system, seasonal and weather conditions. In the near term,
recycled water sales are projected to grow at a stable rate as the distribution systems are
expanded by the City and wholesale agencies.
The City needs to make capital investments to expand its distribution system so it can
reuse more wastewater. It receives revenues as incentives from the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California (MWD) and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) ($250 and
$200 per acre foot) because those agencies would like to reduce total demand on their resources
and to avoid costs of water management such as pumping water through transmission lines.
Some of the observations from the rate study are that current recycled water rate of $0.80
per hundred cubic feet (HCF) is lower than the October 1997 rate of $1.34 per HCF because the
City needed to encourage use. Rates are very sensitive to the quantity of water sold and most
costs are fixed, including debt service and most O&M costs, therefore spreading them over a
larger usage base would lower rates. New capital costs will be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis
from rates, debt, system development fees, and grants. Some wastewater cost savings result
from producing recycled water at the new plant, primarily from reducing power and chemical
costs. The Metropolitan Wastewater Department (MWWD) of San Diego benefits from these
savings. By substituting recycled water for potable water, the City creates capacity for new
potable users. This has two effects: the City gets an alternate and inexpensive water supply and

17

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

potable system capacity becomes available to new users. Recycled water customers benefit from
lower rates and from a more drought proof system.
The consultants recommended system development fees for recycled water connections
at the same rate as potable water, or $3,047 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). They proposed
that the Metropolitan Wastewater system be treated as a unitary system and wastewater users
share in the costs of the recycled water system, which would also be considered a unitary system
with all costs shared by retail and wholesale customers. All users would be charged the same
commodity rate if they are in the wastewater service area, with outside rates subject to an
incremental fee since they do not pay into the wastewater system. They recommended that the
commodity rate for recycled water be linked to the potable irrigation rate. Evidence is that most
California recycled water agencies charge from 75 to 90 percent of the potable water rate.
Currently, the recycled water commodity rate is 26 percent of the January 2009 irrigation rate
and they recommend it be set at 75 percent and phased in over three years. This would still be
lower than a cost of service rate.
The San Diego rate study shows several aspects that must be considered in rate-setting
for non-potable water:
• It takes new infrastructure to provide non-potable water and a system
development charge is appropriate if the policy is growth-pays-its-own-way.
• The cost-of-service of non-potable water may be as high or higher as for potable
water and its rates may be linked potable rates, but it is difficult to price it at 100
percent of the potable rate.
• Subsidies may be required to stimulate use of non-potable water.
• Considering the benefits of non-potable water to extending supplies and
improving wastewater management, it is appropriate to allocate some of its cost to
those objective categories.
• Agencies with responsibility for supply (as in this case the MWD, for example)
and for wastewater (as in this case the MWWD) might provide funding to the
non-potable system to support their objectives.
• As use of non-potable water increases, rate-setting may go through a long
transitional phase and it might be well not to hurry too quickly toward full cost
recovery.

For national investment needs, the U.S. EPA (2010c) Clean Watersheds Needs Study has
Category X for Recycled Water Distribution. It explains that these are the “capital costs
associated with the conveyance of the recycled water (wastewater reused after removal of waste
contributed by humans) and any associated rehabilitation or replacement needs; it includes, for
example, the costs of the pipes used to convey treated water from a wastewater facility to a
ground water recharge location.” Total 2008 needs were $4.4 billion of the national total of all
wastewater-related needs of $298 billion. Some 20 states reported needs, and the total was down
$0.7 billion (14 percent) from the previous survey. California ($1.7 billion) and Florida ($1.2
billion) reported some 66 percent of the total needs and Texas, Washington, North Carolina,
Utah, and Hawaii had the largest increases. Florida and California both had decreased needs.
Increases in needs were attributed to increased recognition that recycled wastewater can
help meet water quality standards, population growth, and saving money. The decreases were
attributed to limitations of resources to enter needs, limited document availability, and difficulty
with cross-program coordination with State drinking water programs.

18

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Trends in states included Florida’s 2005 law the Water Protection and Sustainability
Trust Fund; North Carolina’s focus on TMDLs, water shortages, local rate structures, and a state
program for awarding priority points for reclaimed water projects in grant programs; and Texas’s
experience with water shortages, population growth, and the opportunities to use recycled
wastewater to irrigate crops or golf courses or to sell to cities to supplement water supplies.

ASSET AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

As the focus of this project is on dual distribution, it was necessary to review the
knowledge base about water distribution, as well as water reuse. Advances in distribution
systems were summarized in (Grigg, 2010), which explained how as a result of public interest in
water quality and the companion issue of aging infrastructure, distribution system research has
increased greatly in recent decades. The knowledge base has expanded in the categories of
infrastructure management, materials and construction, modeling, data and information, and
operations research, but most areas require more projects and synthesis of results to deliver new
methods and equipment to utilities.
A few of the main conclusions are of interest in this project on dual systems. Today, the
operation of distribution systems requires attention to detail and to real-time conditions. Given
the interest in distribution system research, the topics requiring attention have diversified. Asset
management is a good example of a technology that has been applied extensively but remains a
work in progress with a research roadmap being followed currently by the Water Research
Foundation.
Condition assessment of water mains has become an active category for distribution
system research. Work is needed to develop and test new devices, as well as to learn how to
interpret condition information in decision making. Closely following this research are the
advances in risk assessment, which focus on main breaks and water quality upsets that cause
health threats. Prioritization of renewal and other programs is required so utilities can use
limited funds to achieve maximum results.
Research on distribution system materials has moved from cast iron as the dominant
material to use of other metals, plastics, non-leaded brasses, and new linings. These require
studies to evaluate their performance and behavior under different conditions. Other distribution
system components also need study, such as service lines and joints, brasses in valves and
meters, and stainless steel in treatment plants. Research into construction and maintenance
methods is leading us to new ways to install and renew pipe and components and toward best
practices for maintenance of distribution system assets.
Research into modeling, data, and information helps managers at all levels with decision
support. Improved monitoring and modeling of distribution systems is needed to inform
optimization studies. New AMR (automated meter reading) and AMI (advanced metering
infrastructure) systems will help utilities greatly in understanding their systems. Management
issues such as pressure management require intensive real time information through new
methods and communication technologies.
Research into negative factors such as internal corrosion in water mains has increased
understanding of distribution systems, but much more needs to be done. These insidious issues
do not fly high on the radar screens of utilities, unless sudden problems occur. However, they
are like plaque building up in arteries. They can lead to premature aging and even to sudden
failures unless detected and treated. The research about distribution systems applies to the

19

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

feasibility of dual systems, which will normally encounter even more severe operating conditions
than potable systems.
Indicators are needed to assess the performance of dual water systems because decisions
should be based on clear and credible information about system condition and operational
effectiveness. Indicators are often adequate to measure technical subsystems such as traffic
flows and direct variables such as population size, but they do not function well in providing
comprehensive performance information, as in the case of dual water systems. Use of indicators
is often not standardized and each management unit may invent its own system.
The information in indicators should be packed to increase its density but this can make
them seem more abstract and ambiguous. When confronted with complex information,
managers resort to reducing large amounts of information by selectively focusing their attention
to interpret and intuit the information they receive (Sutcliffe and Weber, 2003).
While a wide range of ad hoc infrastructure indicators are available, we start with the
general categories from a report by the National Research Council (1995) entitled “Measuring
and Improving Infrastructure Performance.” It adopts indicators for effectiveness, reliability,
and cost but we believe that in the case of dual water systems a category for risk should be
added.
Performance is the main concern of management, and is the indicator that integrates all
others, in this case, it integrates effectiveness, cost, and reliability. Effectiveness is a more
specific indicator, which is multi–dimensional and indicates how well a system fulfills its goals.
Reliability integrates condition and security of the system and measures the dependability with
which it fulfills its mission. Risk is a variable that measures degree of exposure to various
threats and consequences. Cost includes both operational and capital cost and can be extended to
include indirect costs.
• The indicators must serve decisions about dual water systems in four general
categories (Grigg, 2005b):
• Capital decisions (such as to build or renew a component)
• Operating decisions (such as to operate the system)
• Regulatory decisions (such as setting a rule about systems)
• Financial decisions (such as capital programming and budgeting and rates)

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

A WERF study (Mantovani et al. 2001) reviewed 65 non-potable water reuse projects and
confirmed that in addition to operational performance, sound institutional arrangements,
conservative cost and sales estimates, and good project communication are keys to success.
Institutional obstacles, inadequate valuation of economic benefits, or a lack of public information
can hurt projects. The environment in which dual water systems develop is controlled by these
institutional arrangements. These explain the societal and political forces that lead to success or
failure in implementation.
General lessons about good practices show the needs to: establish public health as the
overriding concern, prevent cross-connections, mark all non-potable components of the system,
have a proactive public information program, have a monitoring and surveillance program for the
non-potable system, train staff members for reuse connections, establish construction and design
standards, and ensure physical separation of lines and appurtenances.

20

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Institutional issues identified in the past for potable water distribution systems included
complexity, cost, and coordination of solutions. A number of technical issues affected water
quality in the systems, including long transit and detention times and some dead ends,
infrastructure condition and deterioration/corrosion, intrusions from cross-connections,
backflows, and attacks, hydraulic and chemical factors: deposition of sediment, leaching of
metals, and water quality outcomes. The gaps in institutional arrangements that inhibit solutions
included fragmented authority, inadequate legal controls stemming from poor technical
understanding, faulty incentive structures, management cultures and unclear roles and
responsibilities made worse by difficulties in enabling the players to undertake their
responsibilities.
These issues point to the fact that the overwhelming challenge in managing distribution
systems is technical and involves the complexity, scale, cost and uncertainty of the vast
underground network.
For dual water systems, institutional issues comprise those related to law, roles and
responsibilities, incentives, and other management arrangements. Examples of issues that can be
addressed include organizations, finance, staffing, authorities, regulatory structure, coordination,
and public involvement.
Institutional analysis for dual water systems should address who has control, or the
designated authorities and stakeholders (mainly organizations). Also, it should study the laws,
regulations, decision requirements, and enforcement mechanisms. Incentives are very important,
to include system ownership and operating incentives. Roles, responsibilities, and relationships
between stakeholders are also important, as well as the management culture, including the
management practices, customs and ways of doing business (informal institutions) (Grigg,
2005b).
For dual water systems, the following elements are needed and are addressed in the
conclusions to the study.
• A conceptual model of how the management and control systems work
• Identification of the key issues and processes that need adjustment, and
• Identification of institutional practices that should lead to improvement

The distinction between the current situation and the ideal of a future dual water system
was also explained in a WaterRF project about conventional and unconventional approaches to
water service provision (Raucher et. al., 2004). In addition to reviewing current status of
reclaimed water distribution, the researchers explained how dual systems might evolve in the
future and how a set of institutional and regulatory considerations must be faced. These include:
acceptance by the public, utilities and regulators; ownership and distribution rights; public
education; and risk management of cross-connections and other code issues. They also
explained the need for cost-effectiveness studies and to probe the infrastructure changes needed
to implement dual systems. Finally, the team in this study wrote: “…the team struggled to obtain
good comparative information with which to determine how much more it cost to develop dual
systems … Additional empirical investigation is necessary of the costs and benefits of specific
reuse applications and experiences”.
A good guide to institutional barriers and obstacles can be derived from the presentations
at AWWA's (2010) webcast on "Removing Barriers to Reclaimed Water Use," which was held
on May 26, 2010. In a presentation by Karla Fowler of the LOTT Alliance in Washington,
barrier one was identified as having reclaimed water policies. In their project, a task force

21

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

identified over 40 policy issues to address with a series of interlocal agreements. The second
barrier was from costs and funding. The third was crossing utility boundaries and the fourth was
competing needs. These were followed by user requirements and by public perceptions.
More detailed issues were explained by Don Vandertulip, the water reuse discipline
leader for the consulting firm CDM. He began with support from utility and city management,
including the city council. The important things were to educate everyone and obtain internal
consensus. This might include time for training and internal education, internal briefings, low
profile information fairs, and including water reuse as an option in long-range planning and
capital improvement programs.
If water and wastewater are not in the same department, then a question is who leads the
reuse effort and should reclaimed water be a new department with new equipment? These
questions might be answered by state certificated service areas and water rights and permits. The
best solution might be merging skills from water and wastewater professional staff and to focus
wastewater operator skills to provide the best outcomes.
New utilities will need many new policy and operational procedures and both internal
and external policies that require board approval. Rates might even require state approval, but
many internal policy decisions about staffing, customer service, user agreements and operations
will be required. Given the importance of finance, the budget approval process and rate setting
are very important. Capital funding is difficult but can be an opportunity to forge new
innovative approaches.
Valuable information about institutional issues of reclaimed water systems was received
from Bob Castle, Water Quality Manager at the Marin Municipal Water District and a member
of the Project Advisory Committee. He alerted us to the cross connection control requirements
required by states with active programs (CA, AZ, TX, and FL) for recycled and reclaimed water
systems and reported that in California, local environmental health agencies add requirements to
state regulations. Examples include San Diego County, Orange County, and Los Angeles
County and he anticipates that there will be a tendency in areas such as these to regulate new
dual systems in similar ways.
The added administrative burdens of serving residential customers arise for multiple
reasons, including the efforts the water agency must invest in periodic inspections at each
customer site. Castle’s definition of dual systems would focus on a system that parallels and
supplements an existing potable water distribution system, and he thought that this definition
would cover the two potable system version (one smaller and higher quality than the older larger
and lower quality or bulk water system) and the raw, recycled, or reclaimed water systems
typically built later. The definition should also cover emerging green designs with potable and
non-potable distribution systems to optimize resources.
Castle thought that on-site dual distribution systems such as dual plumbed buildings
should be excluded from the study because the WaterRF serves mainly public and private
potable water agencies that are not responsible for private plumbing and on-site reclaimed water
systems. Also, since fire protection systems typically use water infrequently, it is not normally
practical to perform regulatory steps for cross connection control for a service that does not
generate revenue. An exception is in Livermore, CA where the newer recycled water system has
much better pressure than the potable system.
The California Legislature mandated a 2002 Recycled Water Task Force to investigate
obstacles and impediments to recycled water. Castle's presentations to the Task Force illustrate
problems created when regulators require agencies to oversee customers for their on-site dual

22

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

systems. His concept is that recycled water should be sold as a utility commodity like potable
water, natural gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV and Internet where transfer of ownership
and responsibility is at the property line and that any other practice is unsustainable
economically.
Another issue was highlighted by the response of a health agency to a San Diego County
recycled water main break. The break in Carlsbad discharged two million gallons of tertiary
recycled water into a local creek and the ocean at Carlsbad State Beach. Carlsbad informed
health regulators that the water was tertiary recycled water and that bacterial testing levels were
better than required for drinking water systems. Despite this information, the health officials
treated the event as a sewage spill and closed the beaches. Potable water systems also have spills
and breaks, but are treated differently because they do not involve wastewater.
Another regulatory issue is about reports of cross connections. A list of comments from
agencies about reports that water agencies believed incorrect or exaggerated was included in a
White Paper entitled "Plumbing Code/Cross Connection Control Workgroup of the 2002
Recycled Water Task Force," dated November 15, 2002.
A major cross connection occurred in Australia and affected some 630 homes. Details
are under investigation. The incident occurred in December 2009 at Pimpama Coomera, a
development site in southeast Queensland. The master plan envisions sustainable water
management through multiple water sources and improved management of stormwater and
wastewater. New residential developments are required to have a rainwater tank and a dual
distribution. The Master Plan anticipates that demand for potable water will be as little as 16
percent of normal.
Soon after recycled water was first supplied to households some residents complained
about taste and odor from kitchen and bathroom taps. Investigations found that a cross-
connection had allowed recycled water to mix with potable water in over 630 homes. The
potable and recycled water services were restored about 11 hours after problem detection.
While the investigation report is not available, the scale makes it seem that the problem
was at the mains pipe level. Some customers reported gastroenteritis symptoms but the medical
authorities stated that health risks were minimal due to low microorganisms and high residual
chlorine. An earlier incident was reported in 2008. The water supply to a building was
contaminated with lower quality wastewater and water was used for drinking, laundry and
showers. An investigation found 73 illnesses.
A household level cross-connection was reported later and Gold Coast Water inspector
found seven residences with cross-connections. Five were at the meter, two within houses and
one at a sub-meter. Sydney Water Corporation found 50 cross-connections among 12,000
houses inspected at Rouse Hill.
The writer opined that cross-connections with intrusion of recycled water into the potable
supply present a complex problem for detection because of the changing pressure differential
between systems and a variable pattern of mixing. He thought that methods to detect cross-
connections between recycled and potable water systems is a high priority research area for the
water industry (Brown, 2010).

23

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
 CHAPTER 3: CLASSIFICATION OF DUAL WATER SYSTEMS

INTRODUCTION

Dual water distribution systems serve a variety of purposes and, although a definition of
them helps to understand the general concept, a classification system is needed to compare and
evaluate them. AWWA’s (2009) definition can be used without specifying the source of the
lesser-quality water (see Chapter 1): “Two separate water piping systems distributing water to
customers, one carrying potable water and the other conveying lesser-quality water.” This is
only a suggestion and since reused wastewater is the major source of non-potable water, there
seems little point in belaboring the definition.
On the basis of mileage, dual water systems comprise only a small percentage of all water
distribution systems and no classification system for them has been developed by USEPA or
other organizations. Water and wastewater classification systems that were developed for
national needs studies conducted by USEPA are embedded in the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS), the Community Water Systems Survey (CWSS), and the Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) (USEPA, 2010 a,b,c). For example, public water systems
are either Community or Non-Community systems. Wastewater systems are collection,
treatment or combined systems. Other classifiers and modifiers enable costs and risks to be
assessed.
The CWSS and the SDWIS contain information about the potable water distribution
systems and the CWNS has Category X about distribution of recycled water, which shows that
reclaimed water distribution systems are generally classified under the wastewater category
rather than the water supply category. The explanation Category X is (USEPA, 2010c): “This
category includes the needs and costs associated with conveyance of treated wastewater that is
being reused (recycled water), including associated rehabilitation/replacement needs. Examples
are pipes to convey treated water from the wastewater facility to the drinking water distribution
system or the drinking water treatment facility and equipment for application of effluent on
publicly-owned land. The needs and costs associated with additional unit processes to increase
the level of treatment to potable or less than potable but greater than that normally associated
with surface discharge needs are reported in Category II.”
Because the classification of non-potable water in the CWNS is aimed at its use to help
with wastewater needs rather than for water supply, all needs are reported, whether they are part
of dual systems or not. For example, the USEPA CWNS cites an example of treated wastewater
being piped to a groundwater recharge project, which would not be part of a dual distribution
system.
This division of water supply and wastewater classification systems means that any
classifiers for dual potable and non-potable water distribution systems will have to be hybrids of
water and wastewater, and it is not clear whether such a classification system is needed for
management or policy purposes. To study this question, it may help to consult how USEPA
(2010c) reports uses for the data in the CWNS: “This information is used by EPA to document
national needs in a report to Congress. The report provides Congress, as well as state legislatures,
with information to assist their budgeting efforts. The data are also used to: help measure
environmental progress; contribute to academic research; provide information to the public; and
help local and state governments implement water quality programs.”

25

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Given these uses for the CWNS data there would appear to be only a limited national
need for a classification system for dual systems, and the system presented here primarily serves
the present study and enables explanations of the development of dual systems. It is possible
that the detail of the proposed classification system could help in future CWNS projects, but
there is no apparent national regulatory driver because dual systems are regulated by state
governments. The classification system may help local governments explain their systems. In
addition, it might be of interest to researchers and policy analysts.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Reviewing the performance of the systems presented a challenge because no standard

classification system had been developed and the systems studied varied widely in scale, type
and stage of development. Therefore, a classification framework was developed to enable
comparisons among similar dual systems and to avoid comparing dissimilar systems. Another
issue in the performance assessment was the need to evaluate parameters relating to different
goals, and to facilitate this a framework with criteria for multi-objective evaluation was
developed. The classification system is based on data collected from the project’s case studies
and input from the workshops held in Tampa and Oakland. The issues embedded in the
variables of the classification system include the extent of system duality (parallel potable and
non-potable pipes or only isolated non-potable pipes serving few customers); differences in
customer bases; differences relating to risk tolerance; and different system goals. These are
represented by ownership and performance variables.
For example, an issue might involve a utility with a dedicated non-potable line from a
wastewater treatment plant to one customer. This arrangement would not be a dual system but
would be an isolated case of a single dedicated non-potable supply line. However, as systems
develop, they might expand step-wise and eventually evolve into dual systems with potable and
non-potable water distribution systems. So, the question of when a system becomes dual
becomes important to set management policy for the utility. While no exact answer is available
for this question, it is apparent that a system becomes dual when its mileage and management
requirements become significant parts of overall utility efforts. The classification system was
developed to enable utilities to detect that crossover point by comparing their statistics with other
utilities.
The variables included begin with whether the reclaimed water system has residential
customers, which is an important variable that determines differences in operations and
maintenance requirements. This is shown on the case study data sheets as a yes or no question or
by number of taps per mile. Another consideration was whether water providers recycle their
own wastewater or get it from other providers. This is similar to the wholesaler arrangement that
is common in potable water supply. Another question is who owns the non-potable distribution
infrastructure. A utility may have an outsourcing arrangement whereby it relies on another entity
to handle this task.
Given these variables, a category was included to measure if the potable and non-potable
systems are completely owned and supplied by the utility. Another category is when either the
potable or non-potable system relies on an external party for infrastructure and/or source water.
Finally, the systems can be mixed in ownership and operations. Also, as wholesalers, a utility
can be a supplier or a regional supplier.

26

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Based on these categories, the proposed classification system shown in Table 3.1 was
developed. The most straightforward category is A (All), where a utility owns all facilities and
supplies, which is distinguished from category P (Partial) either the potable or non-potable
system is dependent on another utility for infrastructure, source water, or both. In category L
(Limited) systems, both the potable and non-potable systems are dependent to some degree on
another utility.

Table 3.1
Service Categories

Category Description
A The utility owns the infrastructure and water supply for both systems.
(All)
P The utility owns the infrastructure and water supply for one system
(Partial) but not entirely (or not at all) for the other system.
L The utility is partially or entirely dependent on others for its
(Limited) infrastructure or water supply for both systems.
S The utility supplies potable and/or recycled water to other utilities.
(Supplier)
D The utility distributes potable and/or recycled water obtained from
(Distributor) others.
R The entity is a cooperative that supplies recycled and/or potable
(Regional) water.

The S, D, and R (Supplier, Distributor, and Regional) categories capture the wholesaler-
distributor relationship that is found in potable water systems. Some utilities obtain treated
potable and/or recycled water from other utilities. USEPA calls such systems "consecutive,"
meaning that they obtain their supplies from others. This scheme also takes into account that
some utilities have regional functions to serve other utilities (counties, water districts, MUDs).
As examples, Yelm, Washington operates a dual water system with its own supplies of potable
and non-potable water. In Pittsburg, CA the recycled system is owned and operated by another
utility.
While the classification system is a starting point, it is not able to classify all utilities in
single categories. Some would be placed in several categories (P, R, L, or D) because they
partner with other utilities for one or both of the systems. For instance, Santa Rosa, CA is a
managing partner for the sub-regional wastewater treatment plant which provides treatment,
disposal, reclamation, industrial waste inspection and lab services to Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park,
and other locations. Santa Rosa contributes about 73% of the sub-regional operating budget.
A weakness of the classification of utilities into service categories is that does not take
into account the degree to which a utility is a P or an L. For instance, some utilities (such as
Tampa) are a P because they obtain an emergency source of water from another utility on a
seasonal basis whereas others such as Largo, Florida receive potable water supply from an
external provider continuously.
Using the classification categories and the team’s best judgment as to the predominant
categories, the 38 case studies are distributed as shown in Table 3.2:

27

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Table 3.2
Distribution of Service Categories

A (7) Apopka, Cape Coral, Ocala, San Antonio, St. Petersburg, Winter Springs, Yelm
Burbank, Cary, Chandler, Denver, Dunedin, Largo, Livermore, Oviedo, Pittsburg,
P (13)
Tampa, Santa Barbara, Eustis, Odessa
L (4) Redwood City, Santa Rosa, St. Pete Beach
S (6) Austin, EBMUD, LOTT Alliance, Raleigh, San Diego, Tucson
D (3) IRWD, Orlando, Pinellas County Utilities
R (5) El Paso, LVVWD, Gwinnett County GA, Marin MWD, Tallahassee

In addition to the service categories, utilities were assigned performance classes (A, B, C,
and D), which are dependent on an infrastructure measure (percent reclaimed water main
mileage to total water main mileage) and an operational performance measure (percent reclaimed
water production relative to total water production). This normalizes the infrastructure and
operational metrics.
The performance classes are listed in Table 3.3:

Table 3.3
Performance Class Descriptions

Class Description
A
Low percent RW mileage, high percent recycled water use.
(Devel
oping)
B
(Devel High percent RW mileage, high percent RW use.
oped)
C
(Emer Low percent RW mileage, low percent RW use.
ging)
D
(infras
High percent RW mileage, low percent RW use.
tructure
intensive)

Table 3.4 shows the percentage reclaimed water main mileage to total water main
mileage and percent reclaimed water production relative to total water production for 33 of the
case studies. At the time of this report, the other utilities had not provided mileage and use
information. The table also shows the class designation as defined by the class boundaries shown
later in Figure 3.1.

28

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Table 3.4
Summary of the Percent Recycled Water Line and Percent Recycled Water Use of the Case
Studies*

Percent
Percent
Recycled
Entity Recycled Class
Water
Water Use
Line
Austin Water, TX 0.95 3.76 C
Burbank Water and Power, CA 0.94 9.02 C
Cape Coral, FL 46.67 37.09 B
Cary, NC 2.23 3.55 C
Chandler, AZ 5.07 26.84 A
Denver Water, CO 1.18 3.57 C
Dunedin, FL 30.36 46.14 B
East Bay MUD, CA 0.93 6.19 C
El Paso, TX 1.89 5.60 C
Eustis, FL 10.85 45.35 A
Gwinnett County Georgia, GA 1.00 0.57 C
Irvine Ranch Water District, CA 25.00 38.19 B
Largo, FL 30.56 4.70 D
Las Vegas Valley WD, NV 1.13 3.05 C
Livermore, CA 5.77 12.37 A
Marin MWD, CA 2.63 2.33 C
Odessa, TX 3.74 6.42 C
Orlando, FL 1.67 28.72 A
Oviedo, FL 13.98 31.42 A
Pinellas County Utilities, FL 13.03 26.00 A
Pittsburg, CA 1.17 48.11 A
Raleigh, NC 0.58 7.31 C
Redwood City, CA 5.38 3.13 C
San Antonio Water System, TX 2.60 5.82 C
San Diego, CA 2.23 3.23 C
Santa Barbara, CA 4.54 5.32 C
Santa Rosa, CA 14.25 47.77 A
St. Pete Beach, FL 1.96 2.79 C
St. Petersburg, FL 15.56 39.49 A
Tallahassee, FL 0.42 58.30 A
Tampa, FL 2.76 3.27 C
Tucson, AZ 3.30 13.86 A
Winter Springs, FL 22.26 21.21 A
* Other utilities did not provide all information needed to summarize performance

29

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Figure 3.1 is a presentation of percent water use versus percent recycled water line. It
illustrates capital intensity (Class D-infrastructure intensity, a high percentage of infrastructure
but low percentage of water use) and operational efficiency (Class A-developing, the opposite
case). The figure shows that the majority of case study systems would be classified as Class C or
emerging dual systems.
The dividing points shown on the diagram are at the 10% recycled water use level and the
25% recycled water main boundary. These were selected visually based on the distribution of
the 33 case study data points that are plotted, and they enable a division of the systems into the
four performance classes. The majority of the systems utilize dual water systems in which less
than 10% of the total water demand is met by reclaimed water and where less than 25% of the
pipe mileage is for recycled water and with this system are called Class C, emerging.

* One system is dependent on a larger system and statistics are not broken down for the utility specified.
** See Figure 3.2 for this area.

Figure 3.1. Percent Recycled Water Line versus Percent Recycled Water Use

Figure 3.2 provides additional detail for the Class C utilities, which have reclaimed water
systems with small mileages and reclaimed water production. It illustrates that even within this
single category, most of the utilities have small amounts of recycled water line, compared to
their overall distribution mileage, and there is a wide variation in water production.

30

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Figure 3.2. Percent Recycled Water Line versus Percent Recycled Water Use (Emerging
systems, Class C)

The systems were further analyzed using different approaches to the classifications and
the results show interesting details. For example, in St. Petersburg, the utility serves about
10,300 customers, of which about 10,200 are residences and possibly commercial properties. St.
Petersburg is a Class A system and the reclaimed water system is comparable in size and scope
to the potable water system.
The classification system enables the comparison of similar systems, but by the time the
utilities are separated into categories, the sample sizes are only large enough to make anecdotal
comparisons but not to present meaningful statistical data.

31

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
 CHAPTER 4: PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND DATA
COLLECTION

INTRODUCTION

This chapter addresses the criteria for the main project goal of performance assessment.
USEPA's (2007) research plan identifies performance as the main issue, and it is a function of
outcomes in several categories. The categories mentioned in the plan are reliability, energy, water
quality, efficiency, water conservation, performance, cost and applicability.
The classification system presented in Chapter 3 offers a starting point to create an
evaluation method to assess the efficiency and performance of in-service dual systems. Because
of the diversity of system types, the assessment method must be flexible to respond to the goals
of each type of system. In general, the systems have purposes to extend water supplies and
improve the quality of drinking water and these convert to evaluation criteria. Other evaluation
criteria include safety, cost, and institutional arrangements including utility management.
Considering the general needs for performance assessment (see Chapter 2) and drawing
from USEPA’s (2007) explanation of the need for the project, a performance model with five
categories was developed:
1. Water safety and public health protection
2. Effectiveness in meeting system goals including water conservation
3. Total cost (of potable and non-potable systems)
4. Risk and reliability
5. Implementation and operational results

It was apparent in developing these criteria and from the variation in system types
and histories that definitive data for all systems across all categories would not be available.
The project reviewers asked for quantitative data wherever possible, and the project team
attempted to provide it where it was available and credible. The fact that no comprehensive
study of the 335 dual systems in the United States exists prevents a valid statistical
comparison, especially when the wide variation in their attributes is considered. By use of
the case studies, the workshops, and the feedback from experienced managers inferences
and conclusions about performance are presented.
In some cases it is possible to develop objective and even quantitative assessment
measures, but in other cases qualitative and descriptive data are required. Even when
numerical data is available, it cannot always be used directly for assessment. For example,
the number of reported violations of standards would make a good indicator, but the
reporting of violations is not standardized or quality-assured. Another statistic might relate
to financial performance, but numerical data are difficult to obtain and interpret and can be
misleading.
Given the challenge to make an assessment of a complex program, a multi-criteria
performance model is required to span both objective and subjective measures. The
following discussion explains the performance categories and the process of developing an
overall assessment.

WATER SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION

33

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 The focus of the USEPA (2007) research plan is on the safety of drinking water, so a
category of indicators should measure risk of contamination and the compromise of security of
water safety. Some measures that might be used are violations of standards, number of cross-
connections, and implementation of programs for water safety and public involvement.
With regard to public health and safety, the classification system should incorporate both
violations of regulations and empirical evidence from case studies. Although compliance with
regulations does not always provide detailed evidence of performance level, it is an indicator of
system control. In this category, no national standards for water quality delivered to customers
with a comparable monitoring program are available. Instead, the ability to prevent cross
connections is like a surrogate water safety measure.
Initially, public health and safety was to be measured based on the number of cross
connections and illnesses due to reclaimed water. However, illnesses are rarely reported and
difficult to correlate with reclaimed water use. Actually the literature review identified few
reported cross connections, and in all cases examined, the water provider resolved the problem
immediately. It was determined that utilities that fixed cross connections should not be ranked
lower than those that never had cross connections to fix. In some cases, the presence of cross
connections caused utilities to implement stricter public health and safety measures than those
that never had cross connections.
Since the effects of reclaimed water systems with respect to public health are difficult to
quantify, preventative measures such as public education provide at least some measure of
safety. Utility engagement with the public can be measured by whether it provides general
information to the public, if it has an active educational campaign, whether it offers workshops
to participants and whether it requires training to be connected to non-potable water. The public's
engagement can be measured by interest in conservation programs and reuse, compliance with
ordinances and by participation in training workshops. Once again, a quantitative measure such
as whether a utility has a program or does not seems too simplistic to be credible as a statistic.

EFFECTIVENESS IN MEETING SYSTEM GOALS

The goal implied by the idea of retrofitting and dividing the distribution system would be
to deliver higher quality water at lower cost and at greater reliability. As the project developed,
it became apparent that the main goal of dual water systems is not to divide an existing
distribution system into two parts to improve water safety, but goals of extending water supplies
and improving the management of wastewater were the main ones embraced by utilities.
Therefore, this category was expanded to three parallel goals:
• Deliver higher quality potable water at lower cost and at greater reliability
• Extend water supplies and reduce impacts on source waters
• Improve management of wastewater

TOTAL COST (OF POTABLE AND NON-POTABLE SYSTEMS)

Cost is a challenging criterion to measure because operators use different approaches in

accounting for operational and maintenance costs. Whereas a few utilities separate the reclaimed
water system costs from the wastewater system costs, the majority account for only the total cost
of the potable, reclaimed, and sewer systems. It would, of course, be possible to do cost studies

34

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

to partition these costs, but this would require great effort and be equivalent to a rate study for
each case study.
Although some data on cost of non-potable systems is available, it was apparent from the
beginning that the data would not in general enable the partitioning of operating and capital costs
into potable and non-potable categories. As utilities were interviewed and at the project
workshops, it became clear that the main cost to be evaluated is total water and wastewater cost
with and without the reclaimed water system.
Non-potable distribution systems face special cost challenges in maintenance and repair,
just as in potable water systems. Some states consider a discharge of recycled water (regardless
of quality) to be the same as raw sewage, which may draw enforcement penalties. Uncertainties
such as these add to the list obstacles and impediments facing operators of non-potable water
systems.

RISK AND RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY?

Risk and reliability issues include operational (short term) reliability and long term
availability of supply, especially in the case of drought. Risk of health impacts is covered
elsewhere but risk of main breaks, leaks and other issues should be approached separately. The
assessment method should consider the risk of not using a dual system based on factors such as
water use projections, water resources, and other quantifiable measures.
The most common risk issues encountered during the case study process were water
storage for potable and non-potable water systems, diversity of water supply, and diversity of
reclaimed water customers. Based on these observations, the selected measures for risk and
reliability are availability of reserves and diversity of service. Whereas the diversity of service
can be measured by the ratio of number of customers to total reclaimed water production, storage
must be based on capacity relative to need.

IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONAL RESULTS

Implementation and operational results form a broad performance category that measures
the overall performance of dual systems in categories other than safety, effectiveness in meeting
goals, costs and risk management. In interviews and case studies a number of issues that fall into
this group were identified, such as these examples:
Strategic advantages in meeting goals such as reducing discharges or water withdrawals,
extending the lives of potable water systems or wastewater treatment, reducing peak demands or
improving fire protection
• Unexpected loss of revenue after implementing non-potable system
• Management difficulty and complying with more regulations and mandates
• Requiring more and different storage and adding to infrastructure burden
• Added risks, such as projected demands that do not materialize
• Public image effects

These different considerations fall into the general category of institutional issues, and
some of them lap over into the other categories. They were handled through descriptive text
rather than trying to assign objective criteria to them.

35

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Given the multiple criteria, the initial approach was to convert the criteria into questions,
which could be used to probe the experiences gained in each case study. Assessment of the
performance was based on a combination of yes–and–no answers, on levels of achievement, and
on descriptive information.
1. An initial version of the method was used to develop questions for the first round
of case study data collection. The following questions were used in searches of
documents and discussions with utility personnel:
2. Was protection of water safety and public health protection equal or better
than with a single system?
3. Was the dual system effective in meeting system goals?
4. Was the cost of the dual system equal or lower than the separable cost of the non-
potable water system in a combined system?
5. Did the dual system lead to beneficial water conservation?
6. Did the dual system lower overall risk and improve reliability of all water
services?
7. On an overall basis, did the dual system represent an improvement over a single
system on the basis of water safety and public health protection, effectiveness in
meeting system goals, overall cost, use of water resources, and risk/reliability?

These evaluation questions were used on an initial set of cases, and by considering issues
that emerged, the questions were modified to focus more on the use of reclaimed water systems
for expanding supplies and managing wastewater. Based on the initial findings, the questions
were made more detailed to focus on experiences with the expanding reclaimed water systems
(Table 4.1):

Table 4.1
Evolution of Initial Questions Based on Findings

Initial Question New Emphasis

Was water safety and public health Expand on risk factors such as cross connections.
protection equal or better than with a single
system?
Was the dual system effective in meeting Expand on different reasons for implementing
system goals? reclaimed water systems.
Was the cost of the dual system equal or Explain the concept to measure financial results of
lower than the separable cost of the non- combined potable and non-potable systems.
potable water system in a combined system?
Did the dual system lead to beneficial water Expand concept to include broader focus on water
conservation? efficiency to make existing water supplies to further.
Did the dual system lower overall risk and Develop concepts to measure risk and reliability of
improve reliability of all water services? combined potable and non-potable systems.

36

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CHAPTER 5: RETROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF
DUAL WATER SYSTEMS

INTRODUCTION AND DATASET

This chapter explains the results of the retrospective assessment from the studies and
using the method, criteria, and questions outlined in the last chapter. The performance
assessment includes observations from the literature, from case studies and from the project
workshops.
To develop a representative sample of case studies, an inventory of public systems was
developed for the U.S., with a few listings from other countries. The WateReuse Foundation
database was used as a starting point and each facility in the database was cross checked using
online sources to verify that it was a dual water system (see Chapter 1). This revealed that many
facilities were essentially stand-alone systems and were not really dual water systems because
they had limited pipe lengths.
The WateReuse Foundation (2013) database indicated that water reuse was primarily
practiced in Florida and California and additional utilities within those states were identified by
the project team to supplement those in the database, which had been developed from voluntary
reporting and does not include a number of dual systems.
A search was conducted for utilities in the remaining 48 states to produce a more
complete inventory and representative samples of cases. As the project evolved, new systems
were added to the inventory. See Appendix A and B for a summary of the project inventory
which consists of 335 utilities in the United States and 87 utilities outside of the United States. It
is not claimed that this inventory is exhaustive, particularly for international systems. However,
as far as we know, it includes all major U.S. systems which distribute reclaimed water.
In selecting case study systems from the database a representative sample was sought
from different states with unique features such as using reclaimed water for fire protection or
toilet flushing. This yielded a dataset of 37 systems for more detailed case analysis (Figure 5.1).
The selected cases are listed in Appendix C and the actual case studies are in Appendix D.

Figure 5.1. Locations of Case Studies in the United States

37

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 The 37 case studies were evaluated by assessing the performance categories explained in
Chapter 4. The case analysis results were compared to indications from the literature review to
verify findings and the suitability of the protocol’s performance categories. The case studies
were used to prove or disprove trends and conclusions compiled from the literature review and to
provide new insights into the performance of dual systems in the assessment categories.

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE RESEARCH LITERATURE

How well dual water systems are performing has been explained to some extent in the
research literature. In this section, parts of this literature are summarized to enable a summary of
performance information. Most newer applications do not provide residential service or fire-
fighting water, so the emphasis is on serving agricultural, industrial and cooling water customers,
with applications also sought for uses such as toilet flushing and groundwater recharge. Special
cases are also reported, such as the Hong Kong seawater system that has been in operation from
the 1950s.
The USEPA (2004) Water Reuse Guidelines provide an extensive record of water reuse
experience and lessons. They report few if any distribution systems that were retrofitted to add
small potable lines, although some new systems have smaller potable lines. The guidelines
explain design and management issues of reclaimed water systems such as storage, pumping and
distribution. Problems such as the need for storage to enable diurnal flow and seasonal variation
are explained. Separate identification of the non-potable system is essential to prevent cross
contamination. Other design and operating rules, such as pressure requirements, vary with type
of user.
The NRC (2006) report on distribution system risks provides a comprehensive picture of
drinking water distribution risks. However, it includes only a brief section about dual
distribution systems, which it considered not in its charge and advised that more research would
be needed to learn how to transition from an existing conventional system to a non-conventional
system.
The California Water Plan anticipates continuing large increases in use of reclaimed
water, although the 2008 USEPA Clean Watershed Needs Survey showed a decrease in
investment needs. Florida also had a decrease in needs reported, but all indications are that water
reuse will continue to increase. However, it is unlikely that in the near term dual water systems
will become a significant percentage of all systems, except in selected areas where they are
applied to meet needs such as water scarcity and wastewater disposal problems.
Reported reliability of the non-potable systems is often somewhat less than for the
potable system, except where fire protection is included, which is only the case in a minority of
the applications.
Reclaimed water lines present more opportunities for internal and external corrosion than
potable water lines. Maintenance requirements may be higher than potable water lines.
The major public health concerns with non-potable water are prevention of cross-
connections and inadvertent use of it as potable water. No U.S. case was reported in the
literature of actual disease outbreaks due to dual systems, although a few incidents of cross
connections are known. Outbreaks may occur in other countries, and the case from Australia’s
Gold Coast is an example (see Chapter 2).

38

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Studies of non-potable projects confirmed that operational performance, sound
institutional arrangements, conservative cost and sales estimates, and good project
communication are keys to success. Institutional obstacles, inadequate valuation of economic
benefits, or a lack of public information can hurt projects.
Good practices include: establish public health as the overriding concern, prevent cross-
connections, mark all non-potable components, have a proactive public information program,
have a monitoring and surveillance program for the non-potable system, train staff members for
reuse connections, establish construction and design standards, and ensure physical separation of
lines and appurtenances.
The research literature about dual systems includes treatment technologies, emerging
chemicals and pathogens, economics, rates and funding, and public involvement, among others.
The main reason for dual water systems is not to improve drinking water quality but to
extend the reach of water supplies and improve options for wastewater management.
Total 2008 needs reported by USEPA for water reuse projects were $4.4 billion of the
national total of $298 billion. Where needs increased it indicated recognition that recycled
wastewater can help meet water quality standards, population growth, and save money.
Taking this discussion as an integrated whole, a summary of the literature about the
assessment categories is shown by Table 5.1:

Table 5.1
Conclusions from the Literature Review

1. Water safety and public In the U.S., rules and control procedures seem to
health protection be working to protect public health. Concern has
been expressed about the costs of regulation, but
on the whole, few cross connections are
occurring and no reports of outbreaks have been
cited. In other countries, controls and
experiences may indicate more concern.
2. Effectiveness in meeting On a national basis, the numbers of dual systems
system goals including water are relatively few, but in special places such as
conservation coastal regions they are effective in extending water
supplies and adding to wastewater options. They
add to total portfolios of water management options
and can be used along with conservation programs
to greatly extend local water supplies. Few if any
utilities are pursuing the goal of improving potable
water quality by having smaller lines with higher
levels of protection.
3.Total cost (of potable and non- Accounting for allocation of costs between the
potable systems) goals of dual systems is a work in progress. Dual
systems add substantially to total system cost and
finding ways to pay for them while encouraging use
of reclaimed water will be a continuing challenge.
4.Risk and reliability Risk of health problems due to dual systems seems
relatively low when management controls are

39

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 effective. Reliability of systems can be assured
when storage is used, but seasonal demands create
management issues. Financial problems due to
dual systems may occur. By adding to portfolios of
water supply dual systems may add to overall
system reliability.
5. Implementation and operational A number of institutional issues must be
results confronted, ranging from public acceptance to cost
and regulatory controls and barriers. All of these
can be dealt with in cases where dual systems are
most feasible, but they may deter system
development in other cases.

40

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

WATER SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION

Case analysis from this project confirmed observations from the literature that public
health risks are low when systems are well managed and regulated. While no disease outbreaks
have been reported in the case analysis, the cases do indicate a number of cross connections.
Anecdotal and media reports suggest that some illnesses may occur in areas where regulatory
controls are not stringent and some significant issues have occurred in Australia and perhaps in
other countries.
Reports of cross connections are somewhat uneven, which is to be expected given the
different ways they can occur and be measured. At the Tampa workshop the participants advised
that reporting the number of cross connections may not be a good indicator of safety because it is
sometimes difficult to judge and when one is reported, the utility will handle it and become more
diligent. This topic requires more study.
When cross connections were reported, there were no reported illnesses among the cases.
For example, in Cary, NC several residences were accidentally connected to the reclaimed water
system during construction. In St. Petersburg (Riera, 2010) some 12 years ago a group of
residents connected to the reclaimed water system for all water needs. In these and in all other
cases reviewed, no illnesses were reported by residents who were unwittingly consuming
reclaimed water. The utilities took follow-up action. For example, in St. Petersburg, the utility
required the residents to disconnect from the reclaimed water system and substitute potable water
for indoor residential use.
Public concern about water safety at the beginning of implementation was not
uncommon. Opposition was generally due to concern about health risks from reclaimed water as
a non-potable supply. For example, the public in St. Petersburg originally opposed reclaimed
water out of a concern about the spread of viruses and damage to plants. Public outreach and
education efforts have generally been successful at gaining public support for reclaimed systems.
This experience underscores the fact that dual water systems require more attention to public
education than potable systems alone.
While it would be desirable to summarize statistics of water safety from the cases in a
statistical table, the data do not lend themselves to such a presentation. The summary is that
cross connections do occur, they have so far been controlled, no reports of illness have occurred
in the U.S., and utilities are implementing public education and involvement programs.

EFFECTIVENESS IN MEETING SYSTEM GOALS

The assessment of effectiveness is based on the three goals pursued by most dual water
systems (see Chapter 4):
• Deliver higher quality potable water at lower cost and at greater reliability
• Extend water supplies and reduce impacts on source waters
• Improve management of wastewater

While the goal to deliver higher quality potable water at lower cost and at greater
reliability is included, the cases showed that goals for augmenting water supplies and improving
management of wastewater outweigh this goal. Also, water quality, cost and reliability are
measured by other criteria, so this section focuses on water supply augmentation and wastewater

41

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

management, with the conclusions about quality of potable water, cost, and reliability derived
from results of the other criteria.

Extending Water Supplies

The case analysis showed that the primary reason that municipalities and water districts
utilize a dual water system is to conserve potable water and extend their supplies. The case study
reviews indicate that dual water systems do help delay expansions or upgrades to the potable
water system and that benefits can outweigh the costs of a secondary water supply. The
municipalities are concerned about an adequate water supply for future generations and are using
reclaimed water to overcome limitations such as poor quality groundwater, the need to import
water from other outside sources, and limits on surface or groundwater withdrawals.
On a general basis, reclaimed water is primarily used for irrigation purposes such as golf
courses, lawn, and schoolyard watering. Other major uses include providing water for
commercial cooling towers and industrial processes. Other uses for recycled water include car
washes, concrete making, commercial laundries, and manufacturing. Relatively few systems
utilize reclaimed water for fire protection or toilet flushing. These uses of reclaimed water do
help free up potable water to meet the needs of residents.
It is not always possible to separate out the effects of reclaimed water and conservation
programs. However, the effectiveness of reclaimed water systems is enhanced by conservation
and water efficiency measures such as limiting landscape and lawn irrigation by residents and
businesses, offering rebates for water efficient fixtures, and reducing the number of leaks in the
water system. For example, Tampa’s reclaimed system serves only a few thousand users and
saves approximately 2 million gallons per day (mgd) while conservation efforts decreased
potable water diversions about 15 mgd during droughts.
Oviedo has reduced potable water use by seven percent since conservation measures and
the reclaimed water program were implemented. In San Diego, conservation measures
accounted for 12 percent of the total water savings compared to the 3 percent due to reclaimed
water use. Due to conservation efforts and recycled water use Burbank is on its way to meeting
the state-mandated goal of 20 percent potable water consumption reduction by 2020 (a current
reduction of 11 percent). Dunedin’s recycled water and conservation measures led to a 30
percent decrease in potable water consumption since 1992.
Since El Paso installed their reclaimed water system and implemented an aggressive
water conservation program in 1991, potable water pumping decreased from about 225 gallons
per capita per day to about 135 gpcd. The Las Vegas Valley Water District reduced potable
water demand from 347 gpcd in 1990 to about 250 gpcd in 2010, but was probably due more to
conservation. Marin MWD reduced per capita potable water demand from 175 to 120 gallons
per capita per day. Most decreases are probably due to conservation, but recycled water use
plays some part.
In some cases, reclaimed water meets a significant portion of the total water demand.
Reclaimed water meets about 26 percent of the total water demand in the Irvine Ranch Water
District and 14 percent in the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Some utilities are not yet
meeting their growth targets through recycled water and conservation measures. For example,
East Bay MUD is obtaining increased water supplies to augment their water conservation
measures and recycled water program.

42

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Dual systems are useful for new developments, such as in Cary, North Carolina which is
planning on reclaimed water for new developments. Some city ordinances and state regulations
require the use of reclaimed water whenever possible, including for new development, such as
Chandler. Oviedo serves several subdivisions via a dual water system to conserve potable water
and prevent excessive groundwater pumping. Since Oviedo implemented its water conservation
and reclaimed water programs, there has been about a seven percent decline in potable water
consumption.
Denver Water supplies reclaimed water to some new developments, such as for the
Stapleton and Lowry redevelopment projects. St. Petersburg supplies reclaimed water to several
developments. Ocala, FL began a mandatory residential and commercial irrigation program to
use reclaimed water for all new construction in 2007. Several utilities serve subdivisions with
reclaimed water such as in Eustis, FL and the Marin Municipal Water District.
Water supply crises have proven to be incentives for installing and/or expanding
reclaimed water systems. Burbank Water and Power has been affected by a seven year drought
in the Colorado River Basin. A Federal Court limited pumping in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta and this stimulated utilities to expedite expansion of reclaimed water systems.
As the above discussion indicates, use of dual systems to distribute reclaimed water
receives a positive evaluation for its effectiveness in extending water supplies.

Increasing Options for Wastewater Management

The use of dual systems to improve wastewater management was observed in a number
of cases. Depending on the entity, wastewater treatment plants are upgraded to produce
reclaimed water. Upgrading the wastewater treatment plant may enable the utility to avoid or
delay upgrading the potable water treatment plant. The dual system accomplishes this by using
the secondary water system to reduce the peak demand on the potable water system, by using it
for irrigation purposes among other uses, such as in Cary.
Various forms of treatment technology are used in order to treat wastewater for reclaimed
water production. Demineralization is used at a reclamation plant in San Diego to treat a third of
the wastewater to higher standards, and the plant uses electro-dialysis reversal to reduce salinity
of the reclaimed water. The process is also used in Burbank. Several utilities utilize reverse
osmosis plants, such as in Dunedin. In Tampa to produce higher quality the technology must be
upgraded because effluent is also discharged into the Tampa and Hillsborough Bays.
Based on the evidence that is available, it is clear that use of reclaimed water systems
does increase the options and flexibility for management of wastewater.

RISK AND RELIABILITY

Water safety risk was included in the first category above. In addition, utilities are
concerned about risk and reliability issues from operations and long term availability of water,
especially in the case of drought.
In their operations, utilities might set lower reliability standards for their reclaimed water
systems than for their potable water systems, which might prevent the systems from fire
protection use. In fact, San Diego reported that it is an advantage of a reclaimed water system to
not have to be as reliable as the potable water system since it is not used for fire protection.

43

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Reclaimed water systems may not have to be looped because it has lower reliability
standards. Due to the flexibility offered, the options of shut downs and interruptions were
reported as advantages of the reclaimed water system in Santa Rosa, CA. Some reclaimed water
systems have backup potable water supplies, such as in Denver which has a branched system
without loops.
Reliability of potable systems must be higher than that of reclaimed water systems.
Backup potable supplies may come from other utilities such as in Dunedin, where the potable
system is hooked up to Pinellas County Utilities for emergency supplies. The East Bay MUD is
hooked up to several entities for backup.
Whereas on a short term basis, reclaimed water might be interruptible, on a long term
basis the service must be reliable because users depend on it. In some cases, the costs to a large
user to retrofit for reclaimed water can be substantial. If the supply is not reliable, the users will
not make the investments.
Secondary water systems may benefit utilities by enabling them to ensure more reliable
potable supplies. San Diego obtains water from the San Diego County Water Authority, which
obtains it from the sources of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)
from the Colorado River and Northern California (Wood 2007). The sources of potable water
may be less reliable in the future because of drought, increased competition and environmental
regulations. Local supplies, including reclaimed water, can improve overall reliability by
diversifying water portfolios. For example, Eustis has a small reclaimed water system which
upon expansion would reduce potable water consumption and improve reliability. The small
sizes of some recycled systems may reduce their reliability benefit. For example, in the Marin
MWD the recycled water use contributes only 2 to 3 percent of total water demand.
Based on our interviews with water system managers, it was clear that drought and other
water shortage drivers influence public opinion about reclaimed water use. In Tampa, residents
opposed using reclaimed water until the media pointed out that it was necessary because of a
drought.
The most common risk issues encountered during the case study process were water
storage for potable and non-potable systems, diversity of water supply and diversity of reclaimed
water customers. For example, a lack of reclaimed water storage is an issue for the LOTT
Alliance project in Washington state in that there is reclaimed water available for reuse but the
utilities do not have the necessary storage to utilize it. Similarly, the system in Yelm, WA
formerly had reclaimed water storage issues before it installed an above ground storage tank.
Diversification of the water supply was an issue for several utilities with several relying
on one source for their potable water supply. Gwinnett County Georgia obtains all of its potable
water from Lake Lanier, for which water rights are in question as downstream users are
contesting the County’s water rights and threatening its ability to meet total water demand.
Santa Barbara, CA has a similar problem in that its water rights to Lake Cachuma, the primary
water source, are also being contested.
Other utilities have potable water supplies that are susceptible to drought, such as San
Diego and Santa Barbara. The type of reclaimed water customers also affects the ability to
effectively utilize reclaimed water. For instance, Odessa, TX recently had two industries stop
using reclaimed water. As a result, the total reclaimed water demand has been cut in half.
Reclaimed water still contributes a significant portion of the City’s total water demand, but
discontinuance of reclaimed water use may have more significant effects on other utilities.

44

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TOTAL COST (OF POTABLE AND NON-POTABLE SYSTEMS)

The capital and operating costs of reclaimed water systems can be substantial and hard to
finance from user charges alone. To assess financial impacts of reclaimed water it is necessary
to consider water uses and issues comprehensively. A total view of cost will link reclaimed
water to conservation in combined portfolios.
Rate-setting is a challenge due to the many issues involved and the lack of clear
guidance. Some utilities are launching rate studies to evaluate their situations. The most
common rate structure for potable water is an increasing block rate to encourage conservation.
For example, potable water and recycled rates are tiered for users in Marin Municipal Water
District to encourage potable water conservation. The most common rate system for reclaimed
water is a specified percentage of the potable water rate. However, some reclaimed water rates
have the increasing block structure and may have fines from over-use of reclaimed water, such as
in Dunedin.
Some utilities encourage use of reclaimed water by a decreasing block rate structure, such
as Dunedin during the winter when demand is down. Others have low reclaimed water rates to
encourage consumption, such as in Ocala where reclaimed water rates are one-quarter those of
potable water. Other utilities offer services to customers to encourage use of reclaimed water.
Largo offers simplified processes for connecting to the reclaimed system, waiving fees, and free
hook-up kits.
The case study reviews indicate that any cost savings in producing and distributing a
secondary water supply such as reclaimed water could potentially be offset by additional
maintenance and personnel costs. Cape Coral reports that the reclaimed system requires more
maintenance due to cross connection control, reporting leaks and spills, and field quality testing.
In addition, Cape Coral does not have sufficient personnel to enforce watering restrictions. The
operation of a dual system instead of just a potable water system in Oviedo has proved more
costly, but the city needed another source of water to meet demands without exceeding its cap on
groundwater pumping.
Utilizing a secondary supply may offset the cost of producing and distributing potable
water. East Bay MUD found that the cost of increasing the amount of imported water was too
high and was unable to obtain a permit to construct another potable water reservoir so it
increased the amount of recycled water to meet its water needs.
Several case study municipalities subsidize the reclaimed water system from the potable
water system but consider conserving potable supply as more necessary than saving money. For
example, St. Petersburg subsidizes the reclaimed system and conserves potable water.
Dual water systems can be cost effective for small communities that face difficulty in
meeting drinking water standards and ensuring dependable supplies during drought, especially in
areas with limited water. For example, Yelm has a population of approximately 6,000 and is
located in a critical water area. The dual system saves more than 9 billion gallons of potable
water per year by using reclaimed water primarily for irrigation.
Although water providers benefit from reducing potable water demand, in some cases
conservation efforts have proven counterproductive. As a result of the Las Vegas Valley Water
District’s conservation program, water and reclaimed water sales fell and the downturn in the
economy magnified the lack of funds. Burbank Water and Power’s water sales in 2009 were
reduced by 4.9% compared to 2008 because of water conservation efforts coupled with cooler

45

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

temperatures. St. Pete Beach, FL discovered that the supply of reclaimed water is reduced by
potable water conservation efforts.
Fortunately, not all entities lose money due to conservation and dual water systems.
Orlando, FL earns a profit from their reclaimed system due to a large year around demand for
irrigation water. In addition, the more reclaimed water the City uses, the more potable water the
St. Johns Water Management District allows them to withdraw (Johnson, 2010).
Financial incentives are available for utilizing reclaimed water. Several communities
have strict quantity and/or quality limits on their effluent discharges into waterways and reusing
the water can help. For example, the Tampa Water Department wants to expand its reclaimed
water system to offset discharges into Tampa and Hillsborough Bays (City of Tampa, 2009)
Largo, FL concluded that although the reclaimed water system is not financially self-sufficient, it
is necessary to avoid higher costs from quality and quantity effluent limits.
In the Florida workshop, the topic of subsidies from the Southwest Florida Water
Management District drew lively discussion.
Some water providers have limits on potable water diversions from a particular source.
For example, the City of Austin attempts to minimize withdrawals from the Colorado River due
to potential fines for withdrawing an excess amount, so reclaimed water avoids this risk.

IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONAL RESULTS

The experiences of the case utilities about implementation and operations span a number
of important issues. Using a secondary water supply has a number of advantages. For instance,
Cary reports extending the life of the potable water system, saving energy and money, delaying
expansion of wastewater treatment facilities, and reducing peak demand on the potable system
during the dry season. Reducing peak demand on potable water is also reported by Tucson,
which also reported a delay in the need to acquiring additional potable supplies and expansions
of the potable treatment and distribution systems. Burbank Water and Power indicated
advantages in reducing potable water demand and supply costs, added drought protection, and
avoiding environmental pressures and court decisions about potable water imports.
In most cases, fire protection is not supplied by the secondary water supply since the
secondary water system is sometimes designed primarily for irrigation and does not have the
degree of reliability that the potable system has. Tampa determined that supplying needed
standby power for fire protection purposes was too costly. However, Tampa Water Department
determined that using reclaimed water for toilet flushing was economically feasible.
Operation and maintenance issues occur from too much or too little demand for
reclaimed water. For instance, Tampa has a much greater supply of reclaimed water than
demand, which results in stagnation and biological growth in the reclaimed water lines. Cary has
too much demand on the reclaimed water system, which can lead to shut downs. Yelm, WA
dealt with a similar problem by increasing storage capacity to ensure adequate supply during
peak demand without having to upgrade the reclaimed water plant. St. Petersburg also had to
increase storage to provide reclaimed water to more customers. Cape Coral increased reclaimed
water storage to avoid discharging into surface waters.
Demand for reclaimed water in some localities is greater than the supply. In Orlando
reclaimed water conservation measures are implemented to keep from shutting down the system
due to low system pressures. In some cases, winter storage is a challenge since irrigation
demand is seasonal, but wastewater supply is constant.

46

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Irvine Ranch Water District faces increased algae growth because of storage and Tampa
reports that it is in the process of finding a solution to reduce the operation and maintenance
issues associated with having excess water during periods of non-use. Water quality issues such
as salinity must be considered. The Irvine Ranch Water District had salinity issues due to the
fact that their water is primarily imported from the Colorado River, which eventually ends up in
the reclaimed water supply. Winter Springs is planning on adding an additional plant that would
produce a blend of reclaimed water and water from Lake Jesup in order to meet recycled water
demand. The potable water quality was negatively impacted due to increased reclaimed water
use in Redwood City, CA. But when the supply of potable water was insufficient to meet water
needs, such as in Dunedin, the installment of the reclaimed water demand offset potable water
demand sufficiently to meet potable water needs. Redwood City had a similar problem since it
had exceeded their allotted withdrawals prior to the use of reclaimed water.
Rules and regulations regarding reclaimed water, whether state or local standards, inhibit
the development of certain types of reclaimed water use. For instance the rules and regulations
study revealed that the State of Arizona has five classifications for reclaimed water with
corresponding levels of quality and permitted uses (AAC, 2008). In order to use reclaimed water
for fire protection systems and toilet flushing the use of Class A reclaimed water, the most
stringent classification, is the minimum requirement (AAC, 2008). For instance, many entities
prefer not to provide reclaimed water use for indoor residential uses such as toilet flushing.
Commercial uses such as indoor fire protection are unpopular uses due to stringent regulatory
requirements. Livermore, CA currently uses reclaimed water for indoor fire sprinklers but rigid
inspection and testing requirements from state health department gave the City a reason to quit
using recycled water for indoor fire protection. As stated earlier in this proposal, Tampa
determined that reuse for toilet flushing to be feasible.
Several utilities began using reclaimed water or expanding their existing reclaimed water
system in order to meet state mandates. For instance, Eustis, FL began using reclaimed water in
order to meet the “alternative water incentive” mandated by the local water management district.
Winter Springs, FL began expanding their reclaimed water system due to the St. Johns River
Water Management District’s mandating a groundwater withdrawal reduction. Santa Rosa is
under a zero discharge requirement which necessitated reuse. Some entities found it to be
necessary to use reclaimed water for uncommon applications in order to meet certain
requirements. Redwood City uses reclaimed water for urinal flushing, internal cooling, towers,
and other applications to meet the Reclaimed Water Use Ordinance.
Several pitfalls identified in the literature review were verified by the case studies. For
instance, the viability of a reclaimed water project might be adversely affected by projected
demands that did not materialize. Tampa, Florida, is facing the reality that a few thousand of the
residents that committed to hooking up to the reclaimed water system, prior to its construction,
and did not hook up when it was completed.

47

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of the study was to support the goals of USEPA’s plan for “Innovation and
Research for Water Infrastructure for the 21st Century” by providing a retrospective assessment
of the performance of dual water systems. The USEPA plan identified dual water systems as a
potential strategy to improve water safety while addressing the gap between needed and current
funding levels.
The project results showed that improving water safety and addressing the infrastructure
investment gap are not the primary goals being pursued by agencies with dual water systems.
Most non-potable systems are being implemented in the U.S. for the distribution of reclaimed
water to pursue two other goals. One of these is to extend the reach of scarce water supplies,
particularly in drier climates or in coastal areas, and the other is to offer more options for the
management and disposal of wastewater. Viewed this way, dual systems increase the options in
the portfolios of water resources management but are not being implemented primarily as
strategies to improve water safety and manage infrastructure cost. For the future, the goal to
extend the reach of scarce water supplies seems to be emerging as the primary reason to
implement recycled water systems.
The USEPA plan sought information on the extent to which older distribution systems
might be retrofitted by installing newer and small lines for potable water distribution and
retaining the older and larger pipelines for distribution of bulk water. While only a few agencies
are retrofitting old systems in this way, there is some activity in new developments and some
retrofits of some older, developed areas (such as development of the former Stapleton Airport
site in Denver). The USEPA (2004) guidelines for water reuse reached the same conclusion, and
reported that the study did not identify any distribution systems that had been retrofitted to add
small potable lines (although there were some new systems where the potable lines could be
smaller (such as in Odessa, Texas and Rouse Hill near Sydney, Australia). While current activity
to retrofit older areas is very limited, this could change in the future.
Dual water systems address multiple goals, primarily to extend water supplies and
provide options for wastewater management. Given these multiple goals, their performance
must be viewed from a comprehensive perspective. In the application of dual systems, the safety
of drinking water is affected mainly by the potential for contamination from cross connections,
and the cost of infrastructure is more likely to increase than decrease due to the need to have
additional distribution pipes.
USEPA's Innovative Infrastructure Review Committee asked whether a fatal flaw was
built into this research project because if water utilities do not have money to maintain one
distribution system, why they have money to build and maintain two distribution systems? The
question is insightful as to the distinction between building new, smaller diameter potable lines
and the current actual situation of building new lines for reclaimed water. Its answer is that
construction of small lines for potable water is not happening on any significant scale, but a
number of utilities are constructing dual systems to distribute reclaimed water in response to
other compelling needs.

49

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

INVENTORY AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

No inventory exists for the total mileage of non-potable water pipes in the U.S., but it is
clearly a very small percentage of the some two million miles of potable piping (USEPA,
2010b). The inventory in Appendix A of the report shows some 335 systems in the U.S. at
various stages of development, with mileage of non-potable piping ranging from very few miles
up to the mileages in large districts, such as the Irvine Ranch Water District, which has some 300
miles of pipeline and Cape Coral, with about 600 miles of pipeline. The pipeline mileages in the
inventory are inexact, but the average value among the case studies is about 80 miles of pipeline.
This would be higher than the average among all systems as the project included the largest
systems among its case studies.
According to a report completed by the WateReuse Foundation (2007), there are at least
7,335 miles of reclaimed water line in the United States. However, not all of these reclaimed
water lines are part of dual water systems as defined here. The statistic provided by the
WateReuse Foundation is based on voluntary reporting and does not include all reclaimed water
systems. Based on the project’s count of systems and the research team’s estimate of the average
mileage of reclaimed water pipelines, it seems likely that the actual mileage in the U.S. is
between 10,000 and 20,000 miles of pipe, or from 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the total U.S. mileage of
water supply pipe. Most of the pipe would be in Florida or California, making their mileage
percentages higher. The numbers are imprecise but provide an idea of the order of magnitude of
this segment of the water utility industry.
A survey of recycled water production in Northern California showed production in 2001
that amounted to about 0.5 percent of national public system water use (Bischel et. al. 2010).
Therefore, on the basis of pipeline mileage and water production, recycled water systems remain
a very small part of the overall national water supply picture.
The condition of the infrastructure of dual water systems does not seem to be a major
concern at this time. Compared to potable water systems, the pipelines are relatively new, but
aging of them may occur quicker due to the water quality and other factors. There has been little
research about on corrosion and scaling or other threats to them.
The study developed a classification system to enable comparisons among systems. The
classification system has categories (see Chapter 3) of system ownership and management and
for extent of infrastructure and water production. This enables effectiveness in using resources
to be measured with an infrastructure indicator (percent recycled water line mileage to the total
system mileage) and water use to be measured with a water production indicator (percent
recycled water use compared to the total water use).
The system also enables systems to be classified as to whether they are in development
(low infrastructure or produced reclaimed water compared to the potable system) or mature (high
infrastructure and water production ratios). The effectiveness of dual water systems is improved
by tandem use with water conservation measures such as low flow toilets and landscape
irrigation automation. Water reclamation effectiveness is also enhanced by association with
other strategies in a water portfolio, such as desalination, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) and
source diversification.

50

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

OBJECTIVES OF SYSTEMS

Figure 6.1 shows a comparison of conventional and dual systems. At the top, the single
conventional system is linear and draws from a source to provide potable water, which is used
for all uses and becomes wastewater, which is disposed to the environment. At the bottom, the
dual system offers additional possibilities. It offers the possibility to cut the volume of
wastewater that must be discharged to the environment. It also offers the possibility to reduce
the volume of water needed from the source. It is possible that the potable water infrastructure
could then be downsized, depending on the situation. These new possibilities are gained at the
cost of complexity and additional capital and operational expenses.

Figure 6.1. Conventional and Dual systems

PERFORMANCE OF DUAL WATER SYSTEMS

As outlined in Chapter 4, the performance of the dual water systems was assessed in five
categories: water safety, overall effectiveness, total cost, risk and reliability, and implementation
results.

Water safety

In the first of these, the study concluded that the implementation of dual systems to
improve drinking water safety is not being pursued as a direct strategy to any significant degree
in the U.S. This strategy can be characterized as an idealized way to organize water distribution
by reducing the size of the potable line, but it has not been shown to be feasible on a widespread
basis due to financial and institutional constraints, including incentives to utilities, regulators and
customers.
Water safety due to dual systems is primarily a concern due to cross connections, either
those in public systems or in premise plumbing systems, which were not assessed in this study.
Neither the study of the literature nor the evaluation of case studies showed major public health
problems in the U.S. from the distribution of reclaimed water. This does not mean that
reclaimed water systems are free of water safety risks, but it suggests that well-managed systems
can avoid public health problems. Issues have been reported in other countries and weaknesses

51

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

in the system to report waterborne disease outbreaks in the U.S. suggest that continued vigilance
about water safety is needed when dual distribution is used.

Overall effectiveness

Three criteria were identified for overall effectiveness: to deliver higher quality potable
water at lower cost and at greater reliability; to extend water supplies and reduce impacts on
source waters; and to improve management of wastewater. An original project goal to consider
water conservation was subsumed under this category as well.
The first of these goals, to deliver higher quality potable water at lower cost and at
greater reliability, does not seem as relevant as the goals to extend water supplies and add
options for wastewater management. It can be argued that by extending supplies and developing
reclaimed water systems you are improving reliability by adding flexibility, but this does not
seem like a very strong argument. On the other hand, it is clear that dual water systems extend
water supplies and help with water conservation programs by becoming part of total portfolios of
water management. Dual water systems also offer new options to improve wastewater
management and reduce the need for and cost of wastewater treatment and disposal.

Reliability

In addition to water safety risk, utilities are concerned about reliability issues from the
standpoints of operations and long term availability of water, especially in the case of drought.
Reliability issues that were discussed in Chapter 5 include: possible lower reliability standards
for reclaimed water systems than for potable water, thus preventing use for fire protection;
different configurations for pipe systems, such as no requirement for looping; having options
available for interruptible supplies; need to provide reliable service for reclaimed water to avoid
losing customers; and adding to water reserves, thus increasing the reliability of potable supplies.
Water storage for non-potable supplies is a reliability issue because non-potable water systems
normally require seasonal storage. Although the supplies are more interruptible than potable
water, utilities do not want reliability to be low because customers rely on it.

Finance

A fair assessment of the cost of dual water systems would be the total cost of water
service with and without them. Such an assessment could factor in the avoided costs across all
sectors, including wastewater management. However, the project did not find that utilities had
prepared such rigorous accounts for their dual systems for reclaimed water. It is clear that
reclaimed water systems do add capital and operating costs. Rate-setting is difficult and a work
in progress. Some utilities must ration reclaimed water while others must work to encourage its
use. Cost accounting and rate-setting systems for reclaimed water distribution need additional
development.

Implementation results

Assessment of implementation results focuses on institutional outcomes such as strategic

advantages in meeting goals, public image and confidence, and unexpected positive or negative

52

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

outcomes from dual water systems. The institutional outcomes might occur in governance,
management and control systems, business processes, or impact on customers, for example.
Rules and regulations vary widely with regards to water quality standards and classifications,
treatment type requirements, distribution system requirements, mandatory reclaimed water use
requirements, governmental responsibilities, and statewide reclaimed water use goals, among
other differences. Positive institutional outcomes shown by the study include extending lives of
potable water systems, delaying expansion of wastewater treatment facilities, reducing peak
demands on potable water systems during dry seasons, and avoiding environmental pressures
and court decisions about water imports. Another observation was that state-local cooperation in
providing incentives for reclaimed water helps with regional management of water. Negative
outcomes focus on rules and regulations that inhibit the development of some types of reclaimed
water systems, risks in anticipating demands that do not materialize, and not being able to use
non-potable supplies for fire protection water.

FUTURE OF DUAL WATER SYSTEMS

To conclude, the focus of this study was on the distribution system for non-potable water,
rather than on the general issues of water reuse. The two subjects have distinct but overlapping
sets of issues that involve not only public health and safety but also infrastructure management,
operations and maintenance, and economics and finance.
The evolving debate over water reuse is part of the larger debates about the future of
water management in general, including the objective to keep drinking water safe, affordable and
reliable. Water reuse projects are concerned with water safety and infrastructure management,
but they also provide new options for water supply and wastewater management. Given their
diffuse objectives, the assessment of dual water systems must consider effectiveness across
several categories of total water management goals. The objectives of extending water supplies
and increasing wastewater options also enhance the protection of natural waters. The
achievement of these objectives must be considered along with whether dual water systems are
safe and whether they recover their costs.
Water reuse is increasing and interest in other non-potable sources, such as raw irrigation
water, may increase in the future. Evidence for the increase in water reuse comes from the water
reuse guidelines (USEPA and USAID, 2004), the 2008 CWNS (USEPA, 2010c), and data from
this project and its workshops. Given that the primary applications of non-potable water are to
irrigation, industrial and energy uses, the increases are primarily occurring in states with growing
population and with significant irrigation, especially in coastal areas where salt water intrusion,
surface and groundwater withdrawal limits and discharge restrictions are common.
As the U.S. grows from its present population of some 310 million toward a projected
population of over 425 million by the year 2050, existing and new water systems must be
managed with water efficiency and sustainability in mind. Dual systems for distribution of non-
potable water can be applied anywhere but will not be needed for all situations. They will also
face regulatory constraints that provide checks and balances to offset the advocacy of increasing
recycled water distribution. Uniform state regulations may help to promote better total water
management and lead to improved reclaimed water systems as part of overall portfolios of water
supply.
Given their small presence and constraints on their growth, it is unlikely that dual water
systems will become a significant percentage of all distribution systems in the near future,

53

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

although they are common in Florida and California. However, there has been enough success
with them to indicate that they can have an important future within overall urban water systems.
In addition to increasing use of water reclamation such as locating water-using industries and
energy plants near wastewater treatment plants, future dual systems might also be part of
emerging unconventional water and wastewater systems that include alternative forms, such as
zonal and point-of-entry systems. While these possibilities exist, in the many situations with
adequate source water and few issues with wastewater disposal, there would seem to be little
reason to take on the added complexity and cost of dual water systems. Comprehensive policies
are needed to enable dual water systems to continue to help with wastewater management and
add options to utility portfolios for total water management.

54

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 REFERENCES

American Water Works Association. 2000. Manual of Practice M1 Principles of Water Rates,
Fees and Charges 5th Edition.
American Water Works Association. 2001. Dawn of the Replacement Era. Washington DC.
American Water Works Association. 2005. Manual of Practice M5. Water Utility Management,
2nd Edition.
American Water Works Association. 2009. Planning for the Distribution of Reclaimed Water.
Manual M24. Third Edition. Denver.
American Water Works Association. 2010. Removing Barriers to Reclaimed Water Use.
AWWA webcast. May 26, 2010.
Arizona Administrative Code. 2008. “Title 18-Chapter 11 “Department of Environmental
Quality Water Quality Standards”. <http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/title_18/18-
11.pdf> July 5, 2010.
Asano, Takashi, Burton, Franklin, Leverenz, Harold, Tsuchihashi, Ryujiro and Tchobanoglous,
George. 2007. Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies and Applications. Metcalf and Eddy
and AECOM. McGraw-Hill.
Association of Engineering Societies. 1901. Engineering Index. Vol. 3. 1899. Engineering
Magazine. New York.
AWWA Research Foundation, and KIWA (Netherlands). 2002. Impacts of Fire Flow on
Distribution Systems. Design, and Operation, Chapter 6, pp. 133-144.
Bischel, Heather N. Luthy, Richard G., Simon, G., and Frisby, T. 2010. A survey of Northern
California water reuse experiences: Learning from past experiences to inform the future.
Brown, Craig. 2010. Coomera Cross-Connection Revisited. Water Miles.
http://watermiles.org/2010/05/05/coomera-cross-connection-revisited/ March 12, 2011.
City of Oviedo. 2009. "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report".
<http://www.cityofoviedo.net/files/file/2009%20CITY%20OF%20OVIEDO%20FL%20
CAFR.pdf>. August 11, 2010.
City of Tampa Water Department. 2009. Reclaimed Water Master Plan.
<http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Water/files/Reclaimed/RCWMP_Final_Version_Bookm
arked_June_2009.pdf>. August 1, 2010.
City of Yelm. 2005. Reclaimed Water.
http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/default.asp?dept=publicworks>. August 18, 2010.
Craun, Gunther and Calderon, Rebecca. 2001. Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Caused by
Distribution System Deficiencies. JAWWA. September. 64-75.
Digiano, Francis A., Weaver, Christopher C., Okun, Daniel A. 2009. Benefits of Shifting Fire
Protection to Reclaimed Water. Journal American Water Works Association, 101(2) 65-
74. February.
Grigg, N. 2005b. Institutional analysis of infrastructure problems: case of water quality in
distribution systems. ASCE J Mgt in Engr. 21(4)152-158.
Grigg, Neil S. 2005a. Response to Okun letter. See Okun, 2005. JAWWA. 97(6)99-101.

55

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Grigg, Neil S. 2010. Water Distribution Systems: Six Decades of Research. Journal New
England Water Works Association, March, 19-29.
Haney, P. and Hamann, C.L. 1965. Dual Water Systems. J. AWWA, 57:1073.
Johnson, Bill. 2010. E-mail. September 27 and 28, 2010.
Maeda, Masahiro, Nakada, Kiyomi, Kawamoto, Kazuaki and Ikeda, Masataka. 1996. Area-
wide use of reclaimed water in Tokyo, Japan. Water Science and Technology. 33(10-
11)51-57.
Mantovani, P., Asano, T., Chang, A. and Okun, D.A. 2001. “Management Practices for Non-
potable Water Reuse.” WERF, Project Report 97-IRM-6, ISBN: 1-893664-15-5.
National Research Council. 1995. Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance. NAE
Press. Washington
National Research Council. 2006. Drinking Water Distribution Systems: Assessing and
Reducing Risks. Committee on Public Water Supply Distribution Systems. NAS Press.
Washington.
Okun, Daniel A. 1985. Viewpoint -- Reuse: Panacea or Pie in the Sky? Journal American Water
Works Association. 77(7)26. July.
Okun, D.A. 1996. A History of Non-potable Water Reuse Through Dual Distribution Systems.
Seminar on Water Reclamation and Reuse. Sponsored by N.C Section of AWWA and
N.C. Water Environment Association. Chapel Hill, N.C. April 10, 1996.
Okun, Daniel A. 1997. Distributing reclaimed water through dual systems. JAWWA.
89(11)52-64.
Okun, Daniel A. 2005a. Designing Future Distribution Systems. Letter. JAWWA. 97(6)99-
101.
Okun, Daniel A. 2005b. Dual Systems to Conserve Water While Improving Drinking Water
Quality. Water Reuse Symposium. Denver.
Okun, Daniel A. 2005c. Dual Water Systems Can Save Drinking Water While Improving its
Quality. Environmental Engineer. December.
Raucher, R., Hagenstad, M., Cotruvo, J., Narasimhan, R., Martin, K., Arora, H., Regunathan, R.,
Drago, J., and Pontius, F. 2004. Conventional and Unconventional Approaches to Water
Service Provision. Water Research Foundation and AWWA. Denver.
Riera, John. 2010. Manager of Water and Reclaimed Water Division. Personal communication.
August 2, 2010.
Ryder, R.A. 1996. “Corrosivity and Corrosion Control of Reclaimed Water Treatment and
Distribution Systems.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water Works
Association. Denver, Colorado.
San Diego Water Department. 2009. Recycled Water Pricing Study. January 9. Distributed for
public information.
Sutcliffe, Kathleen M. and Klaus Weber. The high cost of accurate knowledge. HBR. May
2003. 75-85.
Sydney Water. 2009. Recycled Water Quality Management Plan. August 10.
Sydney Water. 2010. 2009 Annual Report Summary. http://www.sydneywater.com.au . June
25, 2010.
Sydney Water. Undated. Rouse Hill Recycled Water Plant.
Tang, S.L., Yue, Derek P., and Damien, C.C. 2007. Engineering and Costs of Dual Water
Supply Systems. IWA Publishing. London.

56

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. Waterborne Disease and Outbreak
Surveillance System (WBDOSS). http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/statistics/wbdoss/.
March 6, 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Agency for International Development. 2004.
Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/625/R-04/108. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water
Infrastructure Gap Analysis. EPA-816-R-02-020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure
for the 21st Century: Research Plan. April 30.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. Safe Drinking Water Information System.
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/sdwis_query.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. Community Water Systems Survey.
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/ogwdw/cwssvr.cfm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010c. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey: 2008 Report to
Congress. http://www.epa.gov/cwns.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Aging Water Infrastructure Research Program-
Science Advisory Board Consultation. June. Online at
<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/383FF83A1160A0C9852575E5006C0569/$File/Ba
ckground+Document-Aging+Water+Infrastructure+Res+Prog--6-30-
09+final+for+Jul+21-22+2009+Mtg.pdf> March 28, 2011.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Estimated Water Use in the United States in 2005.
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/. July 14, 2011.
United Nations Economic and Social Council. 1958. Water for Industrial Use. UN Report No.
E/3058ST/ECA/50. UN, New York.
University of North Carolina. 2010. Extending the Nation's Water Supply: Overcoming Barriers
to Innovative Water Infrastructures. Workshop report. Chapel Hill, NC. February 3-4,
2010.
WateReUse Foundation. 2007. Innovative Applications in Water Reuse and Desalination: Case
Studies 2.
Water ReUse Foundation. 2013. National Database of Water Reuse.
http://www.watereuse.org/info/nwrdb. January 18, 2013.
Wood, Rola. 2007. City of San Diego Long-Range Water Resources Plan (2002-2030).
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/pdf/lrwrplan070604.pdf>. June 24, 2010.
Ysusi, Mark A. 1999. System Design: An Overview. In: Water Distribution Systems Handbook.
Ed., Larry W. Mays. McGraw-Hill. New York, NY.

57

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
 ABBREVIATIONS

AGWR - Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling

ASR - Aquifer storage and recovery
AWWA - American Water Works Association

CCP - Critical Control Point

CDC - U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CWNS - Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
CWSS - Community Water Systems Survey

EDU - Equivalent dwelling unit

gpcd - Gallons per capita per day

HCF - hundred cubic feet

HIDRA - Hazard identification and risk assessment

IIRC - Innovative Infrastructure Review Committee

IRWD - Irvine Ranch Water District
ISO - International Standards Organization

JAWWA - Journal American Water Works Association

LVVWD - Las Vegas Valley Water District

MCM - Million cubic meters

MG - Million gallons
MUD - Municipal utility district
MWD - Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWWD - Metropolitan Wastewater Department

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC - National Research Council

O&M - Operations and maintenance

OCP - Operational Control Point

POE - Point-of-entry
POU - Point-of use

QAPP - Quality Assurance Project Plan

SDCWA - San Diego County Water Authority

SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act

59

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
TMDL - Total maximum daily load

USEPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

WaterRF - Water Research Foundation

WERF - Water Environment Research Foundation
WNID - Water not intended for drinking
WQMP - Water Quality Management Plan (Australia)

60

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

APPENDIX A: CATALOG OF DUAL SYSTEMS WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES

Entity City State

Anthem Anthem Arizona
Buckeye Buckeye Arizona
Bullhead City Bullhead City Arizona
Casa Grande Casa Grande Arizona
Cave Creek Cave Creek Arizona
Chandler Chandler Arizona
Eloy Eloy Arizona
Coconino County Flagstaff Arizona
Flagstaff Flagstaff Arizona
Fountain Hills Sanitary District Fountain Hills Arizona
Gilbert Gilbert Arizona
Glendale Glendale Arizona
Goodyear Goodyear Arizona
Grand Canyon Village Grand Canyon Village Arizona
Kingman Kingman Arizona

61

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Mesa Mesa Arizona
Northern Gila County Sanitary District Payson Arizona
Oro Valley Oro Valley Arizona
Palm Valley Palm Valley Arizona
Payson Payson Arizona
Peoria Peoria Arizona
Phoenix Phoenix Arizona
Prescott Prescott Arizona
Queen Creek Queen Creek Arizona
Rio Verde Utilities Rio Verde Arizona
Scottsdale Scottsdale Arizona
Scottsdale Scottsdale Arizona
Surprise Surprise Arizona
Tempe Tempe Arizona
Tolleson Tolleson Arizona
Tucson Water Tucson Arizona
Verrado Verrado Arizona
American Canyon American Canyon California
Angel's Camp Angel's Camp California
Angwin Angwin California
Antioch Antioch California
Atascadero Atascadero California
Bakersfield Bakersfield California
Bodega Bay Bodega Bay California
Burbank Water and Power Burbank California
Las Virgenes Water District Calabasas California
California City California City California
Calistoga Calistoga California
Camarillo Camarillo California
Carmel Carmel California
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Carlsbad California
West Basin Water District Carson California
Castroville Castroville California
Inland Empire Utilities Agency Chino California
Chowchilla Chowchilla California
Coalinga Coalinga California
Concord Concord California
Corcoran Corcoran California
Corona Corona California
Marin Municipal Water District Corte Madera/Rafael California
Crescent City Crescent City California
Crestline Crestline California
Daly City Daly City California
Delano Delano California
Park Water Company Downey California
Dublin Dublin California
Dublin San Ramon Services District Dublin California
El Dorado Hills El Dorado Hills California

62

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

El Segundo El Segundo California
West Basin Water Recycling Program El Segundo California
Olivenhaim Municipal Water District Encinitas California
Escondido Escondido California
Fairfield Fairfield California
Ferndale Ferndale California
Fort Bragg Fort Bragg California
Fresno Fresno California
Galt Galt California
Gilroy Gilroy California
Glendale Glendale California
Goleta Goleta California
Grass Valley Grass Valley California
Guadalupe Guadalupe California
Gualala Gualala California
Hayward Hayward California
Inglewood Inglewood California
Irvine Ranch Water District Irvine California
Jamestown Jamestown California
Laguna Beach Laguna Beach California
Lakeport Lakeport California
Lancaster Lancaster California
Lemoore Lemoore California
Livermore Livermore California
Lodi Lodi California
Lompoc Lompoc California
Long Beach Long Beach California
Los Angeles Los Angeles California
Los Angeles County Los Angeles California
Metropolitan Water District Los Angeles California
Madera Madera California
Manteca Manteca California
Marin County Water District Corte Madera California
Martinez Martinez California
Marysville Marysville California
McKinleyville McKinleyville California
Mill Valley Mill Valley California
Milpitas Milpitas California
Montague Montague California
Monterey Monterey California
Monterey County Water Recycling Project Monterey California
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Monterey California
Morgan Hill Morgan Hill California
Newport Beach Newport Beach California
North Bay Water Reuse Authority Novato California
Napa Napa California
Novato Novato California
East Bay Municipal Utility District Oakland California

63

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Ojai Ojai California
Palo Alto Palo Alto California
Palmdale Palmdale California
Palm Desert Palm Desert California
Palm Springs Palm Springs California
Pebble Beach Community Services District Pebble Beach California
Petaluma Petaluma California
Pittsburg Pittsburg California
Pleasanton Pleasanton California
Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill California
Pomona Pomona California
Porterville Porterville California
Rancho Murieta Rancho Murieta California
Red Bluff Red Bluff California
Redding Redding California
Redwood City Redwood City California
Richmond Richmond California
Ridgecrest Ridgecrest California
Riverside Riverside California
Rohnert Park Rohnert Park California
Roseville Roseville California
San Bernardino San Bernardino California
San Clemente San Clemente California
San Diego San Diego California
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco California
San Jose San Jose California
Santa Clara County San Jose California
San Leandro San Leandro California
San Lorenzo San Lorenzo California
San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California
Vallecitos Water District San Marcos California
San Mateo San Mateo California
San Ramon San Ramon California
San Raphael San Raphael California
Santa Barbara Santa Barbara California
Santa Clara Santa Clara California
Santa Cruz Santa Cruz California
Castaic Lake Water Agency Santa Clarita California
Santa Maria Santa Maria California
Santa Rosa Santa Rosa California
Padre Dam Municipal Water District Santee California
Scotts Valley Scotts Valley California
Smith River Smith River California
Solvang Solvang California
Sonoma Sonoma California
South Lake Tahoe South Lake Tahoe California
St. Helena St. Helena California
Sunnyvale Sunnyvale California

64

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Terra Linda Terra Linda California
Thousand Oaks Thousand Oaks California
Tiburon Tiburon California
Twentynine Palms Twentynine Palms California
Tulare Tulare California
Union City Union City California
Upland Upland California
Ventura Ventura California
Walnut Valley Water District Walnut California
Watsonville Watsonville California
Weed Weed California
Westport Westport California
Willits Willits California
Windsor Windsor California
Yountville Yountville California
Yucaipa Valley water district Yucaipa California
Colorado Springs Colorado Springs Colorado
Denver Water Denver Colorado
Centennial Water and Sanitation District Highlands Ranch Colorado
Westminster Westminster Colorado
Project APRICOT Altamonte Springs Florida
Sanlando Water Utility Corporation Altamonte Springs Florida
Apopka Apopka Florida
Bradenton Bradenton Florida
Manatee County Florida Bradenton Florida
Southwest Florida Water Management District Brooksville Florida
Cape Coral Cape Coral Florida
Casselberry Casselberry Florida
Clearwater Clearwater Florida
Clermont Clermont Florida
Cocoa Cocoa Florida
Cocoa Beach Cocoa Beach Florida
Daytona Beach Daytona Beach Florida
Volusia County Utilities DeLand Florida
Dunedin Pinellas Florida
Edgewater Edgewater Florida
Eustis Eustis Florida
Fiesta Village Fiesta Village Florida
Fort Myers Fort Myers Florida
Lee County Utilities Fort Myers Florida
St. Lucie County Utilities Ft. Pierce Florida
Gainesville Gainesville Florida
Green Cove Springs Green Cove Springs Florida
Holly Hill Holly Hill Florida
Hollywood Hollywood Florida
Largo Largo Florida
Leesburg Leesburg Florida
Longboat Key Longboat Key Florida

65

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Marco Island Utilities Marco Island Florida
Melbourne Melbourne Florida
Miami-Dade Miami Florida
Clay County Utility Authority Middleburg Florida
Miramar Miramar Florida
Mount Dora Mount Dora Florida
Collier County Utilities Naples Florida
Pasco County New Port Richey Florida
Ocala Water and Sewer Department Ocala Florida
Ocoee Ocoee Florida
Oldsmar Oldsmar Florida
Orange County Orlando Florida
Orlando Orlando Florida
Reedy Creek Utilities Orlando Florida
Ormond Beach Ormond Beach Florida
Oviedo Oviedo Florida
St. Johns River Water Management District Palatka Florida
Palm Bay Palm Bay Florida
Palm Coast Palm Coast Florida
Palmetto Palmetto Florida
Pinellas County Utilities Pinellas County Florida
Pinellas Park Pinellas Park Florida
Plant City Plant City Florida
Pompano Beach Pompano Beach Florida
Port Orange Port Orange Florida
Punta Gorda Punta Gorda Florida
Rockledge Rockledge Florida
Sanford Sanford Florida
Seminole County Sanford Florida
Sanibel Sanibel Florida
Sarasota Sarasota Florida
St. Pete Beach St. Pete Beach Florida
St. Petersburg St. Petersburg Florida
Martin County Stuart Florida
Tallahassee Tallahassee Florida
Hillsborough County Tampa Florida
Tampa Tampa Florida
Tarpon Springs Tarpon Springs Florida
Tavares Tavares Florida
Titusville Titusville Florida
Umatilla Umatilla Florida
Vero Beach Vero Beach Florida
Venice Venice Florida
Brevard County Viera Florida
Winter Garden Winter Garden Florida
Winter Haven Winter Haven Florida
Polk County Winter Haven Florida
Winter Park Winter Park Florida

66

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Winter Springs Winter Springs Florida
Atlanta Atlanta Georgia
Gwinnett County Lawrenceville Georgia
Maui Maui Hawaii
Honolulu Honolulu Hawaii
Meridian Meridian Idaho
Decatur Sanitary District Decatur Illinois
Alafaya Utilities (Utilities, Inc) Northbrook Illinois
Wheaton Wheaton Illinois
Baltimore Baltimore Maryland
Foxborough Foxborough Massachusetts
Hopkinton Hopkinton Massachusetts
Hudson Hudson Massachusetts
Kingston Kingston Massachusetts
Wrentham Wrentham Massachusetts
Yarmouth Yarmouth Massachusetts
Turtle Run South Turtle Run South Minnesota
Henderson Henderson Nevada
Las Vegas Valley Water District Las Vegas Nevada
Cloudcroft Cloudcroft New Mexico
Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority Albuquerque New Mexico
Oneida Oneida New York
Orange Water and Sewer Authority Carrboro North Carolina
Cary Cary North Carolina
Johnston County Smithfield North Carolina
Raleigh Raleigh North Carolina
Wilson Wilson North Carolina
Newberg Newberg Oregon
Portland Portland Oregon
Woodburn Woodburn Oregon
Hilton Head Public Service District 9 Hilton Head Island South Carolina
Murfreesboro Murfreesboro Tennessee
Abilene Abilene Texas
Amarillo Amarillo Texas
Andrews Andrews Texas
Austin Austin Texas
Travis County Water Control and Improvement District 17 Austin Texas
Brownfield Brownfield Texas
Cleburne Cleburne Texas
El Paso El Paso Texas
Georgetown Georgetown Texas
Lakeway Lakeway Texas
Harlingen Harlingen Texas
Irving Irving Texas
Odessa Odessa Texas
San Angelo San Angelo Texas
San Antonio Water Systems San Antonio Texas
San Marcos San Marcos Texas

67

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District
Veribest Texas
No. 1
Hurricane Hurricane Utah
Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company Sunset Utah
The Washington County Water Conservancy District St. George Utah
Loudoun Water Ashburn Virginia
Hampton Roads Sanitation District Virginia Beach Virginia
Blaine Blaine Washington
Carnation Carnation Washington
Chehalis Chehalis Washington
Cheney Cheney Washington
Ephrata Ephrata Washington
Everett Everett Washington
Medical Lake Medical Lake Washington
North Bay North Bay Washington
King County - Renton Renton Washington
LOTT Clean Water Alliance (Non-profit corporation) Olympia Washington
Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia Washington
Olympia Olympia Washington
Royal City Royal City Washington
King County Wastewater Treatment Division Seattle Washington
Brightwater Reclaimed Water System Seattle Washington
Sequim Sequim Washington
Sunland Water and Sewer District Sequim Washington
Mason County - North Base/ Case Inlet Shelton Washington
Shelton Shelton Washington
Snoqualmie Snoqualmie Washington
Tenino Tenino Washington
Tukwila City Tukwila City Washington
Walla Walla Walla Walla Washington
King County – West Point West Point Washington
Yelm Yelm Washington

68

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 APPENDIX B: CATALOG OF DUAL SYSTEMS OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES

The systems listed do not represent all instances of dual water distribution and/or
reclaimed water outside of the U.S. but comprise a sample list of systems identified during
the project.

Entity City Country

Adelaide Adelaide Australia
Bolivar Australia
Brisbane Brisbane Australia
Caboolture Caboolture Australia
Goulburn Valley Goulburn Valley Australia
Gibson Island and Luggage Point WWTP Australia
Mawson Lakes Australia
Melbourne Water Melbourne Australia
New Haven Australia
Shoalhaven Heads Shoalhaven Heads Australia
Sydney Water/ Rouse Hill Sydney Australia
Virginia Virginia Australia
Wagga Wagga Wagga Wagga Australia
Bahrain Bahrain

69

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Flanders Flanders Belgium
Toronto Toronto Canada
Beijing Beijing China
Hong Kong Hong Kong China
Jinghua Residential Quarter of Pudong District Shanghai China
Tianjin Tianjin China
Larnaca Cyprus
Limassol Cyprus
Alexandria Alexandria Egypt
Cairo Cairo Egypt
Paris Paris France
Corfu Corfu Greece
Amsterdam Holland
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Bangalore India
Afula Afula Israel
Arad Arad Israel
Beer-Sheva Beer-Sheva Israel
Eliat Eliat Israel
Kibbutz Tzora Kibbutz Tzora Israel
Netania Netania Israel
Tel-Aviv Tel-Aviv Israel
Haifa Haifa Israel
Sicily Sicily Italy
Sardinia Sardinia Italy
Turin Turin Italy
Tokyo Metropolitan Government Tokyo Japan
Amman Zarqa Basin Amman Zarqa Basin Jordan
Jeddah Jeddah Saudi Arabia
Riyadh Riyadh Saudi Arabia
Singapore Singapore Singapore
Durban Durban South Africa
Consorci de la Costa Brava, Girona Spain
Castries Castries St. Lucia
Adra Adra Syria
Aleppo Aleppo Syria
Damascus Damascus Syria
Dera'a Dera'a Syria
Hama Hama Syria
Hassakeh Hassakeh Syria
Homs Homs Syria
Huran al-Awamid Huran al-Awamid Syria
Idleb Idleb Syria
Lattakia Lattakia Syria
Quneitra Quneitra Syria
Raqqa Raqqa Syria
Ras al-Ain Ras al-Ain Syria
Salamiya Salamiya Syria
Sweida Sweida Syria

70

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

La Soukra La Soukra Tunisia
Nigde-Bor Nigde-Bor Turkey
Konya-Kadinhani Konya-Kadinhani Turkey
Merkez Merkez Turkey
Sharjah Sharjah U.A. Emirates
Aden Aden Yemen
Hodiedah Hodiedah Yemen

71

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
 APPENDIX C: LIST OF CASE STUDIES

Entity City County State

Apopka Public Services Department Apopka Orange FL
Austin Water Utility Austin Travis TX
Burbank Water and Power Burbank Los Angeles CA
Cape Coral Utility Division Cape Coral Lee FL
Cary Public Works and Utilities
Department Cary Wake NC
Chandler, Water Distribution Division Chandler Maricopa AZ
Denver Water Denver Denver CO
Dunedin Reclaimed Water Division Dunedin, FL Pinellas FL
East Bay Municipal Utility District , Oakland Alameda/ Contra Costa CA
El Paso Water Utility El Paso El Paso TX
City of Eustis Public Utilities Department Eustis Lake FL
Gwinnett County Georgia Water
Resources Department Gwinnett County, Gwinnett GA
Irvine Ranch Water District Irvine Orange CA
Largo Environmental Services
Department Largo Pinellas FL
Las Vegas Valley Water District Las Vegas Clark NV
Livermore Water Resource Division Livermore Alameda CA
City of Olympia Public Works
Department Olympia Thurston WA
Marin Municipal Water District Corte Madera Marin CA
Ocala Water and Sewer Ocala Marion FL
Odessa Utilities Odessa Ector TX
City of Orlando Wastewater Department Orlando Orange FL
City of Oviedo Public Works Department Oviedo Seminole FL
Pinellas County Utilities Clearwater Pinellas FL
Pittsburg Public Works Pittsburg Contra Costa CA
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Raleigh Wake NC
Redwood City Public Works Services Redwood City San Mateo CA
San Antonio Water System San Antonio Bexar TX
City of San Diego Public Utilities
Department – Recycled Water Section San Diego San Diego CA
City of Santa Barbara Public Works
Department – Water Resources Division Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA
City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department Santa Rosa Sonoma CA
City of St. Petersburg St. Petersburg Pinellas FL
St. Pete Beach Public Services
Department St. Pete Beach Pinellas FL
Tallahassee Underground Utilities Tallahassee Leon FL
Tampa Water Department Tampa Hillsborough FL

73

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Tucson Water Tucson Pima AZ
Winter Springs Public Works Utility Winter Springs Seminole FL
City of Yelm Public Works Department Yelm Thurston WA

74

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 APPENDIX D: THIRTY-SEVEN CASE STUDIES

OVERVIEW – CASE STUDY REPORTS

Case study reports were prepared by the research project staff by interviewing utility
personnel and reviewing literature. Only the utility-reviewed and approved case studies are
included in this appendix. The information is presented for purpose of case analysis to determine
lessons learned and is not presented to evaluate the performance of the individual utilities.

75

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

APOPKA PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT, APOPKA, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 12/13/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: Apopka Public Services Department

Contact Person: Kevin Burgess
Title: Water Resources Operations Manager

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1990

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other Nursery
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

Has a Sensus Automated Water Meter Reading System that tracks water consumption
through a wireless meter communication that provides real-time readings and improved accuracy
(Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission, 2009).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Apopka, Florida has a population of 56,982 in the utility service area, and is located in
Orange County (City Data, 2009).

Potable Water System

76

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 The City's source of drinking water is the Floridan Aquifer from which twelve
groundwater wells draw water (Water Quality Report, 2009) which is treated at one of five water
treatment plants (Water Plants).
The City has a Water Conservation Incentive Program in which residents receive rebates
for reduced water consumption through the use of more efficient landscaping and irrigation
systems (MOEDC, 2009). Also an Apopka Conservation Award given for the first time in 2009
(MOEDC, 2009).

Reclaimed Water System

The City provides approximately 5,120 residents with 6.2 mgd of reuse water (Water
Reclamation).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There is not enough information to verify.

Provide any other pertinent information

Not available.

Principal Operational Issues

Not available.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

The City supplies approximately 6.2 million gallons of recycled water per day to about
5,120 residential customers as well as commercial customers for irrigation purposes (Water
Reclamation).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
In 2008, 62,653 linear feet of water, sewer and reclaimed pipe were installed (MOEDC,
2009).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

Potable water production cost was $5,702,200 in 2008; however it is difficult to separate
expenses for the potable and reclaimed systems (Annual Budget, 2009).

77

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
The budget for potable water production for Fiscal Year 2010 was $5,702,200 (FY 2009-
2010).

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Reclaimed water rates for residential use are based on a minimum charge of $6.03 for use
up to 6,000 gallons, and the residential rates are according to a three tier increasing block rate
structure beginning with $1.04 per 1,000 gallons.
Commercial reclaimed water rates are based on a minimum charge of $7.23 for up to
6,000, above that a two tier increasing block rate structure beginning with a charge of $1.24 per
1,000 gallons. There is a rate for contract and bulk users of $0.51 per 1,000 gallons if there is at
least 14 days of usable storage on site, and $0.78 per 1,000 or $500, whichever is more, if there
is no site storage.
Potable rates for residential users have a base charge of $6.02 and there is a four tier
increasing block rate structure beginning with $1.12 per 1,000 gallons. Commercial rates have a
base rate of $6.02 and there is a three tier increasing block rate structure beginning with $1.33
per 1,000 gallons. (Water Rates, 2009)

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes, since reclaimed water use is used for irrigation, which is a key water use.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

It is difficult to tell since reclaimed and potable revenue and expenses are not delineated.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

Due to the lack of information, it is difficult to tell.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
It is difficult to tell if the reclaimed water system is deemed necessary by Apopka. The
use of reclaimed water reduces the impacts and dependence on the Floridan Aquifer for
irrigation, thus conserving it for potable use.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City Data. (2009). Apopka, Florida. <http://www.city-data.com/city/Apopka-Florida.html>

(October 17, 2010).
City of Apopka, Florida. (2009). Annual Budget at a Glance Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
<http://www.apopka.net/components/com_docman/dl2.php?archive=0&file=QnVkZ2V0LnBkZ
g==> (October 15, 2010).
City of Apopka, Florida. "Water Plants".
<http://www.apopka.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=54> (Oct 15,
2010).

78

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

City of Apopka, Florida. (2009). "Water Rates".
<http://www.apopka.net/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=113&task=view_category&ca
tid=40&order=dmdate_published&ascdesc=DESC> (October 15, 2010).
City of Apopka. (2010). "Water Reclamation".
<http://www.apopka.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=55> (August 9,
2010).
City of Apopka, Florida. (2009). "2009 Water Quality Report".
<http://www.apopka.net/components/com_docman/dl2.php?archive=0&file=MjAwOV9DQ1Jf
MzQ4MDIwMC5wZGY=> (October 15, 2010).
Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission. (2009) “Apopka Stats”.
<http://www.orlandoedc.com/core/file.php?loc=/Solodev/clients/solodev/Enterprise%20Main/D
ocuments/EDC%20Documents/Regional%20Overview/citystats/Orange/apopka%20data%20she
et.pdf> (December 13, 2010).

79

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

AUSTIN WATER UTILITY, AUSTIN, TX

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 9/15/2010

Prepared By: Pete Rogers

Utility Information:

Utility Name: Austin Water Utility

Contact Person: Dan Pederson
Title: Reclaimed Program Manager

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated:1974
Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The utility is in the process of automating the reclaimed water pump operations.
2. One of the reclaimed water tanks is eco-friendly. It harvests rainwater (from the
roof) and uses solar energy to power some of its operations.
3. Property owners are required for pay for their backflow preventor and yearly
cross-connection testing.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Austin is the state capital and fourth largest city in Texas with a population of 780,000
(Austin City Connection, 2010). Water, reclaimed, and wastewater services are managed by the
Austin Water Utility whereas the City’s stormwater system is handled by the Watershed
Protection department. The utility supplies the city of Austin as well as the communities of

80

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Rollingwood, Sunset Valley, one water control and improvement district, five supply
corporations, seven utility districts, and three private utilities (Austin City Connection, 2010).

Potable Water

Austin draws water from the Colorado River where it is treated at the Davis (118 mgd)
and Ullrich (167 mgd) plants. The City’s oldest treatment plant, the Green plant, was
decommissioned in 2008 following the expansion of the Ullrich plant. The average per capita
daily water use is estimated to be 170 gpcd with a total system demand of 140 ~ 170 mgd
(Liveablecity, 2010). While the treatment demand does not exceed 60% the plants’ capacity, the
City is proactively developing plans for a new water treatment plant (Water Treatment Plant 4)
which will draw water from Lake Travis. The plant will have a first phase capacity of 50 mgd by
2014 with an expanded capacity of 300 mgd (Austin City Connection, 2010). The distribution
system is comprised of 3,651 miles of pipe with 46 pump stations covering 11 major service
zones (Austin City Connection, 2010).

Reclaimed Water

Wastewater is collected through a 2648 mile network of sewer lines and 104 lift stations
where it is treated at the major centralized plants, Walnut Creek or South Austin Regional, or at
three smaller satellite plants (City of Austin, 2003). The Walnut Creek and South Austin regional
plants each have a capacity of 75 mgd (Austin City Connection, 2010). Reclaimed water from
these plants is distributed through approximately 35 miles of “purple pipe” to several golf
courses, parks, businesses, and industries. One of the industrial users uses the reclaimed water
for a cooling tower. The City’s reclaim program manager, Dan Pedersen, estimates that between
4% and 5% of the total treated wastewater is used as reclaimed water. This amounts to
approximately 1.0 billion gallons per year.
The City’s Water Reclamation Initiative (WRI), inacted by the Austin City Council in
1992, calls for more than doubling the use of reclaimed water to 5.5 billion gallons per year.
Aside from their desire to become environmental stewards, the City also has a financial incentive
to minimize draws from the Colroado River. The Lower Colorado River Authority will charge
the City of Austin $7-$10 million per year if the city pulls more than 201,000 acre-feet from the
Highland Lakes for two consectutive years (Statesman, 2010). The WRI's goals involve the
expansion of the dual system to 130 miles of pipeline with 7 news storage tanks (Austin City
Connection, 2010). This expansion will provide reclaimed water to select residences for toilet
flushing and irrigation, parks, the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, numerous businesses,
and the University of Texas for use in their water-intensive cooling systems and irrigation
(Statesman, 2010).The pipeline to the UT campus is currently under construction at a cost of
$17.5 million.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

81

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
N/A

Provide any other pertinent information:

The City has very strict rules regarding cross connections. Property owners purchase
backflow valves and are required to pay for yearly cross connection testing. Reclaimed lines are
designated with purple pipe and special shaped valves.

Principal Operational Issues

Because of the limited size of the dual system (approximately 35 miles) the utility has not
allocated additional resources to the reclaimed line. This will change as the dual system expands
under the City's Water Reclamation Initiative (WRI). At this point in time, Austin Water is not
sure how (and who within) the utility will pay the additional costs.
As they expand landscape irrigation to residences, there is a possible discrimination issue
since lower-income households may not be able to pay the backflow valve or yearly cross
connection testing. Also, the reclaimed cost rate may exceed their subsidized potable rate.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Since the implementation of the dual distribution system in 1993, on average the City
reuses approximately 1 billion gallons of treated wastewater a year. For the year 2009, a
particularly dry year, the City reused 2 billion gallons which is equivalent to the amount of water
consumed by 9,100 homes (Austin City Connection, 2010). This represents approximately 4% of
the 51- 53 billion gallons treated by the wastewater plants per year. As the City WRI program
expands to its targeted yearly goal of 5.5 billion gallons, this percentage will increase.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The dual system is a critical component of conservation program led by the City's Water
Conservation Task Force which identified 21 recommendations which include: irrigation system
evaluations, toilet replacement programs, rebates for efficient clothes washers, educational
outreach, and rain harvesting incentives (C40 Cities, 2010). The City is also expanding the
system's storage capacity.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The entire utility budget for 2009 was $438.3 million. Due to the detailed financial
reporting (engineering services, studies, etc.), it was impossible for us to establish the budget for
wastewater services. Because of the limited size of the reclaimed system, there is not a specific
line item for this service.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
There has not been a significant additional cost in terms of O &M for two reasons: the
limited coverage of the dual system and the utility's policy in which the property owner has to

82

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

pay for their yearly cross connection testing. The City also indicated that the maintenance cost
for the reclaimed mains has been very low since the break rate for these pipes is less than 1 break
per year (Pedersen, 2010).

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

There is an increasing block rate structure for potable water consumption with four tiers.
Pricing for reclaimed water is a based on consumption (all users are metered) at a fixed rate of
$1.03 per 1,000 (Austin City Connection, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes, but in its current form the benefit is limited to saving less than 5%. As the dual
system (reclaimed water) program expands, the City is hoping that the water savings will reach
10%. These reductions are vital in reducing withdrawals from the Colorado River and
contractual water payments.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Because of the limited scope of the dual system (35 miles of reclaimed pipeline compared
to 3,651 miles of potable pipeline) the utility's O & M cost for the dual system has been very
limited. Their cost has also been limited by their policy in which the property owner pays for the
backflow device and yearly cross connection testing. The most difficult challenge for Austin
Water Utility has been financing the required CIP.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, there have been no reported cases of cross connection related illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes. From a community relations perspective, because Austin is a progressive city, it
shows the citizens that the utility is serious about conservation. Secondly, by reducing their
withdraws from the Colorado River, they are enabling the community to become less dependent
on "foreign" water sources while limiting their risk of excessive river withdrawals.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Austin City Connection (2010). http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/water/, (last accessed June 24, 2010).
C40 Cities (2010). http://www.c40cities.org/bestpractices/water/austin_conservation.jsp, (last
accessed June 24, 2010).
City of Austin (2003). "Strategic Water Resource Plan.",
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/vision/downloads/water_plan.pdf, (last accessed June 18,
2010).
Liveablecity (2010). http://www.liveablecity.org/knowbility/policy-research/policy-
resolutions/resolution-water/, (last accessed June 19, 2010).
Pedersen, Dan (2010). Reclaimed Program Manager. Phone call on June 24, 2010.

83

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Statesman.com (2010). "City building $17.5 million line for reclaimed water to
UT."http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/city-building-17-5-million-line-for-
reclaimed-154994.html, (last accessed June 23, 2010).

84

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

BURBANK WATER AND POWER, BURBANK, CA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 10/13/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information:

Utility Name: Burbank Water and Power

Contact Person: Shadi Bader
Title: Civil Engineering Assistant-Water Division

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other Power

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1967

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other Cooling
systems, landfill, power plant
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Implemented several water conservation measures in light of the current water

crisis including: the build out of the recycled water system, citizen education,
and working with regional agencies to influence the state legislature to develop
long term comprehensive sustainable water supply solutions for the State and
southern California (BWP, 2009). Other measures included limiting lawn
watering to three days of the week, issuing fines for water waste, and requiring
businesses to meet plumbing code standards by October 31, 2010 or face a
water use surcharges, requiring resold properties to meet specific plumbing
code efficiency standards, and having water saving programs to help residents
and businesses reduce water usage (California Water Supply: In Crisis).

85

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 2. Infrastructure replacement program which resulted in record low water losses far
below the national average. Losses are below 4% for five straight years (BWP,
2009).
3. Burbank was the first in the nation (1967) to use recycled water in place of
potable water for cooling tower use (Water Treatment, 2002).
4. Where there are recycled water tanks, Burbank uses recycled water for fire-
fighting. Recycled water from tanks provides more reliable fire protection than
using pumps.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Burbank, CA is located in Los Angeles County in southern California with a
population of about 103,000 people (City Data, 2010). The City is currently facing a water crisis
due to a seven year drought in the Colorado River Basin and the Federal Court limiting pumping
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (BWP, 2009). The State issued a Drought Declaration on
June 4, 2008 and State Emergency Proclamation on Water Supply on February 27, 2009 in order
to promote a 20 % water use reduction by 2020 (BWP, 2009).

Potable Water System:

Burbank's potable water supply comes from northern California and the Colorado River
through the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) as well as local groundwater sources (BWP,
2009). Burbank is heavily dependent on the MWD. Approximately 57.8%, or 3,920 MG, of the
City's water came from the MWD in 2009 compared to 42.2% (2,873 MG) from local production
in 2009 (BWP, 2009). Due to water shortages from the MWD, the City is implementing a
number of water conservation measures and expanding the use of recycled water in order to
reduce its dependence on the MWD (BWP, 2009). Rates are high since the State Water Supply
Allotment from the State Water Project to MWD was decreased from 65% to 40% in 2009
compared to normal precipitation years (BWP, 2009). In 2009, the total number of potable water
customers was 26,453 (BWP, 2009). The peak day demand was 29 million gallons in 2009 down
from 35.1 million gallons in 2005 (BWP, 2009).

Recycled Water System:

Burbank Water and Power (BWP) is in the process of completing an expedited build out
of its recycled water system in order to reduce potable water demand, potable supply costs, and
enable the community to have added drought protection (BWP, 2009). Over the next four years
the City plans on doubling the use of recycled water within Burbank (BWP, 2009). BWP is
facing drought, environmental and judicial decisions which are endangering its water supply and
causing potable water costs to rise (BWP, 2009). In 2009, 794 ccf of recycled water was sold
(BWP, 2009). Of the 330 million gallons of recycled water distribution over the last year, 50 %
was used for cooling tower at the Burbank Water and Power steam power plant, 30 % was for
Debell Golf Course, 10 % was used at the City of Burbank landfill, and 10 % went to other uses
(BWP, 2009). Burbank does not use recycled water for residential purposes (Baber, 2010). The
City of Burbank Public Works owns and operates sanitary sewer system and water reclamation
facility (BWP, 2009). The Water Reclamation Facility is a tertiary treatment facility, utilizing

86

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

microfiltration and demineralization processes (Water Treatment, 2002), with a capacity of 9
mgd and was upgraded in 2002 to remove ammonia (BWP, 2009).Recycled water is also pure
enough to power turbines and saves $160,000 per year compared to the old system (Water
Treatment, 2002).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
None reported

Provide any other pertinent information:

In order to prevent cross connections, multiple pressure tests are completed on both the
recycled and potable water systems when a site is converted to recycled water use (Bader, 2010).
Burbank, like other entities, uses identification tape and/or use a different color for recycled
water line to prevent cross connections. In addition, a minimum pipeline separation between
potable water lines and recycled water lines is maintained and recycled water meters are a
minimum of ten feet away from the nearest potable water meter (Bader, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. A possible potable water quality issue is the presence of Chromium VI, less than
5 ppb, in Burbank's local groundwater supply. Currently, federal and state
maximum contaminant limits are 100 ppb and 50 ppb respectively. However, the
California Department of Health Services is reviewing Chromium IV
contamination in groundwater for possible health issues, which may lead to the
MCL being lowered (BWP, 2009). The City realizes that it may need to improve
the potable water system or obtain more water from the MWD if the MCL was
lowered to less than 5 ppb.
2. The principal operations issue is keeping both the recycled and potable
identification tags. Also, when converting a site to recycled water use, the
Reduced Pressure devices are required for all potable water services, which are
very costly but help protect the potable system (Bader, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

The infrastructure replacement program resulted in significant potable water conservation
due to reducing losses which led to a lower cost of service to the community (BWP, 2009).
Water sales were reduced by 463,097 CCF or 4.9% in the 2009 Fiscal Year compared to the
2008 FY mainly due to water conservation and cooler temperatures (BWP, 2009). Recent
conservation measures implemented as a result of the water supply crisis reduced potable water
use by 11%, 173 average use in gallons per person in 2009, since 2007 (California Water Supply:

87

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

In Crisis). The State law requires a 20% drop by 2020 against a specific baseline, which is 194
gallons for Burbank (California Water Supply: In Crisis). In 2002, Burbank saved between
60,000 to 100,000 gallons of potable water per day by using recycled water (Water Treatment,
2002).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
Burbank is currently completing a build out of the recycled water system to be finished in
2013 to increase use of recycled water to more than 1 billion gallons per year (BWP, 2009).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

An overall figure was not given but Burbank Water and Power only pays for the pumping
and maintenance of the system while Burbank Public works treats the water (Bader, 2010).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Water supply expenses include purchased water, electricity to pump water, and chemicals
used in water treatment (BWP, 2009). Miscellaneous expenses include all costs associated with
water and electric utility administration, customer service, telecom services, PB programs, and
transfers to City for cost allocation (BWP, 2009).

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The charge for recycled water is 15% less than that of potable water (Bader, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes. BWP has switched several large water users, such as irrigation and industrial users,
from potable water use to recycled water use (Bader, 2010). The users include the Magnolia
Power Plant, golf courses, and City parks. The recycled water system is essential to meeting
water needs and conservation of potable water. The state of California mandated that the state
conserve 20% of the potable by 2020 and as of June 2010, Burbank has achieved that goal
(Bader, 2010).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Having the recycled water system is a reasonable thing to do since BWP does not have to
buy the recycled water, as opposed to potable water. Instead of discharging water into the Pacific
Ocean, BWP receives sales revenue from recycled water. However, the new recycled water
infrastructure requires loans (Bader, 2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, there are no reported cases of cross connections or associated illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, the recycled water system played a vital role in reducing the potable water demand
and meeting the state mandated goal of 20% potable water reduction.

88

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City Data. (2010). "Burbank California". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Burbank-

California.html> (August 24, 2010)
City of Burbank Water and Power. (2009). "2008-2009 Annual Report".
<http://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/download/BWPAnnualReport_0809.pdf>
(August 20, 2010).
Bader, Shadi. Civil Engineering Assistant-Water Division. E-mail. September 29, 2010.
Bader, Shadi. Civil Engineering Assistant-Water Division. E-mail. September 30, 2010.

89

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CAPE CORAL UTILITY DIVISION, CAPE CORAL, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 6/15/2010

Utility Information

Utility Name: Cape Coral Utility Division

Contact Person: Brian Fenske
Title: Superintendent

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1992

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The City has a freshwater canal system which provides additional irrigation
water.
2. The utility uses reverse osmosis (RO) plants to address high salinity found in
the deep aquifer.
3. The City has sufficient storage to avoid surface water discharges. This makes
use of all the reclaimed water and saves on treatment cost.

Principal Operational Issues

1. High salinity associated with the deep aquifer.

2. Concern that excess aquifer withdrawals would increase salinity (saltwater
intrusion) resulting in higher RO treatment costs.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

90

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Cape Coral is the largest city in southwest Florida with an estimated population of over
167,000 (Cape Coral Facts, 2010). Water, reclaimed, and wastewater services are managed by
the City’s utilities division which is divided into three sections: collection/distribution, water
production, and water reclamation. Cape Coral’s stormwater and canal infrastructure is managed
by a separate division.

Potable Water

The City’s drinking water comes from a series of 33 wells that extract brackish
groundwater from the Lower Hawthorn Aquifer. Drinking water is treated using a recently
expanded 18 MGD Reverse Osmosis (RO) plant located in southwestern part of the City and a
newly constructed RO facility (12 mgd) located in the north. The average daily potable water use
is 12 mgd (Stroud and Graff, 2009), approximately 40% of the total plant capacity. There are 681
miles of potable water miles of potable water lines.

Reclaimed Water and Wastewater

Wastewater is collected through a 535 mile network of sewer lines and lift stations where
it is treated at either the Everest Parkway or Southwest Water Reclamation Facility. The Everest
plant, which utilizes a 5-stage Bardenpho treatment process, was recently expanded to 13.4 mgd.
The Southwest plant uses a 3-stage Bardenpho process and was also recently expanded to 15
mgd. Reclaimed water from these plants (referred to as rescued water) is distributed using 596
miles of a dual pipeline throughout the City as irrigation water for over 38,000 domestic
households, 17 parks and playgrounds, 11 schools, and numerous commercial buildings (Cape
Coral, 2010). Reclaimed water is also used on a limited number of fire hydrants throughout the
City (Fenske, 2010). The average daily use of reclaimed water is 21 mgd. Although water from
the Everest plant can be discharged into the Caloosahatchee River, recent improvements in the
system’s storage capacity enable the utility to avoid surface water discharges and make use of all
the reclaimed water. Both plants also have deep injection wells. In lieu of Florida’s stringent
regulations for discharges into surface water, the storage of the reclaimed water allows the utility
to save on treatment costs (Fenske, 2010).The Cape Coral system is unique in that the City’s
freshwater canal system, which includes five canal pumping stations, provides additional
irrigation water.
Water use is also controlled through City-imposed restrictions on lawn irrigation and an
increasing block rate structure for potable water consumption. Pricing for reclaimed water is a
fixed rate of $9.50 per month for residences and $0.50 per 1,000 gallons for commercial
customers. Residential use of reclaimed water is not metered.
City officials indicated that the reclaimed system requires more maintenance than the
potable system for cross connection control, reporting of leaks and/or spills, and field water
quality testing. They also indicated that they do not have sufficient personnel to enforce City-
wide watering restrictions (Fenske, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

91

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
The City reported 4 cases of potable and non potable pipeline cross connections in 2008
(Fenske, 2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

1. There were no reported illnesses associated with the cross connections.
2. Water and reclaimed water are continuously monitored and tested by the
City’s own laboratory, as required by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

A reduction in potable water consumption was achieved through the implementation of
the dual distribution system in 1992. Prior to its installation, potable water use in 1990 for a
population of 74,000 peaked at 13 mgd. With a 2010 population of over 160,000 (a 238% growth
in population from in 1990) the current potable water use is still 13 mgd (Stroud and Graff,
2009). This reduction in per capita potable water consumption is very important to the city since
they are concerned with the increased treatment costs associated with increased salinity resulting
from seawater intrusion (Fenske, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The City upgraded the reclaimed water storage capacity to ensure that all of the reclaimed
water could be stored. No effluent has been discharged into surface waters since 2008.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The Utility’s proposed operating budget for 2010 was $75,372,582 with $28,127,230
(36%) for the potable water system and $47,245,352 (64%) for the reclaimed system

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
City officials indicated that the reclaimed system requires more maintenance than the
potable system for cross connection control, reporting of leaks and/or spills, and field water
quality testing (Fenske, 2010).

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

There is an increasing block rate structure for potable water consumption. Pricing for
reclaimed water is a fixed rate of $9.50 per month for residences and $0.50 per 1,000 gallons for
commercial customers.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

92

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Yes, the dual system does an excellent job in minimizing withdrawals from the aquifer
and avoiding saltwater intrusion.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Not enough data to evaluate this. Cannot compare O & M costs before and after the dual
system installation because the demands (population and industry) have changed so much in the
past 20 years. In 2011, the Southwest WRF will not require an NPDES permit because they are
designed to be 100% reuse which result in a savings due to a reduction of required regulatory
sampling.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No since there have not been any illnesses associated with the cross connections reported.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, because it is protecting the integrity of the aquifer. Without this protection, the
aquifer could experience sea water intrusion which would make the RO plants more costly to
operate.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City of Cape Coral. (2010).

<http://www.capecoral.net/Government/PublicWorks/UtilitiesDivision_/tabid/694/langua
ge/en-US/Default.aspx>. (June 9, 2010).
City of Cape Coral Water and Wastewater Annual Report Fiscal year. (2007).
<http://ecape.capecoral.net/sirepub/cache/2/op1h2xy1i4dkai22z2yj0xv1/5673228061520
10124316683.PDF>. (June 14, 2010).
Fast Facts about Cape Coral.
<http://www.capecoral.net/Business/CityInfo/FastFacts_/tabid/58/language/en-
US/Default.aspx>. (June 9, 2010).
Fenske, Brain (2010). Superintendent of Reclaimed Water, Phone call on June 15, 2010.
Stroud, H.B., and Graff, T.O. (2009). “Cape Coral’s Approach to Water Resource Management.”
Florida Water Resource Journal, Sept 2009, 41-44.
Water Reuse Foundation (2005). “Irrigation of Parks, Playgrounds and Schoolyards with
Reclaimed Water Extent and Safety.” Alexandria, Virginia.

93

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CARY PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, CARY, NC

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 8/23/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: Cary Public Works & Utilities Department

Contact Person: Rick Jordan
Title: Reclaimed Water Coordinator

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other Garbage and

recycling, and street maintenance

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 2001 (reclaimed system)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line:
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Industrial
plants, multi-family
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Bulk Reclaimed water is available at no charge under certain conditions to

customers that transport at least 250 gallons of reclaimed water from either of
the North Cary and South Cary Water Reclamation Facilities (Reclaimed
Water System).
2. Every February, Cary shuts down the reclaimed water system for 10 days to
perform annual maintenance (Reclaimed Water System). This is referred to as
the Reclaimed Water Holiday.
3. In 2005, Cary began operating a bio solids dryer facility to provide a cost
effective and flexible bio solids reuse program. Liquid byproduct from the
North and South Cary WRFs is converted into dry BB-sized pellets for use as

94

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 fertilizer for agriculture, and is a cost effective means of waste disposal (Bio
solids Dryer).
4. Cary was the first Town in North Carolina to provide reclaimed water to
residential neighborhoods (Jordan, 2010).
5. The reclaimed systems has automatic monitoring equipment for water quality
which will automatically shut down the reclaimed system when the water
quality does not meet standards and notify system operators.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The Town of Cary consists of approximately 136,000 people and is located in Wake
County (City Data, 2009).

Potable Water System

Potable water comes from Jordan Lake and is treated at a 40 mgd capacity plant that is
jointly owned with the Town of Apex (Water Treatment). Super-Pulsator Flocculator Clarifiers
remove particles from the water and the technology requires less space than conventional
sedimentation basins (Water Treatment). Cary has the ability to receive potable water via
interconnections from other agencies during emergencies. (Jordan, 2011).

Reclaimed System

The Town of Cary is permitted to divert a total of 5 million gallons of effluent from the
two water reclamation facilities for reuse. Currently Cary uses approximately 1 million gallons
on peak days and as much as 20 million gallons monthly in the summer (Water Reclamation
System). The reclaimed water system is active April through October and about 219 million
gallons of reclaimed water was used during this time in 2010 (Jordan, 2011). The reclaimed
system also extends the life of the potable water system, saves energy and money since the
discharge into the Neuse River is reduced, and delays the expansion of the water reclamation
facilities due to decreased discharges into the Neuse River Basin (the plants have a cap on the
total amount of nutrients discharged), and reduces the peak demand on the potable system in the
dry season (Frequently Asked Questions).

North Cary Water Reclamation Plant: The NCWRF has a capacity of 12 mgd and
receives wastewater from the north side of Cary. Effluent is discharged into Crabtree Creek
(NCWRF).

South Cary Water Reclamation Facility: The SCWRF has a capacity of 12.8 mgd and
receives wastewater from the south side of Cary. Effluent not used for the reclaimed water
system is discharged into Middle Creek. In June 2001, the SCWRF started an 864,000 gallons
per day reuse system (SCWRF) which allows sites to use reclaimed water for irrigation and
cooling purposes (Reclaimed Water System).

Jordan Lake Water Reclamation and Reuse Project: The Durham County Triangle
Wastewater Treatment Plant was designed to provide reclaimed water to existing customers in

95

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

the Wake County portion of Research Triangle Park and to the Town of Cary’s Thomas Brooks
Park. Cary also planned on providing reclaimed water to currently undeveloped portions of
northwestern Cary.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There have been at least four cross connections discovered at residences in 2007, but no
associated illnesses have been reported (Capital Broadcasting Company, 2007). Afterward, the
town revised their standard specifications and details in order to clearly differentiate potable
water and reclaimed water standards. (Jordan, 2010). Additionally, in reclaimed water service
areas, water is sampled at the outside hose bib to the house at the time of the plumbing final
inspection as well as when reclaimed water service is requested. This insures proper connection
to the potable and reclaimed water services. (Jordan, 2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

Cary relies on regulations to ensure that reclaimed water is safe to use. The N.C.
Department of the Environment and Natural Resources has developed criteria and standards for
reclaimed water. Cary is required to continuously monitor and design control strategies that
ensure reclaimed water consistently meets criteria. The reclaimed system is fitted with automatic
monitoring equipment that will shut down the system and warn plant operators of the problem if
water quality does not meet the criteria. Operators are highly trained and routinely test and
monitor critical water quality parameters within the reclaimed water system to provide additional
quality assurance (Frequently Asked Questions).
All single-family residential irrigation customers are required to have an approved
backflow prevention assembly installed and tested annually. Residents have the choice of
allowing Cary to manage the annual process (Residential Backflow Prevention Assembly
Testing Program).
Cary routinely inspects 50-75 miles of the water distribution system per month with
electronic listening devices to minimize losses in the potable water system. (Water).
Cary daily monitors water quality by sampling and testing water from over 30 locations
throughout Cary and Morrisville (Annual Water Disinfecting Change).

Principal Operational Issues

1. During water sampling at residences, cross connections were discovered in

at least four relatively new residences in 2007 and the reclaimed system
was temporarily shut down as result. One of the homes reportedly had
been using reclaimed water for potable water since 2006 (Capital
Broadcasting Company 2007). The only cross connection issues
occurred in 2007, since measures were taken afterward to prevent it
from occurring again (Johnson, 2010).

96

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 2. Citizens were initially opposed to reclaimed water use in Cary, since
North Carolina receives 48 to 50 inches of rainfall every year (Jordan,
2010). Citizens did not understand the need for water conservation and
the use of reclaimed water as opposed to simply using rainwater
(Jordan, 2010). However, droughts have occurred in Cary and the
irrigation demand was enough to necessitate reclaimed water use
(Jordan, 2010). Now, there is sufficient demand for reclaimed water. In
fact, instead of people calling to be taken off the reclaimed water
system in light of 2007's cross connections, people are requesting to be
connected to the reclaimed system (Jordan, 2010). Although most of the
citizens now want reclaimed water, most of the time they are located in
areas where it is economically infeasible to connect them to the system
(Jordan, 2010).
3. A significant issue is nutrient loading from wastewater treatment plant
effluent which results in effluent needing to be diverted to the reclaimed
water system (Jordan, 2010).
4. Maintaining the chlorine residual in the reclaimed water system is another
significant issue for the reclaimed water system. Routine flushing of the
reclaim water distribution system is done to ensure that bacteria growth
does not occur (Jordan, 2010). In addition, ordinances concerning
irrigation use (rain sensor and water waste ordinances) are enforced, but
no significant violations (Jordan, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

One of the goals for the reclaimed water system is to conserve potable water and extend
the life of the potable treatment facility (Jordan, 2010). The goal was also part of Cary's goal to
reduce potable water use by 20% by 2015. (Jordan, 2010). The primary use of reclaimed water is
irrigation (Jordan, 2010), which saves a significant amount of potable water. When the reclaimed
system's first bulk reclaimed water program began in 1999, the Town of Cary was permitted to
distribute 100,000 gallons of reclaimed water per day from each of their two facilities. This was
made available to contractors, landscape professionals and even homeowners that went through
the required training to obtain bulk reclaimed water (Town of Cary, 2001). As of 2001, the south
plant was permitted to supply as much as 864,000 gallons per day for reclaimed water use (Town
of Cary, 2001).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The main goals for the reclaimed system are reducing the amount of potable water used
for irrigation, cooling and manufacturing; reducing water consumption 20% by 2015; increasing
regulatory compliance; reducing the likelihood of greater outdoor watering restrictions; fulfilling
a commitment to the Neuse River Foundation; and providing a safe, cost-effective alternative to
drinking water (Reclaimed Water System).

Economic Information

97

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?
The operation and maintenance costs for water and sewer pumping was $1,102,197 in
2009; $2,014,713 for field operations; $23,921 for pretreatment; $174,912 for water
conservation; $3,200,000 for the North Cary Water Reclamation Facility; $1,986,050 for the
South Cary WRF; and $4,173,871 for the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant (CAFR, 2009). The
total operation and maintenance costs was $14,024,027.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
The Town of Apex pays a portion of the operating costs of the Cary/Apex Water
Treatment Plant (23% of capital costs and actual usage of other costs) as 23% owner of the
facility (CAFR, 2009). Thus, the operation and maintenance costs of Cary do not reflect all the
costs involved in operating the water treatment plant.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Cary uses tiered water rates, where the water rate increases with each tier, to encourage
potable water conservation (Water Rates). Retail customers outside the City limits are charged
three times as much for water and sewer (CAFR, 2009). The reclaimed water rate has been set to
be equal to the Town’s tier 1 water use rates, which are currently $3.60 per 1000 gallons, and
there is a policy in place that the reclaimed rate would remain the same as the tier 1 water usage
rate (Frequently Asked Questions). The City of Morrisville is charged $3.87 per 1,000 gallons
for reclaimed water (CAFR, 2009).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

It is difficult to tell since the demand for reclaimed water can be as much as 20 million
gallons for summer use and a peak day can be 1 million gallons of reclaimed water use
(Reclaimed Water System).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Somewhat since revenue from water and sewer rates make up for the costs of the
reclaimed water system especially during times that reclaimed water demand is lowest (Jordan,
2010). During times of low demand, the reclaimed system still needs to be maintained and line
flushing needs to occur (Jordan 2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

Since there have been no illnesses associated with cross connections and the standards
and specifications for reclaimed water have been revamped, the dual system has not
compromised safety (Jordan, 2010).

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Since the reclaimed water system is essential for ensuring the longevity of the potable
system and potable water conservation, the dual system ensures that Cary has sufficient water
supply since it would extend the life of the potable treatment plant, aid in not exceeding nutrient

98

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

discharge limits in the Neuse River, and other reasons listed elsewhere in this report.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Capital Broadcasting Company. (2007). "Cary Shuts Down Reclaimed Water System".
<http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1659797/> (July 26, 2010).
City Data. (2009). "Cary, NC". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Cary-North-Carolina.html>
(August 31 2010).
Jordan, Rick. Reclaimed Water Coordinator. Call. August 23, 2010.
Jordan, Rick. Reclaimed Water Coordinator. Call. March 7, 2011.
Town of Cary, North Carolina. "Annual Water Disinfecting Change".
<http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Water/Annual_W
ater_Disinfecting_Change.htm> (August 1, 2010).
Town of Cary, North Carolina. "Biosolids Dryer". <http://www.townofcary.org/Departments
/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Sewer/Wastewater_Treatment/Biosolids_Dryer.htm> (August 1,
2010).
Town of Cary. (2001). "Businesses, Residents, Town Save Water, Protect Environment With
New First in State Reclaimed Water System".
<http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Administration/pio/News_Releases/news2001/
reclaimedribboncutting2.htm> (August 4, 2010).
Town of Cary. "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report".
<http://budget.townofcary.org/cafr/currentyearadopted/pdfs/TownofCary2009CAFR.pdf
> (August 1, 2010).
Town of Cary, North Carolina. "Frequently Asked Questions".
<http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Sewer/Wastewat
er_Treatment/Reclaimed_Water_System/Frequently_Asked_Questions.htm> (August 1,
2010)
Town of Cary, North Carolina. "North Cary Water Reclamation Plant".
<http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Sewer/Wastewat
er_Treatment/North_Cary_Water_Reclamation_Plant.htm> (August 1, 2010)
Town of Cary, North Carolina. "Reclaimed Water System".
<http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Sewer/Wastewat
er_Treatment/Reclaimed_Water_System.htm> (August 1, 2010)
Town of Cary, North Carolina. "Residential Backflow Prevention Assembly Testing Program".
<http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Water/Cross_Co
nnection_Control/Residential_Backflow_Prevention_Assembly_Testing_Program.htm>
(August 1, 2010).
Town of Cary, North Carolina. "South Cary Water Reclamation Facility".
<http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Sewer/Wastewat
er_Treatment/South_Cary_Water_Reclamation_Facility.htm> (August 1,2010)
Town of Cary, North Carolina. "Water".
<http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Water.htm>
(August 1, 2010).
Town of Cary, North Carolina. "Water Rates".
<http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Conservation/Wa
ter_Conservation/Water_Rates.htm> (August 1, 2010).

99

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Town of Cary, North Carolina. "Water Treatment".
<http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public_Works_and_Utilities/Water/Water_Tre
atment.htm> (August 1, 2010).

100

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CITY OF CHANDLER, WATER DISTRIBUTION, CHANDLER, AZ

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 6/26/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of Chandler, Water Distribution Division

Contact Person: Ray Dubois
Title: Water Distribution Superintendent

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1989

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Recharge,
industry
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Backflow prevention and flushing programs (Municipal Utilities-Administration,

2010).
2. Supervisory and Data Acquisition Program (Municipal Utilities-Administration,
2010).
3. Ordinance No. 2961 requires all new public recreation facilities and other new
development to use reclaimed water, or recharge water on landscaped areas of
5 or more acres.
4. Requires new residential and non-residential buildings to have water efficient
plumbing fixtures installed.
5. Leak detection program.
6. Water conservation rebate program conserved 18 million gallons of water
according to the "Department Budgets 2009-2010" report (COC, 2009).

101

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Chandler has a population of approximately 255,000 people and is located in
the Phoenix metropolitan area (City Data, 2009).

Potable Water

Chandler receives potable water from three different sources. Chandler Surface Water
Treatment Plant which treats Salt River, Verde River, and Colorado River water as well as Salt
River Project water. The plant supplied about 56% of Chandler's drinking water in 2009. 26
groundwater wells supplied about 36% of the City of Chandler's drinking water in 2009.
Chandler partnered with the Town of Gilbert for the construction of the Santan Water Treatment
Plant which supplied Chandler with 8 percent of its drinking water supply in 2009. Chandler
distributed about 20 billion gallons of potable water in the 2009/2010 fiscal year. (COC, 2009).
The potable distribution system consists of more than 1,180 miles of water main (COC, 2009).

Reclaimed Water

Chandler obtains reclaimed water from wastewater that has been filtered and disinfected
either by ultraviolet or chlorination. Reclaimed water is used for irrigating turf, parks, golf
courses, residential common areas, roadside landscaping, and non-edible crops (Water
Conservation Office, 2010). In all, the reclaimed water system consists of 63 miles of reclaimed
water main (COC, 2009).
Chandler also operates various facilities, including three water reclamation plants and a
reverse osmosis facility which also uses nanofiltration and microfiltration for groundwater
recharge. The reverse osmosis facility injected over 3 billion gallons of water into the aquifer
(COC, 2009). Collectively the three water reclamation facilities treated 8.8 billion gallons of
wastewater, of which 7.8 billion, was used for irrigation (COC, 2009).
Chandler has passed Ordinance No.2961 in 1999 concerning reclaimed water which
amended Section 1903 of the City Zoning Code "to require that when reclaimed water is
available, all new public recreation facilities and other developments with a water intensive
landscaped area of five (5) or more acres shall be watered with reclaimed water supplied by the
City either directly or from recovery wells. When reclaimed water is not available, the amount of
water intensive landscaped area utilized will be restricted according to the provisions stated in
Ordinance No. 2961" (City of Chandler Drought Management Plan, 2004). Recovery wells
consist of reclaimed water.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
Not enough information to verify.

102

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Provide any other pertinent information
Chandler conducts regular monitoring on drinking water entering the water distribution
system to determine if land uses, which would affect groundwater sources, have impacted the
source water (City of Chandler, 2010).
The Water Quality Division of the Water Utilities Department manages a backflow
prevention and flushing program (COC, 2009).

Principal Operational Issues

The main operational issue with a reclaimed water system relates to the need for storage
and recovery as a means to meet seasonal and daily supply and demand cycles. Chandler stores
reclaimed water in lakes and through recharge wells during low demand cycles and recovers
reclaimed water during high demand cycles.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Yes. The dual system conserved 1.49 billion gallons of potable water by delivering
reclaimed water for landscape irrigation. Chandler diverted 103 million gallons of reclaimed
water to Chandler Heights Recharge Facility..

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
Yes. The dual system conserved 1.49 billion gallons of potable water by delivering
reclaimed water for landscape irrigation. Chandler diverted 103 million gallons of reclaimed
water to Chandler Heights Recharge Facility..

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

Chandler breaks down the budget depending on what component of the potable system is
involved. Water distribution expenses were about $7,441,960 in the 2008/2009 fiscal year. The
Water Treatment Plant expenses were $12,291,505. Water production facilities: $5,777,740,
Santan Water Treatment Plant: $605,520 (COC, 2009).
The reclaimed system was a little more difficult to determine since not all reclaimed
water goes to customers directly, since some is used for recharge into the aquifer. Airport and
Ocotillo Water Reclamation Plants collectively cost about $10,000,746 in the 2008/2009 fiscal
year. Wastewater treatment for use at the Lone Butte Facility cost about $1,448,049 in
2008/2009 (COC, 2009).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
The cost for operating and maintaining the Reverse Osmosis Facility, which treats Intel's
computer chip campus wastewater via reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and microfiltration was
$2,558,645 in the 2008/2009 fiscal year. Water quality testing, which includes the backflow
prevention and flushing program, was about $1,814,483 (COC, 2009).

103

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:
Potable water rates increase based on the amount of water use, the size of the meter, and
the water user type. The volume charges are seasonal consisting of five summer and seven winter
months (Municipal Utilities Department 2010). Volume charges are also higher for users living
outside the city limits than for those living in the city limits (Craig Y, 2009). Using potable water
for landscape irrigation in the summer inside the city limits is $2.66 per 1,000 gallons compared
with $3.73 per 1,000 gallons (Craig Y, 2009). The rate is a flat rate.
The reclaimed water rates depend on the water usage and the type of water user.
(Municipal Utilities Department, 2010). The volume charge for landscape reclaimed water usage
is higher for users outside the city limits. The volume charge for landscape use, like potable
usage, consists of rates for the 5 summer and 7 winter months. Inside the city limits, the summer
the rate is $0.398 per 1,000 gallons compared with the $0.513 per 1,000 gallons outside the city
limits (Craig Y, 2009).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes. The dual system conserved 1.49 billion gallons of potable water by delivering
reclaimed water for landscape irrigation. Chandler diverted 103 million gallons of reclaimed
water to Chandler Heights Recharge Facility. Chandler relies on direct use of reclaimed water as
a water conservation measure. Chandler also recharges and recovers reclaimed water as a means
to meet seasonal supply and demand and to provide wildlife habitat.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

It is difficult to tell due to the limited information at this time. However, the very low
volume rate for reclaimed water use for landscaping may not make up for the cost to produce and
convey the reclaimed water. Chandler may be more concerned about conservation than having a
self-sustaining reclaimed distribution system, and the potable system may make up for the losses
due to producing reclaimed water.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

It is difficult to tell given the limited information.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future? Possibly.
Chandler is in the process of increasing its water supply, which was the goal in partnering with
the Town of Gilbert for the construction and ownership of the Santan Water Treatment Plant,
through purchasing more water whether through buying surface water from willing sellers or
excess CAP water. Chandler also plans on storing more water underground to have a stable
supply of water during droughts (City of Chandler 2010-2019 CIP, 2009). If the plan is carried
out, Chandler would be better prepared for the future.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City Data. "Chandler, AZ". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Chandler-Arizona.html> (August 31,

2010).

104

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

City of Chandler. (2010). "2009 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report".
http://www.chandleraz.gov/Content/2009WaterQualityReport.pdf (June 25, 2010)
City of Chandler Water Conservation Office. (2010). "Reclaimed Chandler's Precious Resource-
Water". <http://www.chandleraz.gov/default.aspx?pageid=425> (June 25, 2010).
City of Chandler. (2008). "Water, Wastewater, Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update".
<http://www.chandleraz.gov/Content/WaterMasterPlanUpdate_ExecutiveSummary.pdf>
(June 25, 2010).
City of Chandler (COC). (2009). "Department Budgets 2009-2010".
<http://www.chandleraz.gov/Content/Section5DepartmentBudgets.pdf> (June 29, 2010).
City of Chandler Municipal Utilities Department. (2010)."New Utility Rates".
<http://www.chandleraz.gov/default.aspx?pageid=773> (June 29, 2010)
Craig Y. (2009). "Landscape Water Options".
<http://www.chandleraz.gov/Content/Landscape_WaterRates.pdf> (June 29, 2010)
Craig Y. (2009). "Single Family Water Options".
http://www.chandleraz.gov/Content/SingleFamily_WaterRates.pdf (June 29, 2010)
City of Chandler. (2009). "2010-2019 Capital Improvement Program".
<http://www.chandleraz.gov/Content/2010-2019CIPbook_Final.pdf> (June 29, 2010)

105

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

DENVER WATER, DENVER, CO

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 7/16/2010

Prepared By: Pete Rogers

Utility Information:

Utility Name: Denver Water

Contact Person: Abigail Holmquist
Title: Recycled Water Program Manager

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 2004

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Zoo
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

Because the recycled water plant is located at the low point in the system, its operation
requires substantial pumping.
Whereas most areas serviced with recycled water were retrofitted with secondary mains,
new areas such as Stapleton and Lowry were planned and originally constructed for recycled
water use.
The focus of the recycled water program is on large irrigation and commercial
consumers.
Denver Water's water conservation program provides opportunities for small water users
to conserve water through their "use only what you need" campaign. In 2007, of the total $11.3
million spent on conservation efforts in Colorado, Denver Water spent $8 million (Denver
Water, 2010).

106

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Water reuse in the west is impacted by unique water law issues. Denver Water only has
rights to reuse water that has been transferred out of its original river basin. Reusing this
transferred water helps fulfill a 1950s water rights decree.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Potable Water

Water service for the 1.3 million residents living in Denver and the surrounding areas is
provided by Denver Water. Denver Water’s supply comes from three primary systems: South
Platte, Western Slope, and Moffat. The South Platte system collects snowmelt from the upper
South Platte River basin and stores water in six reservoirs with a combined storage of
approximately 252,000 AF (Denver Water, 2010). Water from these reservoirs travels via the
South Platte River to the Foothills (280 MGD) and Marston (180 MGD) treatment plants. The
Western Slope system collects water from the Blue River located on the west slope of the
Continental Divide where it is stored the Dillon (259,000 AF) and Williams Fork (96,000 AF)
reservoirs. Water from Dillon reservoir is pumped through the Roberts Tunnel and fed into the
South Platter River, where it is also treated at the Foothills and Marston treatment plants (Groves
et al., 2008). The Williams Fork reservoir is primarily used as an exchange facility: water taken
to service the Denver Metropolitan area through Dillon reservoir is returned to the western slope
through Williams Fork. This reservoir serves as the primary water and hydroelectric energy
supply for the western slope. The Moffat system is located north of the South Platte and Western
Slope systems. It is the smallest of the three systems providing approximately 10% of the entire
water supply (Jeffco Business Forum, 2010) and operates separately from the others. This
system’s water originates from the west slope of the Continental Divide in the upper Fraser River
basin. Water collected from the multiple tributaries of the Fraser River is pumped through the
Moffat tunnel and stored in the Gross and Ralston reservoirs (combined capacity of 52,587 AF)
where it is eventually treated at the Moffat treatment plant (180 MGD) (Denver Water, 2010).
Following the 2002 drought, Denver Water’s Board of Water Commissioners approved
an update to the 1997 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) which called for the utility to reduce water
use by 22% by 2016, develop new supplies, and recycle. In response, Denver Water has
developed an internationally recognized conservation program, proposed the Moffat Collection
System project which calls for enlarging Gross Reservoir’s storage capacity from 42,000 AF to
114,000 AF, and developed a recycled water plant in 2004 (Denver Water, 2010).

Wastewater and Recycled Water

Denver’s wastewater services area is provided by two entities: the sanitary sewer
pipelines are operated through the City’s Wastewater Management Division (WMD) and the
Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Metro District) operates the wastewater treatment plant.
The City’s WMD is also responsible for operating and maintaining the stormwater system.
Whereas the WMD’s jurisdiction is confined to Denver, the Metro District is stand-along special
district servicing 1.6 million customers in Denver, Arvada, Aurora, Lakewood, Thornton,
Westminster, and more than 45 sanitation districts (MWRD, 2010).
Approximately 140 MGD of wastewater is treated by the Metro District at the Robert W.
Hite treatment plant (capacity 220 MGD) located in northeast Denver (Metro Wastewater

107

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Reclamation District, 2010). Treated effluent is either discharged to the South Platte River,
where it comprises roughly 85% of the total river flow, or to the Recycle Plant located next to
the wastewater treatment plant (Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, 2010). The current
capacity of the recycled water plant is 30 MGD, but it is expandable to 45 MGD (Denver Water,
2010). The recycled water distribution currently includes more than 50 miles of pipe, two major
pump stations, and storage facilities (Denver Water, 2010). The focus of the program is on major
water consumers (Holmquist, 2010). Current landscape irrigation applications include more than
20 parks, 6 schools, and 4 golf courses. Commercial users include the Xcel power plant which
uses recycled water for fire suppression and water tower cooling as well as the Denver Zoo
which uses it for landscaping and animal wash down (Holmquist, 2010). At this point in time,
recycled water is not available for residential use. The utility’s website indicates that once the
planned build-out is complete, the project will supply more than 5 billion gallons every year.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
A cross connection occurred in 2006 during construction of the dual system at the Denver
Zoo. The contaminated portion was flushed and the pipe was disinfected (Sanchez, 2006). The
cross connection was isolated to a non-potable water use area and did not result in any illnesses.

Provide any other pertinent information.

Denver Water's Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control program supports
annual inspections of recycled water for customers.
Denver Water must meet all requirements outlined in the Colorado Department of Public
Health & Environment’s Regulation 84.
Denver Water treats its recycled water to the highest water quality standards outlined in
the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment’s Regulation 84.

Principal Operational Issues

Because the recycled water system is branched, rather than looped, there is less
redundancy (higher vulnerability).
Because so many of the users are large users whom were previously connected to raw
water sources, their transition to recycled water has had very little effect on the operation of the
existing potable system.
Unlike the potable system which is almost entirely gravity-fed, because the recycled
water plant is located at the low point in the system, its operation requires substantial pumping.
Since many recycled water customers are irrigators with short, high peak flow use
patterns, many infrastructure components are oversized and not used on a continuous basis.
Therefore, adding commercial and industrial customers with more continuous demands has
become a priority for the system to improve operational and infrastructure use efficiency.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

108

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:
Once build-out is complete, Denver Water is expecting the project to supply more than
5.7 billion gallons (17,500 AF) of recycled water per year. If the utility produces approximately
265,000 AF per year, this represents a savings of 6.6%. Additionally, Denver Water's
conservation program has a goal of increasing water conservation by 22% by 2016.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
Despite having a recycled system that was designed as a complete standalone system,
Denver Water has added a potable water backup in the event of a recycling plant shut down
event.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

Denver Water's 2009 O & M budget for recycled water was $3.7 million (Denver Water,
2009). Information regarding water sales from recycled water was not available.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Unlike the potable system which is mostly gravity-fed, because the recycled water plant
is located at the low spot in the system, its operation requires expensive pumping.
There are some minimal additional costs associated with annual customer inspection and
testing relating to the Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control program and the
mandatory yearly recycled water training for all customers.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Denver water uses an increasing block rate structure for potable water. Recycled water is
charged at a flat rate ($0.89 per 1,000 gallons). Recycled water rates are on average 70% lower
than potable water rates. System development charges (i.e. tap fees) are 20% lower for recycled
water taps than for potable water taps.
They offer a variety of rebates for both residential and commercial users through Denver
Water's conservation program.
The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment and Denver Water utility
imposes various water rules (e.g. implementation of best management practices, signage, and
prevention of public exposure) for recycled water customers. Denver Water also reserves the
ability to set use schedules for recycled water customers.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes, but at a limited scale. Conservation, new supply, and water recycling are the three
key supply initiatives in Denver Water's portfolio. The utility feels that it does provide a better
use of water for a small number of large-use customers. Recycling water also helps Denver
Water fulfill water rights decrees.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

109

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Yes, despite the large pumping and infrastructure build-out costs, Denver Water asserts
that the recycled water system is less expensive than developing new water sources.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No. The cross connection at the Denver Zoo was an isolated case that did not result in
any illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, especially when combined with conservation. Denver Water's conservation goal of
22% and its growing recycled water program will help the utility meet the community's future
needs.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Denver Water: About Us (2010). http://www.denverwater.org/AboutUs/. (Last accessed July 15,

2010)
Denver Water 2009 Budget (2009). http://www.denverwater.org/docs/assets/E6559DB1-BCDF-
1B42-DF264E272110FA95/BudgetBook20091.pdf. (Last accessed July 19, 2010)
Groves, D.G., Griffin, J., Hajiamiri, S. (2008) “Estimating the Value of Water-Use Efficiency in
the Intermountain West.” RAND Corporation.
Holmquist, Abigail (2010). Recycled Water Program Manager. Phone call on July 16, 2010
Jeffco Business Forum (2001). “Liquid Growth: An Update on Regional Water Supply and
Visionary Conservative Actions.” http://www.jeffco.org/pdfs/WaterForum.pdf
Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (2010). http://www.metrowastewater.com/about.asp
(Last accessed July 16, 2010)
Sanchez, F.J. (2006) “Denver Zoo: Lion’s Quarters Recycle Cross-Connection” AWWA
Rocky Mountain Section, 2006 Water Reuse Workshop, Golden, CO.

110

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CITY OF DUNEDIN, DUNEDIN, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 10/18/2010

Prepared By: Pete Rogers

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of Dunedin, Reclaimed Water Division

Contact Person: Steve Haynes
Title: Reclaimed Water Dist. Tech III

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1992

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: cemetery
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. During the dry season (Feb 1- June 30) reclaimed water is allocated to each
customer based on 0.8 inches of water per week multiplied by the effective
acreage (total acreage minus the house, pool, and driveway). There is a fine of
$2.00 per 1,000 gallons of over-used reclaimed water (City of Dunedin: Public
Works, 2010).
2. Customers are strongly encouraged not irrigate during the hours of 9 am to 6 pm
and 10 pm to 5 am daily and all day Wednesday. These periods are designated
to fill storage tanks and perform system maintenance. There is also a zone-
specific (8 zones) watering schedule.
3. Reclaimed water is billed at an inverted rate structure (established in 1992 to
encourage the usage of reclaimed water). This practice is offset by the dry
season allocation system.

111

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 4. The utility uses automatic meter reading (AMR) for both potable and reclaimed
water.
5. On an annual basis, every customer is provided with a report (hung on their door)
comparing their actual reclaimed water use versus their allotted use.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Dunedin, located 20 miles north of St. Petersburg, has an estimated
population of 36,000 (City Data, 2010). The City’s water, wastewater, reclaimed water, and
stormwater services are managed by the water, wastewater, reclaimed water, and divisions
within the Department of Public Works and Utilities.

Potable Water

The City’s potable water comes from a well field containing 26 wells which a
combination of fresh water and brackish water (City of Dunedin: RO Facility, 2010). Having
their own water source makes the system quite unique in that most communities in the area rely
on Pinellas County Utilities (PCU) for their potable water supply. Drinking water is treated at the
City’s Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment that was constructed in 1992. The plant has 9.5
MGD design capacity but is permitted for 6.2 MGD (Van Amburg, 2010). According to the City
of Dunedin’s 2009 Consumer Confidence Report, the average daily potable water use is 3.2
MGD or 67.3 gpcd. This demand is approximately 34% of the total plant capacity, implying that
the plant has ample capacity for population growth. The community’s water system is also
connected to PCU's potable system which allows Dunedin to purchase water from PCU for
emergencies.

Wastewater and Recycled Water

The Wastewater Division manages the collection and treatment of the community’s
wastewater. The collection system consists of 42 lift stations and 140 miles of sanitary sewer
mains which convey the sewage to the City’s Wastewater Facility. The plant has a rated capacity
of 6 MGD and was designed using the A20 Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) process (City of
Dunedin: Public Works, 2010). In addition to treating sewage, the plant also treats concentrate
flow from the City’s reverse osmosis water treatment plant. All effluent (for use as reclaimed
water or returned to surface water sources) is treated primary and secondary standards (Haynes,
2010). The average production of the Wastewater Facility is 3.8 MGD (Haynes, 2010).
The distribution and management of the City’s reclaimed water system is performed
through the Reclaimed Water Division. The system is comprised of 76 miles of pipeline and 4
storage tanks offering a combined storage of 5.5 MG. The system currently provides reclaimed
water for over 3,400 residential customers and 160 commercial customers (Haynes, 2010). Of
the average wastewater production of 3.8 MGD, the City reports that 2.8 MGD is used as
reclaimed water and the remaining 1 MGD is returned to St. Joseph’s Sound (Haynes, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

112

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
The only known incident occurred due to a plumbing mistake on a residential renovation
project. This occurred at the onset of the reclaimed water project and there no resulting illnesses
(Haynes, 2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

1. The City has a cross connection control program which includes annual testing
and inspection of backflow prevention devices. They also inspect drinking and
reclaimed water plumbing for each customer on an annual basis.
2. The utility has a very extensive educational program which includes television
videos and brochures that are delivered door-to-door.
3. The City also programs (free of charge) customer irrigation timers.

Principal Operational Issues

1. During the winter months, a large portion of the treated wastewater is discharged
into St. Joseph's Sound since it is not needed as reclaimed water for irrigation.
This has spurred talks with neighboring communities about methods to make
better use of this reclaimed water. The City encourages reclaimed water usage
during the winter months by using an inverted cost structure (i.e. reduced price
with increased usage).
2. The City must utilize a strict irrigation schedule (9 am ~ 6 pm and 10 pm ~ 5 am
daily and all day Wednesday) during the dry season in order to ensure an
adequate supply of recycled water.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Prior to the reclaimed water system, the City was unable to keep up with the potable
water use demand (for example, their storage tanks were often empty). The City estimates that,
since the start of the dual system in 1992, the demand for potable water has decreased from 4.85
MGD to 3.19 MGD (Haynes, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The reduction in potable water demand has reduced the operation time of the water
treatment plant considerably (Haynes, 2010).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The yearly budget for 2010 is $360,785 (Haynes, 2010).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:

113

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 There are a total of 3 three full time employees assigned to the reclaimed water system.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

There is an increasing block rate structure for potable water and an innovative dry season
allotment program (based on a depth of 0.8 inches multiplied by the effective acreage) for
reclaimed water. There is a fine of $2.00 per 1,000 gallons of over-used reclaimed water.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

In conjunction with conservation programs, the use of the dual system has reduced water
consumption by 30% since 1992 (Haynes, 2010).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Yes. The City indicated that there are significant costs savings associated with reductions
in well pumping and water treatment plant operation times. Likewise, the use of reclaimed water
also reduces the need (and costs) associated with developing additional supplies.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No. The one reported cross connection case occurred at the onset of the project (1992)
and did not result in any illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes. The dual system enables the community to keep up with the community's demand
without having to provide additional supplies (delaying system expansion). It also allows them to
consume less energy at the well pumps and water treatment plant. Lastly, reductions in well
withdrawals help maintain the integrity of the aquifer (sea water intrusion is possible in all
coastal communities).

V. REFERENCES CITED

City-Data.com (2010). <http://www.city-data.com/city/Dunedin-Florida.html> (Last accessed

August 11, 2010).
City of Dunedin: Public Works. (2010).
http://www.dunedingov.com/home.aspx?page=departments/publicworks/publicworks
(Last accessed August 12, 2010).
City of Dunedin: RO Facility. (2010). http://www2.hawaii.edu/~nabil/dunedin.htm (Last
accessed August 12, 2010).
City of Dunedin: 2009 Consumer Confidence Report. (2009).
http://www.dunedingov.com/Docs/water/waterqualityreport2009.pdf (Last accessed
August 11, 2010).
Haynes, Steve (2010). Reclaimed Water Dist. Tech III. Phone call on August 13, 2010.
Van Amburg, John (2010). Water Production Supervisor. Phone call on August 13, 2010.

114

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, OAKLAND, CA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 11/1/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information:

Utility Name: East Bay Municipal Utility District

Contact Person: Lori Steere
Title: Community Affairs Representative II-Recycled Water Program
Phone: (510) 287-1631
Email: Community Affairs Representative II-Recycled Water Program

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1971 at EBMUD's WWTP; 1984 1st external customer

Non-potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable projects
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other Industrial
processing, sports fields, street cleaning
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

The majority of recycled water customer sites are for irrigation. The Chevron refinery in
Richmond, CA is EBMUD's largest recycled water customer and uses recycled water for
industrial applications. Reclaimed water is produced at EBMUD's North Richmond Water
Reclamation Plant for use in three large cooling towers at the Chevron refinery (averaging
almost 4 million gallons per day [mgd]). In 2010, EBMUD completed construction of the
Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project onsite at the Chevron refinery;
RARE produces MF/RO recycled water for boiler makeup water (3.5 mgd) for Chevron's
manufacturing production uses. Chevron's total use of recycled water (about 7.5 mgd) offsets
potable water in a quantity sufficient to meet the indoor and outdoor water needs of 46,000 to
50,000 EBMUD customers.

115

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The East Bay Municipal Utility District is located in the San Francisco Bay area in
California and serves residents and businesses in portions of Contra Costa and Alameda counties.
The water system serves approximately 1.34 million people and the wastewater system serves
about 650,000 people (Service Area Map). Twenty cities and fifteen unincorporated
communities, of which the six largest cities are Oakland, Alameda, Berkeley, and San Leandro
within Alameda County, and Richmond and Walnut Creek within Contra Costa County
(Summary Financial Information Statement Fiscal Year 2009). The six largest cities had a
combined population of 859,774 in 2009 (Summary Financial Information Statement Fiscal Year
2009).

Potable Water System

Ninety percent of EBMUD's potable water originates from the 577-square-mile

watershed of the Mokelumne River 90 miles away in the Sierra Nevada (Water Supply). When
water demand is high, EBMUD supplements the Sierra supply with water from protected local
watersheds (2010 Annual Water Quality Report). For emergency preparedness, EBMUD has
emergency interties with other local agencies to provide back-up water supplies. In 2009,
EBMUD received 870 million gallons of treated water from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission system (2009 Annual Water Quality Report).
EBMUD's annual water consumption was 82,833 ccf in 2009 with a total of 381,728
water accounts and a service area average daily consumption of 181 mgd. The total treatment
capacity for the potable water system was 500 mgd in 2009 (Summary Financial Information
Statement Fiscal Year 2009). The potable water system consists of over 4,000 miles of pipe and
170 reservoirs (Summary Financial Information Statement Fiscal Year 2009).

Recycled Water System

EBMUD's wastewater service area incorporates only 88 square miles of its 331-square-
mile water service area. So, in order for EBMUD to have a successful recycled water program, it
must partner with other sanitation entities, with only one exception: EBMUD's main wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) in Oakland supplies the secondary effluent for the District's multi-
phased, multiple-uses East Bayshore Recycled Water Project. The EBRWP produces and
supplies tertiary-treated recycled water that currently serves portions of Oakland and Emeryville
and eventually will serve areas of Albany, Berkeley, and Alameda (2.5 mgd at build out).
Current partner agencies in EBMUD's recycled water program include: the West County
Wastewater District for Richmond area customer sites; the City of San Leandro's Water Pollution
Control Plant for EBMUD irrigation customer sites near the Oakland Airport and on Bay Farm
Island in Alameda; and the Dublin San Ramon Services District for the multi-phased, irrigation-
only San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program (2.4 mgd to EBMUD at build out, with 3.3
mgd to DSRSD). EBMUD and DSRSD signed a Joint Powers Agreement in 1995 that created
the DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA), which constructed a number of
SRVRWP recycled water facilities that are owned in partnership and that are operated and
maintained per contract by DSRSD. Additionally, EBMUD and DSRSD are responsible for

116

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

constructing, operating and maintaining certain of their own separate infrastructure required to
serve SRVRWP customers within their respective service areas (Steere, 2011).
In calendar year 2010 recycled water use was 5.3 mgd, served 56 customer sites (some
customers have multiple sites), which saved enough drinking water to serve about 34,000 people
(Steere, 2011). EBMUD used another 6.3 mgd at its main WWTP (Steere, 2011).
EBMUD's use of recycled water is necessary to help meet the District's total water needs,
and helps diversify EBMUD's water supply portfolio with a source that is virtually drought
proof.
EBMUD's recycled water applications are not unique. The cost of retrofitting existing
customer sites tends to be expensive, and EBMUD, not the customer, pays to retrofit customer
sites that the District deems cost effective to retrofit. (Steere, 2010). Much of EBMUD's service
area has been developed so opportunities to retrofit large-water use sites are limited. New
development that can be cost-effectively supplied with recycled water by EBMUD must pay the
cost to install recycled water irrigation systems.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
This was not a cross connection as defined by regulations, but a single cross connection
between two irrigation-only systems was discovered and fixed in June 2011. The potable
irrigation meter is located four blocks away from the recycled water irrigation site. This situation
likely resulted in the potable irrigation site not being included in the original cross-connection
testing. Because the potable irrigation system has a backflow prevention device on it, technically
this is not considered a cross connection according to California regulations. No illnesses
resulted and the drinking water system was not affected.

Provide any other pertinent information

Principal Operational Issues

1. March and April of 2008 together were the second driest on record. In May 2008
the EBMUD Board of Directors declared a water shortage emergency and
mandated water rationing to protect against a third dry year (East Bay Water
08). In response to EBMUD's recall of hydrant meters and potable water
rationing and prohibition for construction purposes, EBMUD quickly
developed a recycled water truck program. Additionally, the increasing use of
recycled water helped stretch the drought-impacted potable supply (Steere,
2011). Droughts are a fact of life in California, with its limited water supply
and growing population (Steere, 2010).
2. DSRSD is responsible for operating and maintaining the SRVRWP's DERWA
facilities. A few months after the reclaimed water system started up in 2006,
EBMUD customers reported having low water pressure and little water coming

117

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 out of their irrigation systems. An EBMUD investigation of its customers' sites
discovered that the problem was due to clogging of the wye strainers installed
downstream of the customers' recycled water meters as part of the EBMUD
retrofit. EBMUD found that small plastic produce stickers were the main
clogging culprit. The produce labels passed through the continuous-backwash
sand filtration system used at the SRVRWP recycled water plant during times
of high recycled water demand, when the microfiltration system is not capable
of producing a sufficient supply. DSRSD used to manually clean off temporary
screens installed upstream of the sand filtration system after the problem was
discovered. DSRSD now has installed a screening system that automates the
cleaning process (Steere, 2010).
3. EBMUD once discovered a problem with mosquitoes getting into one of its
recycled water storage tanks. Out of concern about these last two temporary
operational issues (#2 and 3) and observing a need to deal with nitrification
issues that tend to develop in recycled water storage tanks over the winter
months, DSRSD now cleans the tanks and DERWA pipeline system annually
all the way back to the recycled water treatment plant and refills with fresh
recycled water. After a few initial problems with the system shut down
procedure and cleaning process, DSRSD now contacts large water-use
customers (e.g., golf courses) to identify dates to avoid before embarking on
the annual cleaning process (Steere, 2011).
4. The treatment plant for the East Bayshore RWP underwent almost a year of start-
up testing before a variety of problems and processes were resolved and the
plant was able to reliably produce a tertiary-treated supply that was delivered
the EBRWP’s 1st external customer in April 2008. Prior to this, the recycled
water was provided to the WWTP where the occasional loss of recycled supply
was not as critical.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Fourteen percent of EBMUD’s system-wide demand was met by water rationing,
conservation, and recycling in fiscal year 2008 (East Bay Water 08). Conservation programs led
to a savings of 859,000 gallons per day in 2008 (East Bay Water 08).

How has the dual system impacted any other goals (system capacity, etc.)?
Use of recycled water in place of potable water for appropriate uses permits EBMUD to
stretch its limited drinking water supply (Steere, 2011). Recycled water expansion and other
conservations measures are due to EBMUD's need to save its limited potable supply. Since the
1990s, EBMUD's goal has been to incrementally reduce the daily consumption to 229 mgd by
2020 from the use in 1993 (Summary Financial Information Statement Fiscal Year 2009).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

118

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Water revenue was about $287.3 million in 2009. Total operations and maintenance for
water, power, etc. in 2009 was $176.6 million. (Summary Financial Information Statement
2009). Operating expenses for raw water for 2010 was $28,959,000 and was $85,970,000 for
water treatment and distribution (Biennial Budget Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Volume 1 Overview
and Operating Budget). The EBMUD Board of Directors adopted a two-year budget on June 14,
2011 that includes an operating budget for the water system of $372 million in FY12 (FY11’s
was $369 million) and $395 million in FY13 (EBMUD Sets New Budgets, 2011).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Recycled water costs are included in the operating budget for EBMUD’s water system.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

EBMUD has a financial incentive rate (20% less than the potable water rate for "All
Other Water Use" plus a seismic improvement charge for this category of use, as adopted by the
EBMUD Board of Directors for any given fiscal year) to encourage customers to use recycled
water (Steere, 2010). The rate is "fair" since recycled water customers have responsibilities (and
their associated costs) not required of potable water customers: site monitoring and reporting
among the key recycled water customer requirements. EBMUD also provides customers with
free training and other services in order to make it easy for them to use recycled water (Steere,
2010).
Potable water system rates and charges are designed to encourage conservation and
include: a water service charge (based on the size of the customer's meter), water flow charge
(amount consumed by customer), an elevation charge (if applicable), and a seismic improvement
program (SIP) surcharge. The SIP surcharge, for system-wide seismic improvements, is paid by
residential customers. Single-family residential volume (consumption) charges are in a three-tier
increasing block rate structure which in FY10 started with a Tier 1 (0-7 units) rate of $2.15 per
unit (ccf or 748 gallons/unit). Effective July 1, 2011, this basic Tier 1 single-family residential
rate increases by 6% to $2.28 per unit (100 cubic feet or ccf) in FY12 and by another 6% to
$2.42 per ccf in FY13. The "All Other Water Use" charge for potable water in FY12 will be
$2.99 per ccf, plus an SIP surcharge of 11 cents, for a total of $3.11 per ccf. The non-potable rate
in FY11 is $2.34 per ccf for all water used plus elevation charges (if applicable), but no SIP
surcharge for non-potable water customers. The non-potable rate increases 6% in FY12 to $2.49
per ccf (20% less than the $3.11 per unit cited above) and another 6% in FY13 to $2.64 per ccf.
There are private fire service rates on the potable water system that depend on the meter size.
(Water Rates, 2010 and FY12-13 Biennial Report and Recommendation of the General Manager
for Revisions to the Rates and Charges).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes. However the use of recycled water and conservation are not enough to meet
projected water demands and at times current demands (Summary Financial Information
Statement Fiscal Year 2009). EBMUD has worked to obtain supplemental water supplies. After
long legal battles ended in 2002 an agreement was reached with the City and County of
Sacramento for a joint project, the Freeport Regional Water Project. The agreement is such that
EBMUD can rely on up to 100 mgd of water from the Sacramento River during dry years. The

119

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

project was completed in 2010. The District also plans on injecting surplus water when available
into a deep, pristine local aquifer for use in the future (East Bay Water 08). EBMUD is very
aggressive in seeking state grants, low interest-rate loans, and federal and other external funds to
assist with design and construction costs of its recycled water projects (Steere, 2010).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

A strong local economy and a healthy environment both depend on adequate and reliable
water supplies. So, the cost of not having a recycled water supply available should be taken into
account. Although a very small part of every customer's water bill provides funding for the
recycled water program, this supply is necessary since it is almost impossible to get permits from
state and federal agencies to construct new reservoirs in California for drinking water supplies
(Steere, 2010). Since EBMUD takes into account various factors and has differing assumptions
that go into cost-benefit analyses when determining the economic viability of potable vs.
recycled water supplies and projects, it is difficult to compare the two water systems (Steere,
2010). Obtaining certain potable supplemental supplies can be "hugely expensive" if measured
on a per unit (or ccf) basis when compared to historic potable sources (Steere, 2010). For
potential recycled water projects, if the unit costs are in a particular range, EBMUD determines
them to be cost effective (Steere, 2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes. As with conservation and proposed supplemental supply sources, the recycled water
program is necessary to help meet EBMUD's total water demand, both in droughts and for long-
term needs (Steere, 2010).

V. REFERENCES CITED

East Bay Municipal Utility District. "Service Area Map." <http://www.ebmud.com/about-

ebmud/our-story/service-area-map> (October 9, 2010).
East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2009 Annual Water Quality Report.
<http://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/2009_annual_water_quality_report_1.pd
f> (October 7, 2010).
East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2010 Annual Water Quality Report.
<http://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/annual-water-quality-report-2010_1.pdf>
(June 28, 2011).
East Bay Municipal Utility District. Summary Financial Information Statement Fiscal Year
2009. <http://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Disclosure%202009_0.pdf>
East Bay Water 08: A Status Report on Local Water Use and Water Supplies.
<http://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/East_Bay_Water_08.pdf>
Biennial Budget Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Volume 1 Overview and Operating Budget.
<http://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/VOLUME%201%20FY10-
11%20Document.pdf>

120

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

EBMUD. "Water Supply".
<http://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/water_supply_system2003.pdf>
(October 9, 2010).
EBMUD. FY12-13 Biennial Report and Recommendation of the General Manager for Revisions
to the Rates and Charges <http://www.ebmud.com/about-ebmud/financial-
information/rates-and-charges/ebmud-sets-new-budgets>
EBMUD. "EBMUD Sets New Budgets". <http://www.ebmud.com/about-ebmud/financial-
information/rates-and-charges/ebmud-sets-new-budgets> (June 28, 2011).
Steere, Lori. Community Affairs Representative II - Recycled Water Program. Call. November
1, 2010. Updates and Corrections. June 28, 2011.

121

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

EL PASO WATER UTILITY, EL PASO, TX

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 6/30/2010

Utility Information

Utility Name: El Paso Water Utility

Contact Person: John E. Balliew, P.E.
Title: Vice President

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated:1963 (reclaimed water)

Non-potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Apartments
and townhome complexes, zoo, industrial processes, construction, roadway maintenance, car
washing, aquifer storage recharge
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Very low rate of main breaks per mile compared to other utilities.
2. Utilizes dispensing stations for reclaimed water users for uses such as construction.
3. Kay Bailey Hutchinson Desalination Plant is the largest inland desalination plant in
the world.
4. El Paso operates three arsenic removal plants in order to produce potable water with
adequate quality (EPWU Financials 2009).

Principal Operational Issues

Reclaimed water has a higher salt content than potable water and can accumulate in the
soil with time if not managed properly (EPWU Irrigating With Reclaimed Water 2007).

122

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 EPWU is vigilant about maintaining the potable water system, ranking among the most
reliable in the world. AWWA reported an average break rate of one main break per 4.2 miles of
water line, but the EPWU has one per 16.08 miles of water line (EPWU 2010).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of El Paso has a population of approximately 620,500 people and is located in
El Paso County (City Data 2009).

Potable Water

The total available potable supply in El Paso is about 150,000 AF/yr, which includes
about 5,000 AF/yr of reclaimed water (approximately 6,500 AF in 2010-2011), about 60,000
AF/yr of surface water, 50,000 AF/yr of Hueco Bolson groundwater, and about 35,000 SF/yr of
Mesilla Bolson groundwater. Surface water supply varys and El Paso largely uses increased
groundwater pumping to make up the difference. However, El Paso is encountering problems
related to declining groundwater levels and brackish groundwater intrusion. The potable water
system consists of over 2,400 miles of pipeline. The reclaimed system consists of 46 miles of
pipeline (EPWU Financials 2009).

Reclaimed water system

1. Northwest Reclaimed Water Project – was put into service in 1999, consists of 25
miles of pipeline and provides approximately 525 million gallons of reclaimed
water annually to a golf course, seven schools, nine parks, several street
parkways, condominium associations, townhomes, apartments, and residential
customers for irrigation of landscapes. The system also uses an automated
dispensing station that provides wholesale on-demand service to water haulers
for construction and other non-potable uses (EPWU Northwest Reclaimed
Water Project 2007).
2. Central Reclaimed Water Project – The project consists of several phases, the
second phase was completed in 2005 and the two phases collectively consist of
more than ten miles of pipeline, a 1 million gallon elevated storage tank,
treatment filters, a pumping station, and two permanent Dispensing Stations.
The project was designed to save over 400 million gallons of drinking-quality
water annually upon the completion of upcoming phases. The system is being
expanded to serve customers that include several schools and parks, and
provide wholesale service to Ft. Bliss. The first phase of the expansion (North
Central Project) will be completed in Summer 2011. The second part of this
first phase will include construction of a reservoir and pump station in 2012.
Various water users include parks, golf courses, schools, cemeteries, city
medians, and parkways (EPWU Central Reclaimed Water Project 2007).
3. Mission Valley Reclaimed Water Project - The Roberto Bustamante Wastewater
Plant supplies reclaimed water through 8,000 linear feet of pipe to the
Riverside International Industrial Center. The project was expanded to include

123

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 irrigation customers such as commercial sites, parks, schools, and a cemetery
(EPWU Mission Valley Reclaimed Water Project 2007).
4. Northeast Water Reclamation Project – The reclaimed water originates from the
Fred Hervey Water Reclamation plant and is treated to tertiary standards
meeting drinking water quality. The project consists of 10 miles of pipeline, 2
pump stations, several recharge wells and infiltration basins, and has a ten
million gallon per day capacity. Water available for recharge is declining as
demand for water for irrigation and industrial purposes increases. Water users
include a regional park, golf course, ranch, cooling tower for power generation,
and construction uses.(EPWU Northeast Water Reclamation Project 2007).

Potable Water System

1. Upper Valley Water Treatment Plant –Designed in order to meet the stringent 10
ppb maximum allowable amount of arsenic. The water comes from the Mesilla
Bolson, from which El Paso obtains 19% of its water. The treated water is
blended with untreated groundwater to reduce arsenic concentration. Potable
water is eventually supplied to the west side of El Paso and smaller
municipalities. The plant capacity is 30 MGD (EPWU Upper Valley Water
Treatment 2007).
2. Jonathan Rogers – Treats Rio Grande water for use by El Paso Water utilities, and
32,000 feet of pipeline to supply water to El Paso residents and colonias.
Capacity is over 60 MGD (EPWU Jonathan Rogers 2004).
3. Robertson/Umbenhauer – These two plants supply more than 40 MGD. (EPWU
Robertson/Umbenhauer 2004)
4. Kay Bailey Hutchinson Desalination Plant – World’s largest inland desalination
plant which is designed to produce 27.5 million gallons of fresh water daily
(MGD) and purifies previously unusable brackish groundwater supply. The
plant increases the El Paso Water Utilities' fresh water production by
approximately 25 percent. The plant was completed jointly with Ft. Bliss.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
More information is needed to verify this.

Provide any other pertinent information

The City of El Paso has a wellhead protection program in order to prevent the
contamination of groundwater supplies and prevents costly solutions to purifying contaminated
groundwater (EPWU Wellhead Protection 2004). El Paso also posts signs near the water wells to
notify the public of the well protection area, which is a one quarter mile radius surrounding all
public wells, including well fields (EPWU Wellhead Protection 2004). Information concerning

124

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

potential source of contaminants within the protection areas is inventories one every three to five
years (EPWU Wellhead Protection 2004). There are approximately 200 wellhead protection
areas located throughout El Paso (EPWU Wellhead Protection 2004).
All sites using reclaimed water have reclaimed water warning signs posted within the
premise (EPWU Wellhead Protection 2004). The number of signs is based on the property size,
the number of access points, and how many people access the site (EPWU Wellhead Protection
2004).
El Paso uses two types of cross-connection controls in order to protect potable water
supply:
1. Isolation cross-connection control – installing approved backflow prevention
assemblies at the customer’s drinking water system.
2. Containment cross connection control - use of an air gap and/or an approved
backflow prevention assembly at each water service connection to a
customer’s water system.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

In 1989, The El Paso Water Utilities adopted various ways to conserve groundwater such
as an increasing block rate structure, incentive programs, increased use of the Rio Grande water,
and expanding the use of reclaimed water. Groundwater pumping peaked in 1989 with the
pumping of about 80,000 acre-feet compared with pumping below 40,000 AF in 2002. However,
pumping increased in 2003 through 2004 due to a drought. But conservation proved to be
effective in 2005 when pumping was below 40,000 AF. Surface water is another significant
source of water supply and accounts for the fact that the total water demand is about 110,000
SF/yr. Due to conservation measures, the per capita water demand has reduced from about 225
gpcd in the 1970s (EPWU Present and Past Water Supplies 2007) to about 135 gpcd in 2010 as
shown in Figure 1 (EPWU Service Area Profile 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The dual system has been expanded many times and is currently in the process of being
expanded. It has enabled EPWU to reduce the potable water peak demands over time.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The total operating expenses for the potable and non-potable systems for fiscal year 2009,
or as of August 2009, was $146,374,180 and total revenue was $176,909,889 (Financials 2009).
The 2009 Annual Report 2, gives a better indication for how extensive the potable system is
compared to the non-potable system by delineating the revenue and expense of the water
compared to the reclaimed system. The revenue from the water, potable, system was
$79,844,029 compared to the $2,300,400 for the reclaimed system. The total expense for the
water and reclaimed water systems was $41,675,693 (Byram 2010).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:

125

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Investing in reclaimed water system infrastructure has a good cost benefit because “of
millions of dollars in grants from the federal government for these projects and is comparative in
costs to other viable new water supply sources” (EPWU 2010). Not to mention El Paso surpasses
1.9 billion gallons of billed reclaimed water per year (EPWU 2010).

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The reclaimed water rate is $1.24/1,000 gallons, unless otherwise specified in a
contractual agreement (EPWU Reclaimed Water Rates 2007). The base potable water rate
depends on the meter size of the customer (El Paso Financial Statistics 2009). The volumetric
rates are based on the customer's average winter consumption (AWC),that includes the previous
December, January, and February water use, and are organized by a three tier increasing block
rate structure beginning with $1.45 per CCF (Water, 2008).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Yes

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

As far as I can tell, no it has not. More information is needed.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future
Yes, due to water conservation achievements.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Byram, G. (2010). “2009 Annual Report 2”.

<http://www.epwu.org/financial/reports/2009/annual_report_09.pdf> (June 17,2010)
City Data. (2009). "El Paso, TX". <http://www.city-data.com/city/El-Paso-Texas.html> (August
31, 2010).
City of El Paso. (2007). “Reclaimed Water Rates”.
<http://www.epwu.org/reclaimed_water/r_water_rates.html> (June 15, 2010)
El Paso Water Utilities. (2007). “Central Reclaimed Water Project”.
<http://www.epwu.org/reclaimed_water/central_project.html > (June 15, 2010)
EPWU User. (2010). “El Paso Water Utilities/Public Service Board”.
<http://www.epwu.org/financial/reports/2010/Budget/Community_Profile.pdf> (June 17,
2010)
El Paso Water Utilities. (2009). “Financials 2009”.
<http://www.epwu.org/financial/reports/2009/Financials.pdf> (June 15, 2010)
El Paso Water Utilities. (2004). “Jonathan Rogers”. <http://www.epwu.org/water/j_rogers.html>
(June 15, 2010)
El Paso Water Utilities. (2007). “Mission Valley Reclaimed Water Project”.
<http://www.epwu.org/reclaimed_water/mission_valley_project.html > (June 15, 2010)

126

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

El Paso Water Utilities. (2007). “Northeast Water Reclamation Project”.
<http://www.epwu.org/reclaimed_water/northeast_project.html> (June 15, 2010)
El Paso Water Utilities. (2007). “Northwest Reclaimed Water Project”.
<http://www.epwu.org/reclaimed_water/northwest_project.html > (June 15, 2010)
El Paso Water Utilities. (2004). “Robertson/Umbenhauer”.
<http://www.epwu.org/water/r_umbenhauer.html > (June 15, 2010)
El Paso Water Utilities. (2007). “Upper Valley Water Treatment Plant”.
<http://www.epwu.org/water/UVWTPlant.html> (June 15, 2010)
El Paso Water Utilities. (2007). “Wellhead Protection”.
<http://www.epwu.org/public_info/wellhead_protection.html> (June 15, 2010)
El Paso Water Utilities (Public Service Board). (2008). "Water".
<https://www.elpasotexas.gov/econdev/water.asp> (January 4, 2011).

127

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CITY OF EUSTIS PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, EUSTIS, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 10/28/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: El Paso Water Utility

Contact Person: John E. Balliew, P.E.
Title: Vice President

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated:2003 (reclaimed)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Cemetery,
sold to other entities for golf course irrigation
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Some reclaimed water is sold to Sorrento Springs and Heathrow for golf course
irrigation (Wastewater Treatment Facility, 2010).
2. Several residential developments use reclaimed water (Johnson, 2010). Whether
or not the distribution lines were larger for the reclaimed water supply to these
developments could not be verified (Johnson, 2010).
3. The use of reclaimed water meets the City's "alternative water incentive"
mandated by the local water management district (Johnson, 2010).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Eustis has a population of approximately 19,100 people and is located in
Lake County (City Data, 2009). The Public Utilities Department is generally responsible for the

128

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

water transmission, sewer force main, reclaimed water transmission and stormwater retrofits
projects (Public Utilities, 2010).

Potable Water System

Potable water use is governed by the St. John's River Water Management District, which
has limited irrigation to twice per week, prohibited watering between 10 and 4 pm, and has
limited the amount of watering that can be done (Utility Customer Service, 2010).

Reclaimed Water System

The use of reclaimed water began in 2000 primarily to support hay crops, but beneficial
use began in 2003 when the first golf course was hooked up to the reclaimed water system
(Johnson, 2010). Eustis began the cross connection program in 2007 when residential irrigation
with reclaimed water began (Johnson, 2010).
About half of the reclaimed water used is for landscape and turf grass irrigation
(Reclaimed Water, 2007). Anyone who wishes to use it for other than the sprinkling of plants,
landscapes and turf grass must submit a request for evaluation and approval (Reclaimed Water,
2007).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
So far there have not been any cross-connections or associated illnesses noted (Johnson,
2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

Eustis has a cross connection control program which requires all sites where reclaimed
water is provided; the public potable water supply must be protected by an approved double or
dual check valve assembly. A minimum of one annual inspection by the City is required for all
customers that have reclaimed water (Reclaimed Water, 2007). Eustis also distributes pamphlets
detailing the local ordinance concerning system tampering and cross connections and other water
use information, such as water dosing and times for watering (Johnson, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. Producing and distributing reclaimed water costs more and is a "fairly new
concept" to Eustis.
2. The distribution infrastructure does not exist in most the older portions of town,
and the cost to retrofit and upgrade those areas would not be cost effective
(Johnson, 2010).

129

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

The reclaimed water system has a minor potable water conservation impact, since the
system is still in the early stages of development, only effecting a reduction of potable water use
by about 0.5 mgd (Johnson, 2010). As the reclaimed water system expands, "hopefully these
numbers will improve" (Johnson, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The reclaimed water system is expanding (CAFR, 2010).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The total expense for water and sewer operations for Fiscal Year 2009 was $6,698,303
and the total revenue was $7,080,886 (CAFR, 2009).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
The additional costs are difficult to pull out from the total cost.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Volumetric reclaimed water rates depend on the user type, whether the user is in or
outside the City limits. Residential users, outside and inside the City limits, are charged
according to a three tier increasing block rate structure. Customers outside the City limits pay
higher rates (Reclaimed Water Rates, 2010).
Commercial users pay a flat rate for volumetric usage. However, the rate depends on
whether or not the user is inside or outside the City limits, and if the user is a "larger user".
Larger users are those that use more than 100,000 per day and pay the lowest flat fee, $0.28 per
1,000 gallons (Reclaimed Water Rates, 2010).
Potable water rates also depend on whether or not the user is inside or outside the City
limits and each set is according to a four tier increasing block rate structure. Potable irrigation
rates depend on the user type, commercial or residential, and whether or not they are inside or
outside the City limits. All irrigation rates are according to a three tier increasing block rate
structure (Water Rates, 2010).
For potable water use, RV parks pay availability charges and depending on the location,
inside or outside the City limits, and pays a flat volumetric rate. Commercial user charges
depend on the location and are according to a two tier increasing block rate structure. Industrial
potable water users are charged depending on the location and according to a two tier increasing
block rate structure (Water Rates, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Since the system is fairly new, the potable water conserved has only been about 0.5 mgd,
but will probably increase as the reclaimed water system expands.

130

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Is the dual system more efficient economically?
No it is not. Producing and distributing reclaimed water is more expensive than providing
potable water. The system does not pay for itself and will take many years to recoup the monies
being utilized on storage tanks, distribution lines, pumps and hydro tanks and design costs
(Johnson, 2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since there have not been any cross connections reported nor associated illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, since the reclaimed water system is necessary in meeting projected water demands.
The use of reclaimed water was necessitated by the fact that the local water management district
has "tasked all municipalities in the region to seek out and develop alternative water sources to
meet future demands" (Johnson, 2010). Eustis conducted a study recently on alternative water
supply which indicated that the "most viable option is in the further development of reclaimed
water" (Johnson, 2010).

V. REFERENCES CITED

City Data. (2009). "Eustis, FL." <http://www.city-data.com/city/Eustis-Florida.html>

(September 22, 2010).
Johnson, Bill. (2010). E-mail. September 27 and 28, 2010.
City of Eustis, Florida. (2010). "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report".
<http://www.eustis.org/govt/2009CFR.pdf> (September 22, 2010).
City of Eustis, Florida. (2010). “Reclaimed Water Rates”.
<http://www.eustis.org/depts/rates/reclaim.htm> (September 22, 2010).
City of Eustis, Florida. (2010). “Water Rates”. <http://www.eustis.org/depts/rates/water.htm>
(September 22, 2010).
City of Eustis, Florida-Public Utilities. (2010). "Public Utilities".
<http://www.eustis.org/depts/pserv.htm> (September 22, 2010).
City of Eustis, Florida-Natural Resources. (2010). "Water Conservation and Restrictions".
<http://www.eustis.org/launch/water.htm> (September 22, 2010).
City of Eustis, Florida-Wastewater. (2010). "Wastewater Treatment Facility".
<http://www.eustis.org/depts/wastewater.htm> (September 22, 2010).
Municode. "Eustis, Florida Code of Ordinances, Chapter 94, Article V. "Reclaimed Water"'.
<http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=13820&stateId=9&stateName=Florid
> (September 22, 2010).

131

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

GWINNETT COUNTY WATER RESOURCES, LAWRENCEVILLE, GA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 2/8/2011

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information:

Utility Name: Gwinnett County Water Resources

Contact Person: Neal Spivey
Title: Water Production Division Contact

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated:2003 (RW)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Trucked for
uses such as dust control, sewer cleaning, professional chemical/pesticide applications and
concrete mixing.
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Wastewater is treated at the F. Wayne Hill Water Resource Center and treated effluent
is discharged into the Chattahoochee River via a 20 mile pipeline from which reclaimed water
customers siphon reclaimed water (Reuse in Gwinnett).
2. There are currently no residential reclaimed water customers since they would need to
install dual plumbing systems (Reuse in Gwinnet).
3. A portion of the reclaimed water treated is returned to Lake Sidney Lanier, the raw
water source (Jalla, 2011).
4. The Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center and the Coolray Stadium use
reclaimed water for toilets in addition to irrigation (Jalla, 2011).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

132

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Potable Water System

As of 2008, Gwinnett County Georgia had 233,675 potable water customers/meters,

3,399 miles of water main, 40,614 fire hydrants, and a water use of about 71.9 mgd (Department
of Water Resources, 2008). The potable system also has a raw water storage capacity of 45
million gallons. Gwinnett County obtains water from Lake Sidney Lanier.Two plants, Shoal
Creek and Lanier Filter Plants, produce potable water and produced a total of 32 billion gallons
of water in 2008 (DWR, 2008). At the end of 2008, there was 91.7 million gallons of storage
capacity in the potable water system (DWR, 2008). The County used 23,367.75 million gallons
of potable water in 2009 (Jalla, 2011).
The County is in the middle of interstate water conflicts for various reasons including: the
question of whether or not Congress authorized the Army Corp of Engineers to operate Buford
Dam, which created Lake Lanier, to accommodate water supply; the various uses of storage in
the Flint River Basins (ACF) (DWR, 2008).

Reclaimed Water System

Gwinnett County Georgia is the home of a unique reclaimed water system. Wastewater is
treated at the F. Wayne Hill Water Resource Center in Buford, GA, via a stringent 11 step
treatment process which involves double ozone disinfection and carbon filtration (FAQs) which
returns it to "an almost pristine state" (Water Reuse FAQs) before conveying it via a 20 mile
pipeline to the Chattahoochee River (Reuse in Gwinnet). In all, the reclaimed water system is
composed of 37 miles of main (Jalla, 2011). The pipeline is non-pressurized and spans an uneven
terrain, "which makes pressure also an issue for service". Reclaimed water is siphoned off of this
pipeline for service, thus, the availability for customers to have a direct connection is limited.
However, some customers utilize holding ponds for the reclaimed water and pump out of the
holding pond when needed, and the ponds are located such that no storm water runoff can enter
the pond and cause overflow (Jalla, 2011). There is a Reuse Trucking Program for those who
cannot hook up to the system directly, and they must complete an online training program, meet
vehicle requirements for transporting and operating within Gwinnett County to haul water for
irrigation (Reuse in Gwinnett). Reclaimed water customers include the Bear's Best Golf Course,
the Mall of Georgia, the Bunten Park in Duluth, and Pinckneyville Park in Peachtree Corners
(Water Reuse FAQs). Currently, there is a 72 inch reuse pipeline to convey reclaimed water from
the Hill WRC to Lake Lanier, in construction which is expected to be complete in 2010
(Waterwords, 2010). One of the listed benefits of reclaimed water is postponing treatment plant
expansions. Currently, reclaimed water customers are using over 185 million gallons of reuse
water each year (Waterwords, 2010). In 2009, about 133 million gallons of reclaimed water was
used (Jalla, 2011). Customers include public parks, private golf courses, retail malls, the
Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center, and the Coolray Stadium (Jalla, 2011). The
Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center and the Coolray Stadium use reclaimed water for
toilets in addition to irrigation (Jalla, 2011). A portion of the reclaimed water is returned to Lake
Sydney Lanier (Jalla, 2011). The Hill WRC is one of four wastewater reclamation facilities
owned and operated by Gwinnett County (Crooked Creek, Yellow River, Jackson, Jacks WRF)
and an additional wastewater treatment plant is partially owned by Gwinnett County and is
operated by another utility, Pole Bridge (DWR, 2008).

133
III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
Gwinnett County continuously samples and analyzes reclaimed water to ensure quality
before leaving the Hill WRC and at the discharge point. In about five years of testing, "no
bacteria or virus has been detected" (FAQs).

Provide any other pertinent information

Visible components of the reuse water system are painted a light purple to distinguish the
system from the drinking water supply (FAQs).
Gwinnett County requires double detector check backflow preventers to be installed on
the potable system along with a three foot air gap between the reuse system and the potable
system (Jalla, 2011).

Principal Operational Issues

1. The principal operational issue is the fact that the reclaimed water system pipeline
is not pressurized for its entire length and flows by gravity in sections which
limits customer access to areas that are geographically located in troughs where
the terrain induces hydraulic head (Jalla, 2011).
2. The principal operational issue with the potable system is that the two water
treatment plants serve four pressure zones since the elevation ranges from
1400' MSL to 750' MSL (Jalla, 2011). However, the County implemented an
Energy Management Software package that "projects system demand,
schedules pump operations, tank filling and turnover (for water quality), and
makes production plant rate changes based on system conditions and power
costs" (Jalla, 2011). The package monitors pressures and adjusts automatically
to changing conditions, "while saving more than $100K per year in power
costs" (Jalla, 2011).
3. Gwinnett receives all its source water from Lake Lanier, which is at the center of
a water dispute between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. The final resolution of
this dispute will influence future priorities of the County and reclaimed water
use (Jalla, 2011).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

On a limited basis since reclaimed water use accounts for less than 1 percent of the total
water demand in Gwinnet County.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?

134
 On a limited basis since reclaimed water use accounts for less than 1 percent of the total
water demand in Gwinnet County.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

Water production costs are approximately $540/MG; water reclamation costs average (for
four facilities) approximately $1500/MG (Jalla, 2011).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
This information is not available.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The base potable water rates depend on the size of the meter with the exception of multi-
family housing. Wholesale and retail customers are charged a flat rate for volumetric potable
water use which increases periodically. Accounts other than irrigation and builders account pay a
surcharge for potable water use depending on how much is used. Single family volumetric rates
are according to the three tiered increasing block rate structure. Volumetric rates are set
according to average usages in January, February, and March. The volumetric reclaimed water
rate is a flat rate that will increase every year until 2015, and is currently $0.93 per 1,000 gallons
(Rates Resolution, 2009).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

On a very limited basis since reclaimed water use accounts for less than 1 percent of the
total water demand.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

No, since the cost per million gallons to produce reclaimed water is about 3 times the cost
of producing potable water per million gallons.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since the cost per million gallons to produce reclaimed water is about 3 times the cost
of producing potable water per million gallons.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
No, since the cost per million gallons to produce reclaimed water is about 3 times the cost
of producing potable water per million gallons.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Jalla, Srinivas. (2011). Response as Requested by Neal Spivey. E-Mail.

Rates Resolution provided by Jalla: "Gwinnett County 2009 Water and Sewer Rate Resolution".

135
Gwinnett County Georgia. (2011). "Reuse in Gwinnett".
<http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/portal/gwinnett/Departments/PublicUtilities/WaterCon
servation/ReuseinGwinnett> (January 24, 2011).
Gwinnett County Georgia. (2011). "Water Reuse FAQs".
<http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/portal/gwinnett/Departments/PublicUtilities/WaterCon
servation/ReuseinGwinnett/FAQs> (January 24, 2011).
Waterwords. Gwinnett County Georgia. (2010). "A Water Quality Report Presented to the
Citizens of Gwinnett County".
<http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/publicutilities/pdf/waterwords_2010
.pdf> (December 15, 2010).
Gwinnett County Georgia. Department of Water Resources. (2008). "Department of Water
Resources Annual Report 2008".
<http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/DWR/pdf/FY08_AR_DWR.pdf>
(December 15, 2010).
Gwinnett County Georgia. Water Conservation. "FAQs".
<http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/portal/gwinnett/Departments/PublicUtilities/WaterCon
servation/ReuseinGwinnett/FAQs> (December 15, 2010).

136
IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT, IRVINE, CA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 9/10/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: Irvine Ranch Water District

Contact Person: Carl Spangenberg
Title: Senior Engineer, Capital Projects

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1967

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other Industrial
processes
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The treated and recycled water that is supplied by the IRWD comprises over 25
percent of the water used in the service area.
2. Most of the recycled water is used for landscape and agricultural irrigation, but it
is also used for toilet and urinal flushing in 40 dual plumbed office buildings
and as make-up water in several cooling towers.
3. There are various water conservation measures such as having a Commercial and
Industrial Water Use Efficiency Incentive Program, which consists of
awarding business and industry by paying them a certain amount of money for
saving water (IRWD Make It Your Business. To Be Water Smart); offering
water use efficiency surveys and free residential and professional landscape
workshops (IRWD Saving Water. From The Ground Up); co-funding rebates
for water conservation for residential, commercial and landscape, and

137
 industrial customers (IRWD Rebates. For One And All); offering landscape
workshops geared toward conservation (IRWD Hands On. Expert Guidance);
limiting spray head irrigation (IRWD How Often? How Long?); and
educational outreach (IRWD Resources. At Your Fingertips).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD, 2009) was established in 1961 and provides potable
water, wastewater, and recycled water services to a population of approximately 330,000. In FY
2007-2008, water deliveries were: 57,795 AF treated; 26,185 AF recycled; and 8,036 AF non-
potable untreated.

Potable System

IRWD's potable water comes from two primary sources, local groundwater and imported
water (IRWD Water Now. Secured Future). About 50 percent of the overall water supply comes
from local groundwater sources in the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and the Irvine and
Lake Forest sub-basins. In the past, almost all the water supply was imported, but now it supplies
about 20 percent of the overall water supply (IRWD Water Now. Secured Future). The water is
purchased through the Municipal Water District of Orange County from the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD), which obtains water from Northern California and the
Colorado River (IRWD Water Now. Secured Future). About 26 percent of the total supply comes
from reclaimed water and 4 percent comes from non-potable native water sources (IRWD Water
Now. Secured Future).One of the reasons for the diversified water portfolio is that the supply
that ultimately comes from the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary and the Colorado River has
come under additional environmental and other restrictions that have impaired their reliability
(IRWD Plan Ahead. Bank It Now). Potable water is disinfected with chloramines, rather than
chlorine, in order to maintain the required disinfection residual (IRWD Water Quality.
Questions? Answers).
Water Supply Measures
IRWD plans to be able to augment imported water reliability and safeguard against
imported water shortages through the Strand Ranch Integrated Water Banking Project. The goal
is to provide enough water meeting approximately 15 percent of IRWD water needs during
critically dry years (IRWD Plan Ahead. Bank It Now). IRWD also partnered with the Rosedale-
Rio Bravo Water Storage District in Kern County to construct 502 acres of groundwater recharge
ponds (IRWD Plan Ahead. Bank It Now). Groundwater wells are being constructed to be able to
pump water out of the bank (IRWD Plan Ahead. Bank It Now). Also, IRWD is in the process of
obtaining more water to add to the water bank (IRWD Plan Ahead. Bank It Now).

Reclaimed System

In Southern California, water efficiency is important and the District operates a treated
recycled water system that serves some 4,000 sites with over 300 miles of pipelines. The
numbers of recycled water connections are: 4,022 landscape irrigation; 40 commercial; 18
agricultural (including some untreated); and 2 industrial.

138
 The IRWD is a leader in the distribution of recycled water and has been studied a number
of times including in Asano, et. al., 2007. It dates the recycled water service to 1967, when the
agricultural water services started. The purpose of the recycled water system is to maximize
drinking water sources by reducing the use of potable water for non-potable uses and to
minimize the treated wastewater that is sent to a regional wastewater agency for ocean disposal
(Crook, 2004).The water complies with Title 22 of the California Department of Health
Services.IRWD has a water quality laboratory to monitor the reclaimed water.
Distribution of water to commercial users dates to 1991, when IRWD assisted with
construction of six office buildings with dual plumbing systems.IRWD considered nonresidential
buildings appropriate due to the high level of attention to prevention of cross-connections and it
had in 2005 two employees dedicated to monitoring the system for cross-connections.It also has
a group for monitoring construction and inspecting facilities for cross-connections.
Recycled water comes from the Michelson Water Recycling Plant, producing about 18
mgd (IRWD Reservoirs. Pipes. Treatment Plants), and is treated to tertiary standards (IRWD The
Vision). The IRWD, a member of agency of the South Orange County Wastewater Authority, a
joint powers authority, operates the Los Alisos Water Recycling Plant; which converts about 7
mgd of wastewater into recycled water (IRWD Reservoirs. Pipes. Treatment Plants), located in
Lake Forest under the permit issued to the SOCWA (IRWD Regulations. Rules. Policies).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
More information is needed to verify this.

Provide any other pertinent information

From Crook, 2004: Quote from Steve Bourke, Landscape Superintendent for Irvine—no
adverse effects from using recycled water for more than 30 years.
According to Title 17 of the California Code of Federal Regulations backflow prevention
devices are required at sites that use reclaimed water as well as outlines requirements for cross
connection programs (IRWD Recycled Water. Questions? Answers).
The California Department of Public Health is in charge of regulating both potable and
recycled water programs through enforcement of applicable regulations (IRWD Regulations.
Rules. Policies). The Orange County Health Care Agency oversees portions of IRWD’s recycled
water program on behalf of the Department of Public Health (IRWD Regulations. Rules.
Policies). IRWD has its own regulations for reclaimed water including requirements on the use
of recycled water, requirements to use recycled water, the design and construction of on-site
recycled water facilities, and the operation of on-site recycled water facilities (Regulations.
Rules. Policies).

Principal Operational Issues

139
 The principal operational problems are salinity and need for winter storage. Salinity is
caused by source water, the closed-loop water reclamation system, and use of self-regenerating
water softeners that add salt to sewage. IRWD passed rules to prohibit self-generating water
softeners but it was overturned in court.
The storage issue arises from synchronization of production of reclaimed water with
demand, especially for irrigation. Wastewater production peaks in winter and summer irrigation
demand is high. Finding storage sites is difficult and nutrients in reclaimed water cause algae
growth.
In general, reclaimed water systems require more maintenance than potable water
including: reservoir cleaning; corrosion of control valves due to corrosion; cross-connection
control; and reporting of leaks or spills to the health agency. Also, a water reuse program
requires vigilance and effective community outreach.

IRWD implemented the nitrification/denitrification activated sludge process at MWRP in

1997 which has significantly reduced the total inorganic nitrogen levels in recycled water that
minimizes impacts on water quality within IRWD's storage reservoirs.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

According to the IRWD, producing recycled water is an essential component of the water
supply portfolio. In fact, approximately 25 percent of the water demand is met with reclaimed
water (IRWD Innovative Approach).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
Capital expansion is planned to meet increased demands for recycled water. This includes
the Michelson Recycling Plant Phase II Expansion, with includes adding about 10 mgd of
capacity in order to meet projected water needs (IRWD Michelson Recycling Plant Phase II
Expansion).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

O&M including treatment and distribution was $6.6 million in FY 2002-2003.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Capital costs are financed through internal funding mechanisms and recovery from
property taxes and connection fees.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

For its rate structure, IRWD uses five-tiers of charges on ascending blocks with the aim
to promote water efficiency and it has an active program to assist customers in saving water.
Base recycled rate is 90% of base domestic rate or $0.68/100CF. However, savings depend on
what the reclaimed water is used for. For instance, recycled water sold for industrial purposes
such as toilet flushing, cooling towers, composting, and concrete production, is sold for 40
percent less than potable water (IRWD Recycled Water Rates, effective July 1, 2010). There are

140
added costs for recycled residential water users who reside at higher elevations, with surcharges
ranging from $0.16 to $0.42 per ccf (IRWD Recycled Water Rates. Effective July 1, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Based on water use, the dual system has extended water supplies for IRWD significantly.
This enables the District to offer more irrigation water and to fit commercial buildings with dual
systems. Recycled water reduces the need for expensive imported water. Recycled water
improves drought preparedness. Recycled water has high public acceptance, bolstered by public
outreach program.
The rate allocation has improved water conservation since the per acre consumption
dropped significantly:
"Between 1992 and 2005, the average landscape water use within the district decreased
from 4.2 acre-feet per acre per year to 1.9 acre-feet per acre per year, a 61 percent reduction.
From 2001 to 2006, irrigated area in the district increased 280 percent, but total landscape water
usage only increased 70 percent" (IRWD Reward Efficiency. Discourage Waste).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

It is difficult to tell, more information is needed in order to determine this.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, IRWD has a 35-year record of successfully and safely providing recycled water.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes it does, since it is essential for water conservation purposes and a large portion of the
water demand is met with reclaimed water. Incentives for reclaimed water use include: extending
drinking water supplies, reducing the need for additional potable water facilities, reducing the
amount of treated wastewater discharged into the ocean, reducing reliance on costly imported
water supplies, and increasing water supply reliability (IRWD Innovative Approach).

V. REFERENCES CITED

Asano, Takashi, Burton, Franklin L., Leverenz, Harold L., Tsuchihashi, Ryujiro, and
Tchobanoglous, George. 2007.Water Reuse - Issues, Technologies, and Applications.
McGraw-Hill. New York.
Crook, James. 2004. Innovative Applications in Water Reuse: Ten Case Studies. WateReuse
Association. Alexandria VA.
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Resources. At Your Fingertips."
<http://www.irwd.com/community-programs/education-resources.html> (September 9,
2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. 2009. Fact Sheet. February.
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Hands On. Expert Guidance". <http://www.irwd.com/community-
programs/events-webinars-workshops.html> (September 9, 2010).

141
Irvine Ranch Water District. "How Often? How Long?"
<http://www.irwd.com/alwayswatersmart/weekly-irrigation-schedule.html> (September
9, 2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Innovative Approach. Reliable Source."
<http://www.irwd.com/your-water/recycled-water.html> (September 9, 2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Make It Your Business. To Be Water Smart.".
<http://www.irwd.com/alwayswatersmart/commercial.html> (September 9, 2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Michelson Recycling Plant Phase II Expansion".
<http://www.irwd.com/about-us/construction-projects/michelson-water-recycling-
plant.html> (September 9, 2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Rebates. For One And All".
<http://www.irwd.com/alwayswatersmart/rebates.html> (September 9, 2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Recycled Water Rates. Effective July 1, 2010."
<http://www.irwd.com/customer-care/rates-charges/recycled-water-rates.html>
(September 9, 2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Recycled Water. Questions? Answers."
<http://www.irwd.com/your-water/recycled-water/frequently-asked-questions.html>
(September 9, 2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Regulations. Rules. Policies." <http://www.irwd.com/your-
water/recycled-water/governance.html> (September 9, 2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Reward Efficiency. Discourage Waste".
<http://www.irwd.com/alwayswatersmart/rate-structure.html> (September 9, 20100.
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Saving Water. From The Ground Up".
<http://www.irwd.com/alwayswatersmart/landscape.html> (September 9, 2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. "The Vision". <http://www.irwd.com/your-water/recycled-
water/recycled-water-program.html> (September 9, 2010).
Irvine Ranch Water District. "Water Quality. Questions? Answers." <http://www.irwd.com/your-
water/water-quality/water-quality-faq.html> (September 9, 2010).

142
CITY OF LARGO, LARGO, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 10/18/2010

Prepared By: Pete Rogers

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of Largo, Environ. Services Department

Contact Person: Irvin Kety
Title: Environ. Services Director

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1984

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: cemeteries
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The pressure of the reclaimed water leaving the treatment plant is 95 psi (even
though the area is very flat).
2. There are two primary motivations behind the dual system: decrease demand for
potable water provided by an external supplier and reduce effluent discharge to
Tampa Bay. The issue of minimizing discharge to Tampa Bay (using as much
reclaimed water possible) is the primary reason why the City has three tanks
with a combined storage capacity of 18 MG.
3. The utility requires a certain percentage of "commitments to connections" prior to
installing the reclaimed water pipeline to an area. Once the purple pipeline is
installed, everybody is charged an availability fee (even if they are not
connected). Once they are connected, there is a regular flat service fee.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

143
 The City of Largo is located 25 miles west of Tampa along the Gulf Coast of West
Central Florida. Largo is the 4th largest city in the Tampa Bay Area with an estimated population
of 75,000 (City of Largo, 2010). The City’s Environmental Services Department operates all
phases (collection, transmission, and treatment) of the community’s wastewater and reclaimed
water systems and the Street and Drainage division of the Public Works Department operates the
stormwater system which services approximately 140,000 people. Potable water service is
provided by Pinellas County Utilities.

Potable Water

Pinellas County Utilities receives its water from Tamp Bay Water (TBW) which serves
as a regional water wholesaler to three nearby cities (New Port Richey, St. Petersburg, and
Tampa) and three counties (Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas). TBW’s system is unique in that
its supply is a blend of surface water, groundwater, and desalinated seawater (Tampa Bay Water,
2010). Whereas surface water comes from the Tampa Bypass Canal, the Alafia River, and the
Hillsborough River the ground water is pumped from 13 well fields scattered throughout the
three participating counties. Seawater is extracted from Tampa Bay. The TBW system consists
of a 15.5 billion gallon (47,568 AF) reservoir, a 72 MGD surface water treatment plant, a 25
mgd seawater desalination plant, and 200 miles of interconnected water mains (Tampa Bay
Water, 2010).

Wastewater and Recycled Water

Largo’s Environmental Services Department is responsible for the collection and

treatment of the City’s wastewater. The collection system consists of 52 lift stations and 380
miles of sanitary sewer mains which convey the sewage to the Wastewater Reclamation Facility
(WWRF). Although the WWRF has a rated capacity of 18 mgd, the City reports an average
production of 10.91 mgd (2009) and 11.72 mgd (through June 2010) (Kety, 2010). Effluent from
the plant is either used in the reclaimed water system or discharged into Tampa Bay via the
Feather Sound Lake system. The reclaimed system contains 93 miles of purple pipeline and 3
storage tanks (3 mg, 5 mg, and 10 mg). The City reports that for 2009 the reclaimed system used
an annual average of 6.49 mgd, with occasional peak flows of over 10 mgd (Kety, 2010). Of the
6.49 mgd used by the reclaimed system, approximately 40% is consumed by commercial
customers and the remaining 60% by residential customers (Environmental Services, 2010). As
of August of 2010, reclaimed water is provided to 2,554 residential customers and 147
commercial customers (Kety, 2010).

An article appearing in the St. Petersburg Times on May 8, 2001 reported that City’s
reclaimed water project was losing approximately $1.2 million annually. The article proposed
two solutions: increasing the monthly service fee and attracting more customers by eliminating
the initial hookup fee. Since the publication of this article, the Utility has focused on attracting
more users to the reclaimed system by simplifying all the processes (administration,
installations), waiving all the fees (permit, connection), and offering the hook up kit for free.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

144
Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
N/A

Provide any other pertinent information

The county (Pinellas Municipal Utilities) performs yearly backflow and cross connection
tests for all users.

Principal Operational Issues

1. Limited carrying capacity in the pipeline between the Wastewater Reclamation

Facility (WWRF) and Tampa Bay creates an overflow risk.
2. Wastewater leaving the WWRF often has high levels of disinfection by-products
which lead to occasional compliance fines.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

The total usage of reclaimed water for 2009 was 2.368 billion gallons. Because Pinellas
County Utilities does not have data regarding the total annual potable water consumption, and
the percent savings cannot be accurately established.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The City has increased the storage capacity of the reclaimed system to 18 MG in order to
minimize discharges into Tampa Bay.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The annual operation and maintenance budget for the reclaimed system was $2.4 million.
This represented approximately 11% of the total $22 million budget for the Environmental
Services Department.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Costs associated with the City's reclaimed water maintenance crew (5-6 people) and
supervisor.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Reclaimed water is billed at a flat rate: $10 per month for customers within the City
limits, $12.50 per month for customers outside the City limits.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

145
 Does the dual system provide a better use of water?
Yes. Water in this region of the country is too valuable to be used just once.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Like most reclaimed systems, the system is not self-sufficient in that it requires fiscal
support from the water and wastewater systems (Kety, 2010). However, the City feels that the
costs associated with meeting quantity and quality requirements without the reclaimed system
(i.e. developing other water supplies and treat effluent to the higher levels of treatment required
for discharging to surface waters) would be larger.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No. There have been no reported cases of cross connections or illnesses related to the
consumption of reclaimed water.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes. The dual system allows the community to be less dependent on outside services
(Pinellas County Utilities) for their water supply. The system also saves the City on treatment
costs by lowering the amount of highly treated water discharging into Tampa Bay.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City of Largo. (2010). <http://www.largo.com/>. (Last accessed July 28, 2010).

City of Largo: The Comprehensive Plan: A Blueprint for the Community. (2010).
<http://www.largo.com/egov/docs/1242829099_740863.pdf>. (Last accessed July 29,
2010).
Environmental Services: City of Largo. (2010).
<http://www.largo.com/department/index.php?fDD=6-0>. (Last accessed July 29, 2010).
Kety, Irvin. (2010). Environmental Services Director. Phone call on July 30, 2010.
Tampa Bay Water: Supply Management. (2010). <http://www.tampabaywater.org/supplies/>
(Last accessed July 28, 2010).

146
LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, LAS VEGAS, NV

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 6/17/2010

Utility Information

Utility Name: Las Vegas Valley Water District

Contact Person: Bronson L. Mack
Title: LVVWD/SNWA Public Information

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other: Wastewater

services within Las Vegas and Unincorporated Clark County are provided by the City of Las
Vegas and Clark County Water Reclamation District, respectively. The Las Vegas Valley Water
District has partnered with the City of Las Vegas and Clark County Water Reclamation District
for reclaimed water services. The LVVWD serves in the distribution role of the reclaimed water
system, providing the reclaimed water to the end-users.

Dual System Information

Year initiated: The City of Las Vegas’ Durango Hills Water Resource Center was the
first facility to begin operation in 2001. In 2003, the Clark County Water Reclamation District’s
Desert Breeze Water Resource Center began operation.
Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

Note: These apply to the entire LVVWD system.

1. Utilizes 6 solar power generating facilities for onsite operations including
pumping and water treatment processes.
2. Utilizes 76 recharge and recovery wells.
3. Partnered with the Southern Nevada Water Authority to store more than 330,000
AF of water in the primary aquifer for future use.

147
 4. Utilizes Computer-aided Rehabilitation of Water networks system (CARE-W), a
program that aids engineers in creating a cost-efficient strategy for preventative
maintenance and repair of the LVVWD’s transmission system.
5. Permalog leak detection system consists of more than 8,556 leak detection units
for the 4,100 plus miles of potable water line.
6. Annual water quality testing program consists of collecting more than 30,000
water samples, conducting more than 500,000 analyses of those samples,
monitoring the water quality in real time 365 days a year, and testing for nearly
120 regulated and unregulated contaminants (LVVWD Testing, 2010). There
are 100 sampling stations used for required bacteriological and chemical testing
(LVVWD Testing, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. Water sales are down due to the downturn of the economy and water conservation
program. However, the utility wants to ensure future water availablity.
2. A Supervisory Control and Data Aquisitition System (SCADA) is used for
monitoring and operating the potable system. Unfortunately, the existing
SCADA system is no longer supported by the original provider, so the
LVVWD is in the process of researching in order to select a new SCADA
system. (LVVWD Department Budgets, 2010).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

In 1947, the Nevada Legislature created the Las Vegas Valley Water District in order to
serve the City of Las Vegas and unincorporated areas of Clark County (LVVWD Timeline,
2010), and became operational in 1954 with the drilling of its first well. LVVWD became the
operating agent of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), which was formed in 1991 to
address Southern Nevada’s water needs on a regional basis (LVVWD Timeline, 2010). Overall,
the main service area is the City of Las Vegas and surrounding unincorporated areas in Clark
County Nevada including six smaller municipalities that are also served (LVVWD Facilities,
2010).

Potable System

The LVVWD obtains approximately 90 percent of its drinking water from the Colorado
River via Lake Mead while the other 10 percent comes from groundwater sources. The potable
system consists of 4,100 miles of transmission and delivery pipeline, 68 storage reservoirs and
tanks, and 65 pumping stations (LVVWD Facilities, 2010).

Reclaimed System

The LVVWD supplies reclaimed water from two plants: Durango Hills and Desert
Breeze Water Resources Centers. The Durango Hills WRC has a capacity of 10 mgd, consists of
one main pump station, a storage reservoir, about 17 miles of pipelines, two remote booster
pumping stations, and four recharge wells. Water is stored in a 2 million gallon reservoir before

148
conveyance to parks and golf courses. The Durango Hills Water Resources Center was
constructed by a partnership with the City of Las Vegas (Durango Hill Water Resource Center,
2005). Along with the Desert Breeze Water Resource Center, a 10 mgd satellite water
reclamation facility completed in 2003 ultimately capable of providing over 11,200 acre-feet per
year (City of Las Vegas WE 2005), the two plants supply reclaimed water via 30 miles of
pipeline. The LVVWD partnered with the Clark County Water Reclamation District to construct
the Desert Breeze Water Resources Center (City of Las Vegas WE, 2005). The City of Las
Vegas and the Clark County Water Reclamation District operate their respective plants;
however, the LVVWD distributes the reclaimed water to the end-users.
The City of Las Vegas has a population of about 567,600 people (City Data 2009) and
owns its own reclamation facilities. In 2006, total reuse was about 5,144 acre-feet (SNWA
Reclaimed Current). However, total reuse was higher in 2003, at 6,400 acre-feet (City of Las
Vegas WE 2005).
• The Water Pollution Control Facility – capacity is 91 mgd (City of Las Vegas WE,
2005) and serves a power plant and four golf courses.
• Bonanza Mojave Water Resource Center – a 1 MGD satellite reuse facility (City of Las
Vegas WE, 2005) provides about 1,120 acre-feet to adjacent park and golf course. The Clark
County Water Reclamation District provides wastewater services for the unincorporated areas of
Clark County and provides reclaimed water for parks, golf courses, and power plants. In 2006,
the total water reuse was 12,232 AF (SNWA, 2010).

Rural system

The LVVWD distinguishes between larger systems and the rural systems. Facilities for
the rural system include 10 production wells, 10 reservoirs and tanks, 2 pump stations, and 7
disinfection facilities (LVVWD Department Budgets, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
Since the 1990s, when the Nevada Administrative Code 445A required backflow
prevention programs, cross connections have occurred. Cross connections included fertilizer
injections systems connected to on-site irrigation piping or anti-freeze systems connected to on-
site fire protection plumbing. Backflow occurrences have not occurred to the knowledge of the
LVVWD. Many of the cross-connections did have some form of backflow prevention; however,
it was usually minimal protection -- like an atmospheric vacuum breaker rather than a double-
check valve or reduced pressure assembly. The number of cases could not be verified (Bronson,
2010).
Cases of illnesses have not been reported to LVVWD due to cross connections (Bronson,
2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

149
 1. For backflow prevention the LVVWD owns, operates, maintains and tests all of
its own assemblies. This means that each assembly installed behind the water
meter is LVVWD property. The customer pays a small fee for this service
which ultimately it ensures that all devices are tested, maintained and operating
properly (Mack, 2010).
2. Although groundwater composes ten percent of the water supply, the LVVWD
utilizes a wellhead protection program to protect the public groundwater
supplies from contamination and prevent the need for costly water treatment
(LVVWD WP, 2010).
3. The LVVWD utilizes a vigorous water-testing program in order to ensure that
drinking water meets or surpasses drinking water standards (LVVWD Testing,
2010). Each year more than 30,000 water samples, more than 500,000 analyses
of those samples are conducted, the water quality in real time 365 days a year
is monitored, and tests for nearly 120 regulated and unregulated contaminants
are completed (LVVWD Testing, 2010). There are 100 permanent sampling
stations used for required bacteriological and chemical testing (LVVWD
Testing, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Decreasing water losses is a primary goal of the LVVWD. The LVVWD implemented a
Permalog leak detection program in early 2004 at a cost of $2.1 million. The LVVWD employs
8,556 leak detection units for the 4,100 plus miles of potable water line (LVVWD Department
Budgets, 2010), which are attached to underground water valves, within the service area.
LVVWD crews patrol the valley collecting data the help identify leaks which are pinpointed by
using additional listening equipment (LVVWD Leak Detection, 2010). Leak detection, via
Permalog leak detection technology, has been effective. More than 1,300 underground leaks
have been detected since 2004, and an estimated 3,336 acre-feet of water has been saved
(LVVWD Leak Detection, 2010). The current percentage of unaccounted for water is about 7%,
which is a 1.5% increase from 2008/2009; however, this is still well below the national average
of 10% (LVVWD Department Budgets, 2010). The increase could be due to the fact that
LVVWD has become more accurate in accounting for system losses via its leak detection
program. As of December 2008, LVVWD detected 1,322 leaks in the system, which was
calculated to save about 381 acre-feet of water (LVVWD Department Budgets, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The reclaimed water system has helped the LVVWD to meet the organization’s
sustainability goals. Although direct reuse has improved sustainability and provided a lower-cost
water resource, it does not extend Southern Nevada’s Colorado River allocation. Rather, through
indirect reuse, Southern Nevada already recycles 100 percent of its indoor water use through
return flow credits. Because Southern Nevada discharges treated effluent to the Lake Mead via
the Las Vegas Wash, Southern Nevada receives a return flow credit: For every gallon of treated
effluent returned to Lake Mead, SNWA can take another gallon of raw water out (SNWA, 2010).

Economic Information

150
 What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?
The total expenditure for the LVVWD was $52,978,451 for the 2009/2010 budget for the
entire dual system.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Total expenditure includes salaries and wages, water, energy, materials and supplies,
maintenance and repairs, rentals and leases, other employee expenses, other operating expenses,
capital outlay, major construction.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Las Vegas Valley Water District uses a multi-tier increasing block rate structure in order
to conserve potable water supply. Potable water rates depend on the size of meter used, which of
the four specified tiers of water usage the customer is in, and type of water users. Four tiers
correspond to each meter size.
The reclaimed water rate is $2.33 per 1,000 gallons. Golf courses are also on a water
budget of 6.3 acre-feet per irrigated acre per year (Section 12.6 (B) -- pages 82-83). If they
exceed the budget, they pay a hefty penalty. (Bronson, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Difficult to tell. The LVVWD is located in the Mojave Desert, which on average receives
4.2 inches of rainfall annually, while the evaporation rate reaches 100 inches (City of Las Vegas
WE, 2005). LVVWD along with the Southern Nevada Water Authority has come up with a
water use goal of 250 gpcd by 2010 and 199 gpcd by 2035 (LVVWD Department Budgets,
2010). Since 1990, the water use has reduced from 347 gpcd to about 250 in 2010 (LVVWD
Department Budgets, 2010). This is a significant reduction but may be more due to conservation
measures.
However, the better use of water could be due to conservation efforts more than the use
of reclaimed water. For an example of a reclaimed conservation measure, golf courses are on a
water budget and pay a penalty if they use more than the 6.3 per irrigated acre-feet per year
water limit. The water budget caused many golf courses to remove grass from areas that are not
associated with the playing area and have removed about 856 acres of land. The removal saves 2
billion gallons of reclaimed water per year. (Bronson, 2010).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Yes, the replacement cost of service line replacements has an average cost less for the
LVVWD than for thirteen other utilities contacted by the LVVWD (LVVWD Department
Budgets, 2010).
The LVVWD is the first United States agency to fully implement Computer-aided
Rehabilitation of Water networks system (CARE-W), a program that aids engineers to create a
cost-efficient strategy for preventative maintenance and repair of the LVVWD’s transmission
system (LVVWD Transmission and Delivery, 2010). The system is intended to ensure a steady
and reliable water supply by repairing the correct pipelines at the right time at a minimum costs
before failure occurs (LVVWD Transmission and Delivery, 2010). The LVVWD is innovative

151
also in its use of alternative fuel sources to power some of its facilities and vehicles (LVVWD
Hydrogen Fueling Station, 2010). Alternative fuel vehicles, including gas/electric hybrids and
those using biodiesel, comprise about 85% of the LVVWD’s fleet (LVVWD Hydrogen Fueling
Station, 2010). LVVWD has built solar powered generating systems at six facilities (LVVWD
Solar Projects, 2010). A total of 5.3 million kilowatt-hours of electricity is generated every year
which supports onsite operations, including pumping operations and water-treatment processes
(LVVWD Solar Projects, 2010). Benefits include not having to raise water rates on account of
the project and the reduction of demand on the communities power supply during peak usage
times, when electricity costs are the highest (LVVWD Solar Projects, 2010).
The LVVWD pumps groundwater in order to meet peak summer demand. During the hot
summer months from May through September, groundwater can account for up to 39 percent of
the valley's daily water supplies (LVVWD GW, 2010). In addition, to meet future demands in
case of drought, the LVVWD, along with the City of Las Vegas, have stored more than 320,000
acre-feet of water (LVVWD GWB, 2010). In addition, the LVVWD has approximately 70
recharge and recovery wells with a total injection capacity of 100 million gallons per day, and is
the largest recharge program of its kind in the world (LVVWD GWB, 2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since there are no reported cases of illnesses due to cross connections. The use of the
leak detection system, backflow prevention system, and the frequent testing have proven to be
effective.
Although groundwater composes ten percent of the water supply, the LVVWD utilizes
wellhead protection programs to protect the public groundwater supplies from contamination and
prevents the need for costly water treatment (LVVWD WP, 2010).
The LVVWD utilizes a vigorous water-testing program in order to ensure that drinking
water meets or surpasses drinking water standards (LVVWD T, 2010). Each year, more than
30,000 water samples, more than 500,000 analyses of those samples are conducted, the water
quality in real time 365 days a year is completed, and tests for nearly 120 regulated and
unregulated contaminants are performed (LVVWD T, 2010). There are 100 permanent sampling
stations used for required bacteriological and chemical testing (LVVWD T, 2010).

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Not economically since the utility is facing decreasing revenue in spite of its innovative
technology used for leak detection and pipe replacements. However the system is beneficial for
ensuring adequate potable water supply in the future.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Bronson, Mack L. E-mail. 28 June 2010.

City Data. (2009). "Las Vegas, NV". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Las-Vegas-Nevada.html>.
(August 31, 2010).
City of Las Vegas. (2005). “Durango Hills Water Resource Center”.
<http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/NWwaterresourcecenter.pdf>. (June 3, 2010)
City of Las Vegas. (2005). “Water Element”.
<http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/Water_Element.pdf>. (June 3, 2010)

152
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “Facilities”.
<http://www.lvvwd.com/about/facilities.html>. (June 15, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “Groundwater”.
<http://www.lvvwd.com/about/wr_groundwater.html>. (June 15, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “Hydrogen Fueling Station”.
<http://www.lvvwd.com/about/facilities_hydrogen.html>. (June 15, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “LVVWD Leak Detection”.
<http://www.lvvwd.com/about/facilities_transmission_leaks.html>. (June 15, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “LVVWD Department Budgets 2009/2010”.
<http://www.lvvwd.com/assets/pdf/financial_budget_intro.pdf>. (June 15, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “Rates and Water Usage Thresholds”.
<http://www.lvvwd.com/custserv/billing_rates_thresholds.html>. (June 22, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “Solar Projects”.
<http://www.lvvwd.com/about/facilities_solar.html>. (June 15, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “Southern Nevada Groundwater Bank”.
<http://www.lvvwd.com/about/wr_groundwater.html>. (June 15, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “Testing”. <http://www.lvvwd.com/wq/testing.html>.
(June 15, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “Timeline of Las Vegas Valley Water District
History”. <http://www.lvvwd.com/about/press_history_timeline.html>. (June 15, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “Transmission and Delivery”.
<http://www.lvvwd.com/about/facilities_transmission.html>. (June 15, 2010)
Las Vegas Valley Water District. (2010). “Wellhead Protection”.
<http://www.lvvwd.com/about/wr_groundwater_wellhead.html>. (June 15, 2010)
Southern Nevada Water Authority. (2010). "SNWA Current Reclaimed Water Resources".
<http://www.snwa.com/html/wr_reclaimed_current.html>. (June 15, 2010).

153
LIVERMORE WATER RESOURCE DIVISION, LIVERMORE, CA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 6/30/2010

Prepared By: Pete Rogers

Utility Information

Utility Name: Livermore Water Resource Division

Contact Person: Randy Werner
Title: Water Supervisor

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: early 1970s

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The use of recycled water for fire hydrants and indoor fire suppression (sprinkler
systems).
2. Recycled water samples are tested weekly at multiple sample stations located
throughout the recycled system network. This testing exceeds state
requirements.
3. Although the utility promotes (with limited enforcement) a state-wide initiative to
reduce individual potable water consumption by 20%, there are no restrictions
on recycled water use.
4. In a viticulture class at a local community college, students are examining the
impact of recycled water on wine production. This study will impact future
recycled water use.
5. The number of organizations involved (WRD, Cal Water, Zone 7, LAVWMA,
EBDA).

154
II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The city of Livermore is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, approximate 43 miles
southeast of San Francisco. The 2010 estimated population of Livermore is 83,600 (City of
Livermore, 2010). Water service is provided to the city via two providers: the city’s Water
Resource Division (WRD) and California Water Service -Livermore District. Whereas WRS
functions within the city’s public works department, the California Water Service (Cal Water) is
a subsidiary of the California Water Service Group (CWSG) which provides water and
wastewater services in California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Washington (California Water Service
Group, 2010). Whereas Cal Water is limited to providing only water service, WRD’s services
include water, wastewater, recycled water, and stormwater.

Potable Water

Water delivery is determined by service boundaries. Whereas Cal Water services the
older areas of the community, the WRD’s service boundaries area located in the newer areas
(Werner, 2010). Cal Water currently services two thirds of the community, although in time
WRD’s share will grow since their service boundary is geographically less confined (Werner,
2010).

Livermore’s water comes from a combination of groundwater and surface water supplies
purchased from the Zone 7 Water Agency. Zone 7 is a water wholesaler, providing drinking
water to retailers like Cal Water for several communities in the area including Pleasanton,
Livermore, Dublin, and Dougherty Valley (Zone 7, 2009). Most of the surface water originates
as snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, making it way to Zone 7 through the natural conveyance of
the Delta and the region’s South Bay Aqueduct (Livermore District, 2010). Whereas WRD’s
portion of the water system is supplied primary from surface water purchase from Zone 7, Cal
Water’s portion is supplied from both surface and subsurface (12 wells) sources. WRD’s system
includes approximately 130 miles of mains and 5 large storage tanks. Cal Water’s system entails
205 miles of water mains and 25 small storage tanks.

Wastewater and Recycled Water

The city’s WRD is responsible for the collection and treatment of wastewater. The
utility’s collection system consists of 267 miles of sanitary sewer lines which convey the sewage
to the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant. Although the design capacity of the plant is 8.5 mgd,
the UV treatment of the plant limits the capacity to 6 mgd (Water Resource Division, 2010). A
portion of the treated wastewater is pumped a recycled water to the Doolan Tanks (recently
expanded to a combined storage of 4 million gallons) where it is distributed through 15 miles of
pipe to a variety of landscape irrigation, toilet/urinal flushing, and firefighting applications. In
the case of the firefighting application, the non-potable line is used for 64 hydrants throughout
the city as well as in sprinkler systems for 16 commercial/industrial buildings (Werner, 2010).
The portion of treated wastewater not used as recycled water is sent through the Livermore
Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) pipe for disposal by the East Bay
Dischargers Authority (EBDA) in San Francisco Bay (WRD, 2010).In 2009, of the 2,100 million

155
gallons of treated wastewater leaving the plant, 450 million gallons (21%) where used as
recycled water (Werner, 2010).

The use of recycled water for indoor fire suppression is unusual for because of the
required dual plumbing, greater risk of human exposure, and the limited savings of potable water
(Asano, 2007). In the case of Livermore, the city’s initial decision to use recycled water was
based on the distribution system not having sufficient pressure and flow capacity to meet the fire
flow requirements for sprinkler systems. However, with the construction of a new 3 million
gallon potable water storage tank, this is no longer the case (Werner, 2010). Randy Werner
mentioned that the City has stopped using recycled water for building sprinkler systems because
the water savings do not justify the added inspection and reporting effort and costs. The City is,
however, continuing to expand the number of recycled water fire hydrants (Asano, 2007).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
N/A

Provide any other pertinent information

1. The WRD samples and tests recycled water on a weekly basis from sample
stations throughout the recycled water distribution system.
2. Shut down testing is performed on a yearly basis.
3. The rigid inspection and testing requirements imposed by the state health
department have motivated the City to stop using recycled water for building
sprinkler systems.
4. Fire fighters were initially concerned about using recycled water for fire
suppression. This concern has been put to rest through utility outreach.

Principal Operational Issues

1. The use of recycled water for any non-irrigation related application requires labor
intensive testing and reporting. The City has decided that the conservation
benefits outweigh this additional burden.
2. Storage concerns promoted the City to expand their recycled water storage
capacity from 2 to 4 million gallons.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

In 2009, 450 million gallons (21%) of the total wastewater effluent was recycled. In
2010, 489 million gallons (19%) of the total wastewater effluent was recycled.x

156
 How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
1. The WRD recently expanded its recycled water storage capacity from 2 to 4 M.G.
The City plans on increasing the storage capacity more in the future.
2. The City is making improvements to Livermore’s Water Reclamation Plant in
order to increase our treatment capacity to 10 MGD.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The City reports their 2009 O&M costs for the water and sewer system as $11,140,495
and $19,770,491 respectively. However, within the sewer system budget, the costs associated for
the reclaimed portion are not specified.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
1. Weekly sampling and testing from sample stations throughout the recycled system.
2. Quarterly cross connection inspections and reporting.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

There is an increasing block rate structure for the potable water. The existing potable
structure has 3 rate tiers. The pricing for the recycled water is set at 80% of the #2 tier of potable
water. For potable water there is a wholesaler connection fee and a City connection fee. For the
recycled water, there is only a City connection fee. Currently, there are no restrictions on
recycled water use.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes. The dual system currently reduces potable water demand by 20%. This percentage is
certainly going to increase.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Having a dual system provides a better use of the resources, but it may not pay its own
way right now. There are some proposed improvements in the near future that may improve the
economics of the recycled system.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No. There have been no reported cases of cross connections or illnesses relating to the
consumption of recycled water.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes. The use of the dual system enables the community to be less dependent on outside
sources for water. Recycled water use also provides added protection from drought

V. REFERENCES CITED

157
Asano, Takashi. (2007). Water Reuse: Issue, Technologies, and Applications. McGraw Hill,
New York.
California Water Service Group (2010). http://www.calwatergroup.com/ (Last accessed June 30,
2010)
City of Livermore: City Profile (2010). http://www.ci.livermore.ca.us/profile.html (Last accessed
June 30, 2010)
Water Resource Division (2010). http://www.ci.livermore.ca.us/wrd/index.html (Last accessed
June 29, 2010)
Werner, Randy (2010). Water Supervisor- Water Resource Division. Phone call on June 30,
2010
Zone 7 Water Agency (2009).
http://www.zone7water.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 (Last accessed
June 29, 2010)

158
CITY OF OLYMPIA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (LOTT ALLIANCE),
OLYMPIA, WA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 12/17/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of Olympia Public Works Department (LOTT Alliance)

Contact Person: Donna Buxton
Title: Groundwater Protection and Reclaimed Water Program

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 2005 (Olympia Reuse)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Industrial
facility wash water, dust control, decorative fountains.
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

Tumwater's reclaimed water system pumping system is not connected to the plant's
emergency power system, so the reclaimed system is shut down during power outages
(Tumwater Budget, 2010).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The LOTT Alliance is located in Thurston County Washington and was incorporated on
April 17, 2000 (LOTT CAFR, 2009). The LOTT Alliance's Wastewater Alliance is composed of
four government partners that jointly manage wastewater facilities that serve more than 80,000
people (Resource Management Plan, 2003). The alliance is comprised of the Cities of Lacey,
Tumwater, and Olympia, and Thurston County. The LOTT Alliance treats wastewater and

159
distributes reclaimed water, with each individual entity managing its own potable water system
(Dennis-Perez, 2010).
The City of Lacey, operates its own water system that serves 22,100 accounts and a
population of approximately 57,000 (Lacey CAFR, 2009).

Potable Water

The City of Olympia, with a population of 45,250 in 2009, operates a water system that
consists of 404.7 miles of water main and a reclaimed water system of more than 2.2 miles of
water line. The City of Tumwater has a population of 16,710 people (Tumwater Budget, 2010).

Reclaimed Water System

The first reclaimed water treatment facility was constructed in 2004 at the Budd Inlet
Treatment Plant and produces Class A reclaimed water, which is the highest quality. Currently,
about 10 million gallons per year of reclaimed water is provided to several customers in
downtown Olympia (Buxton, 2010). A second treatment plant was constructed as well as 3 miles
of reclaimed line, reclaimed water ponds, and infiltration basins completed in 2006 which serves
customers in the Hawk's Prairie area (Tumwater Budget, 2010).
A 1.5 mgd of reclaimed water is produced at the BUDD Inlet reclaimed water plant, a
sand filter, site and the Martin Way reclaimed water plant, a membrane bioreactor, has a capacity
of up to 2 mgd (Dennis-Perez, 2010). The Alliance produces reclaimed water where excess
reclaimed water produced is put into recharge basins (Dennis-Perez, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There have not been any cross connections associated with reclaimed water use in
Olympia (Buxton, 2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

Olympia has End User Agreements to contractually hold reclaimed water customers to
complying with state regulations and reclaimed water plant permit requirements (Buxton, 2010).
Olympia also requires signage for reclaimed water sites, distributes educational materials, and
color-codes all reclaimed water system appurtenances purple (Buxton, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. One of the principal operational issues is the fact that there is no storage capacity
for customers who want to use reclaimed water (Dennis-Perez, 2010).
Reclaimed water lines were routed to a golf course in Tumwater and they do
not have the necessary storage capacity for it. Currently, the Alliance is
seeking a joint fund in order to get them the necessary storage.

160
 2. Olympia is currently looking into the possibility of storage, additional pumping,
and possible re-chlorination facilities as they seek to expand their reclaimed
water use area and uses (Buxton, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

The City of Olympia alone uses about 10 million gallons of reclaimed water per year,
which conserves potable water use.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The LOTT Alliance Master Plan calls for incremental expansions and in 2009 LOTT
began construction of a reclaimed water distribution main from the Budd Inlet Treatment Facility
to portions of Tumwater and West Olympia (Tumwater Budget, 2010). Phase one of this project,
which has an expected completion date of 2010, consists of providing reclaimed water to several
large irrigation users in Tumwater, including the Tumwater Valley Municipal Golf Course
(Tumwater Budget, 2010). A future satellite treatment facility is planned for Tumwater, but the
location is uncertain at this time.
LOTT's 20 year plan calls for the construction of three satellite facilities, each producing
reclaimed water, located in the Lacey-Olympia-Tumwater area. The facilities are each to produce
at least 1 mgd and be expandable to up to 5 mgd of reclaimed water. Based on demand
projections, each increment of the overall project would be built "just in time" (Tumwater
Budget, 2010). Some of the project has been completed but more is yet to be built. The Lott
Alliance has completed several projects in 2009 including "LEEDs CoGen", "reclaimed water
plaza", a reclaimed water line to Martin Way Pump Station, and a reclaimed water storage
(LOTT CAFR, 2009).
One of LOTT's goals is to develop more recharge basins to allow more reclaimed water
to be produced (Dennis-Perez, 2010).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

Lacey budgeted $1,889,255 for the reclaimed water fund in 2009 and used $19,075, 235
for the water system (Lacey CAFR, 2009). Olympia expended $25,508,295 on the water and
sewer distribution systems (Olympia CAFR, 2009). Tumwater's enterprise fund for the water
utility fund was $10,066,966 (Tumwater 2010 Budget). The LOTT Alliance's operating expense
was $17,465,394 in 2009 (LOTT CAFR, 2009).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Where reclaimed water is used for irrigation, Olympia charges 70 percent of the potable
water irrigation rates. More generally, Olympia's potable water rates are organized in a four tier
increasing block rate structure with separate charges for irrigation (Buxton, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

161
 Does the dual system provide a better use of water?
On a limited scale there is a more efficient use of potable water due to the use of about 10
million gallons per year of reclaimed water by the City of Olympia alone.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

One of the main incentives for having the reclaimed water system is the strict limits
imposed on the LOTT alliance to discharge effluent from the BUDD Inlet treatment plant into
Puget Sound (Dennis-Perez, 2010). Thus, as the cities grow, there cannot be an increased amount
of discharge, so water reuse was a way to meet that strict requirement (Perez, 2010). However, the
requirements for dual systems make indoor use of reclaimed water not economical (Buxton,
2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since Olympia, the primary user of reclaimed water, did not report any cross
connections or associated illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, since the reclaimed water system was built to keep the LOTT Alliance from
discharging excess effluent into Puget Sound.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Buxton, Donna-Groundwater Protection and Reclaimed Water Program Coordinator for the City
of Olympia Public Works Department. (2010). E-mail December 15.
City of Tumwater. (2010). “City of Tumwater 2010 Budget”
<http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/City%20Departments/Finance/Budget%202010.pdf>
(June 13, 2010)
Dennis-Perez, Lisa - LOTT Clean Water Alliance. (2010). Phone call.
LOTT Clean Water Alliance. (2009). “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the
Year Ended December 31, 2009” <http://www.lottcleanwater.org/pdf/cafr09.pdf>
(June 9, 2010)

162
MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, CORTE MADERA, CA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 11/15/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information:

Utility Name: Marin Municipal Water District

Contact Person: Bob Castle
Title: Water Quality Manager

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1975

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other:
Commercial laundries, car washes, inside buildings.
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

There are several unique uses of reclaimed water including one commercial laundry,
three car washes, 2 HVAC cooling towers, toilet flushing for a new condominium complex, and
toilet flushing for 20 commercial buildings.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Marin Municipal Water District is located in the area of south and central Marin County
and provides 195,000 people with potable water (Marin Municipal Water District, 2010). The
MMWD is the oldest water district in California having been in operation since 1912 (Fact
Sheet, 2010).

Potable Water System

163
 Approximately 75 percent of the potable water supply for Marin Municipal Water
District is composed of surface water collected by reservoirs with the remaining 25 percent of
the supply coming from the Russian River by a contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency
(SCWA). The potable water system consists of 889 miles of pipeline and three treatment plants
produce on average 25 mgd (Fact Sheet, 2010). In all, about 25,000 AF of potable water was
used in 2009 ( MMWD’s Budget and Rates, 2010).

Reclaimed Water System

The reclaimed water system consists of 24 miles of water line and the water is produced
by one treatment plant (Fact Sheet, 2010). The recycled water plant is operated in conjunction
with the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (MMWD's Budget and Rates, 2010). San Rafael is
served by the reclaimed water system by receiving up to more than two million gallons a day to
more than 250 customers (Recycled Water, 2010). Overall, about 700 acre-feet of reclaimed
water is being produced per year for 340 reclaimed water customers (Castle, 2010). In 25 years
of operation, the public has generally believed that reclaimed water use is a "good idea" and
there were only a few that did not like the idea of using reclaimed water (Castle, 2010).
The primary obstacle to system expansion is the cost associated with installing recycled
mains over large distances in a highly urbanized area. The utility is always on the lookout for
opportunities such as building renovations, new construction, etc. in which more users can be
connected to the existing system (Castle, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There was one cross connection during construction of a subdivision consisting of several
single family homes. It occurred during the rainy season, which is from November to April, in
which the reclaimed system had shut down and was supplemented with potable water. The cross
connection was subsequently discovered. One homeowner was upset about it but no illnesses
resulted from the cross connection.

Provide any other pertinent information

California regulations are the "most stringent in the world" and have several built-in
safety mechanisms (Castle, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

The principal operational issue is the fact that the initial quality of the reclaimed water is
low (Castle, 2010). Namely, the trickling filters used to treat wastewater tend to slough off solids
and promote algae growth.

164

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

MMWD has successfully reduced the per capita potable water consumption from 175
gallons per day to 120 gallons per day (MMWD’s Budget, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
New construction located near the reclaimed water system is required to be connected to
it. Expansion, however, is impeded due to the large expense. It costs about $200 to $300 per foot
to retrofit into streets (Castle,2010). In addition, the area "pushed" water conservation and
customers are frugal with water use in general (Castle, 2010), so the water savings would not
justify the costly expansion.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The operation and maintenance cost for the reclaimed water system varies and is around
$250,000 per year (Castle, 2010). On the other hand, the potable system cost could not be
verified, but is presumably many times more than the reclaimed water system.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Need to perform regulatory compliance inspections of customers for overspray, runoff,
cross connections.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The potable water rates are organized in a steeply tiered rate structure in order to promote
potable water conservation (Castle, 2010). In addition, there are incentives for conserving
potable water (Castle, 2010). The reclaimed water rates are 55 percent of the potable rate and are
organized in an increasing block rate structure (Castle, 2010). The charge depends on user type
with the least costly rate being $3.39 per CCF (Water Rates, 2010). The reclaimed use is a three
tier increasing block rate structure beginning with a charge of $2.33 per CCF. The MMWD also
charges for raw water use which is according to a three tier increasing block rate structure, and is
more expensive than reclaimed water (Water Rates, 2010). There is also a bimonthly charge for
water use which is according to the meter size (Water Rates, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes, to a small degree. The reclaimed water system meets 2 to 3 percent of the total water
demand and new customers located near the reclaimed water system must connect to the
reclaimed system (Castle, 2010).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

It is difficult to tell since the operation and maintenance costs for the potable system
could not be verified. However, it is important to note that the $250,000 per year for the
reclaimed water system is relatively inexpensive compared to other reclaimed water systems

165

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

studied.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since the single cross connection did not cause any illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, since the reclaimed water system is necessary to ensure water demands are met
currently and in the future (Castle, 2010). The primary motivation behind the use of recycled
water is to reduce the community's vulnerability to drought.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Castle, Bob. Water Quality Manager. Call. October 18, 2010.

The Marin Municipal Water District. (2010). "The Marin Municipal Water District".
<http://www.marinwater.org/controller?action=menuclick&id=172>. (October 9, 2010).
Current Water Supply Outlook.
<http://www.marinwater.org/controller?action=menuclick&id=222>. (October 7, 2010).
Marin Municipal Water District. (2010). "Fact Sheet".
<http://www.marinwater.org/documents/district_fact_sheet_sept_2010.pdf>. (October 7,
2010).
MMWD. (2010). "Recycled Water".
<http://www.marinwater.org/controller?action=menuclick&id=572>. (October 7,2010).
MMWD. (2010). "Water Rates".
<http://www.marinwater.org/controller?action=menuclick&id=210>. (October 7, 2010).

166

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

OCALA WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT, OCALA, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 12/14/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: Ocala Water and Sewer Department

Contact Person: Jeff G. Halcomb
Title: Director

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1986 (Reuse)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Pest control
and fertilizer company, nursery, sports facilities
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

Ocala's reclaimed water system has a variety of uses including agricultural and
recreational uses (Reclaimed Water, 2006).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Ocala, Florida has a population of 55,568 residents and is located in Marion County
Florida (City Data, 2009).

Potable Water System

Ocala has a water treatment plant with a capacity of 24.4 mgd and 386 miles of water
lines (Water and Sewer, 2006.

167

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Reclaimed Water System

Ocala has three water reclamation plants (Water and Sewer, 2006). Since it would be
costly to install reclaimed water lines to existing residences, the Water and Sewer Department
initially planned on allocating all of its reclaimed water to recreational and agricultural uses
(Reclaimed Water, 2006). However, in 2007 the City began a mandatory residential and
commercial irrigation program to use recycled water for all new construction in areas adjacent to
large reclaimed water mains (Reclaimed Water, 2006). Summerset Estates was the first
subdivision in Ocala to use reclaimed water for lawn and garden irrigation (Reclaimed Water,
2006). Users of the reclaimed water system include landscape irrigation at the airport, a pest
control and fertilizer company, the Perry Sprayfield, nurseries, a 200 acre site growing hay for
sale to local farmers, at least three golf courses, and a recreational site that includes a baseball,
softball, and football fields as well as open areas, walking trails, and other recreational areas
(Reclaimed Water, 2006). According to a news story written in 2008, Ocala produced about 5
million gallons of reclaimed water each day and had about 18 million gallons of storage as of
2008 (Greene, 2008).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There is not enough information to tell.

Provide any other pertinent information

In the light of the recent mandate that all new residential and commercial construction
near reclaimed water mains be hooked up to the system, the City has adopted the Reuse
Ordinance, section 70-350, to meet state requirements for the use of reclaimed water (Reclaimed
Water, 2006).

Principal Operational Issues

In 2008, the St. Johns River Management District considered imposing a reclaimed water
use limit on Ocala's reclaimed water system. The City opposed it since it would potentially limit
development of reclaimed water usage which was intended to conserve the use of potable water
(Greene, 2008). Also, the City would have to increase reclaimed water storage capacity.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Yes, since the City uses reclaimed water for irrigation uses and produces about 5 mgd.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?

168

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 The City is reportedly trying to expand reclaimed water usage and the distribution system
(Greene, 2008). In addition, Ocala is trying to get more neighborhoods and businesses to hook up
to the system (Greene, 2008).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

Water and sewer expenses were $25,677,661 in 2009 (CAFR, 2009).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Although Ocala originally did not charge any customers for reclaimed water (Reuse
Systems, 2006), in 2007 the City began to charge customers for it (Reclaimed Water, 2006). The
cost of reclaimed water is about one quarter the cost of potable water (Reclaimed Water, 2006).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

It is inconclusive since it is difficult to tell how much reclaimed water is being used
relative to the potable water system. Since the potable water system is relatively small, the
reclaimed water usage is potentially significant compared to potable usage.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

It is difficult to tell since the water and sewer expenses were not separated.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

There is not enough information to tell.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
There is not enough information to tell.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City Data. (2009). "Ocala, Florida". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Ocala-Florida.html>.

(October 14, 2010).
Greene, Jessica. Star Banner. (2008). "Ocala contests reclaimed water use limits-City fears rules
will hurt customer base". <http://www.ocala.com/article/20080804/NEWS/808040349>.
(December 13, 2010).
Ocala, Florida. (2009). "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report".
<http://www.ocalafl.org/uploadedFiles/CMO_Services/Business_and_Financial/2009_C
AFR.pdf>. (October 6, 2010).
Ocala, Florida. (2006). "Water and Sewer". <http://www.ocalafl.org/COO3.aspx?id=560>.
(October 6, 2010).
Ocala, Florida. (2006). "Reclaimed Water". <http://www.ocalafl.org/COO3.aspx?id=582>.
(October 6, 2010).

169

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Ocala, Florida. (2006). "Reuse System". <http://www.ocalafl.org/COO3.aspx?id=583>. (October
6, 2010).

170

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

ODESSA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, ODESSA, TX

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 2/15/2011

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: Odessa Utilities Department

Contact Person: Matt Irvin
Title: Director

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1949 (reuse)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The residential development area with a dual water system has 6 inch potable
water piping and 8 inch reclaimed water piping.
2. Odessa's reuse system is the oldest in the state of Texas (McReynolds, 2006). The
reuse program was initiated due to Odessa's lack of water resources and was
expanded since due to conflicts with discharging effluent in Monahan's Draw,
and the state discharge permit which included recommendations for Odessa to
expand its effluent reuse (McReynolds, 2006).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Odessa has a population of 100,807 people and is located in Ector County
Texas (City Data, 2009).

171

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Potable Water System

Odessa's drinking water is purchased untreated from the Colorado River Municipal Water
District (CRMWD), which has water stored in Lake Ivie, Lake Spence, Lake Thomas (WTP),
and from the Ward County Well Field and Odessa Wells during summer months (Freese and
Nichols, 2005). The average daily consumption in the fiscal year ending September 2009 was
19.81 million gallons, or 7.23 billion gallons per year, via 618 miles of water line (CAFR, 2009).

Reclaimed Water System

The reclaimed water system consists of about 24 miles of reclaimed water main (Irvin,
2011) with deliveries of approximately 496 million gallons in 2010. The 2010 reclaimed water
delivery was reduced from 997 million gallons in 2008 and 578 million gallons in 2009 due to a
lack of industrial deliveries due to a plant shut-down (Irvin, 2011). Odessa has contracted or has
agreements with 8 irrigation users and two industrial users (Irvin, 2011). The irrigation users
include 3 golf courses, the UT-Permian Basin campus, 2 city parks, a TxDOT right-o-way, and a
residential development. The residential development is a "fairly high-end" development with
large lots (Irvin, 2011). The two industry users are under contract but are currently not receiving
any reclaimed water, but will when the demand should arise (Irvin, 2011). The City is currently
assessing the feasibility of providing reclaimed water to a new industrial user (Irvin, 2011).
The reclaimed irrigation delivery system is "pretty well automated" based on the
demands of the individual customers (Irvin, 2011). The delivery times are scheduled so that the
demand over the course of the day will be evened out (Irvin, 2011). In addition, there are on-site
individual batching stations that allow monitoring of individual deliveries to the plant through
the SCADA system (Irvin, 2011).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There have not been any cross connections identified (Irvin, 2011).

Provide any other pertinent information

In order to reduce health risks to the public, the City of Odessa requires the development
of Operation and Maintenance plans by users, conducts annual meetings with users, and requires
cross-connection devices (Irvin, 2011).

Principal Operational Issues

1. Customers with on-site reclaimed water storage have issues with algae and other
growths which lead to irrigation system issues (Irvin, 2011).
2. Typical delivery operation and maintenance problems with equipment such as
SCADA malfunction (Irvin, 2011).

172

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 3. Reclaimed water customers with their own control valve systems, which may fail.
In the case of failures, "close coordination is necessary to ascertain City
(provider) delivery issues as opposed to customer equipment issues" (Irvin,
2011).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Reclaimed water use meets approximately 6 percent of the total demand. The reclaimed
water system is an asset to the City since the potable water supplies are "very susceptible to
drought conditions given that they are primarily reservoirs dependent on run-off in the Colorado
river basin in West Texas" (Irvin, 2011). The reclaimed water supply is "somewhat more drought
resistant because of the more consistent supply from the raw wastewater flow" (Irvin, 2011).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The City is in the process of assessing the feasibility of providing reclaimed water to an
industrial user (Irvin, 2011).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

According to Irvin (2011), the City does not "do any close financial monitoring" of the
dual system. Due to the early low contractual pricing, "it is very doubtful the reclaimed delivery
pays for itself in even an O&M view" and "certainly there is no payback for the initial capital
investment". In addition, the system was never designed to have a payback according to Irvin.
Ballpark cost figures could not be estimated for either system.
According to the Comprehensive Annual Report for fiscal year ended in 2009, the
expenses and revenues for the water and sewer systems are combined (CAFR, 2009). The total
revenue for the water and sewer systems was $37,178,348 in 2009 and the expense was about
$38,818,000 (CAFR, 2009). However, the water and sewer system receives a grant which is an
additional amount added to the revenue.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
It is difficult to tell since there are no close records kept on either the potable or the
reclaimed water systems.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption: Potable base rates
depend on meter size, user type, whether or not the customer is within City limits or outside the
City limits (Billing and Collection, 2009). The base charge takes into account volumetric use up
to 2,000 gallons and any amount above 2,000 gallons is charged a flat rate depending on the user
type. Residential customers pay a rate of $3.48 per 1,000 gallons for consumption over 2,000
gallons and senior residential customers pay $3.09 (Billing and Collection, 2009). Also,
customers are also charged an "energy surcharge" which is $0.1133 cents per 1,000 gallons of
water used (Billing and Collection, 2009).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

173

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Does the dual system provide a better use of water?
Yes, since the reclaimed water use is approximately 6 percent of the total water demand.
Although ballpark cost figures could not be given, the reclaimed water system is seen as an asset
as far as off-setting raw water/potable water uses and important for future water planning (Irvin,
2011).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Due to the lack of cost data it is difficult to know for sure. However, Irvin is confident
that the reclaimed water system does not pay for itself.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since there have not been any cross connections identified or associated illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, since the reclaimed water use meets a significant portion of the total water demand
even though the two industrial users are currently not receiving reclaimed water. When the
demand for reclaimed water arises with the two industrial users and potentially a third industrial
user, the portion of the total water demand met by reclaimed water will likely increase, making
the reclaimed water system more necessary. In addition, the reclaimed water system is seen as an
asset in terms of meeting future water demand.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City Data. (2009). "Odessa, Texas". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Odessa-Texas.html>.

(February 15, 2011).
City of Odessa. (2009). "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report". <http://www.odessa-
tx.gov/public/Announcements/docs/2008-09%20cafr.pdf>. (January 30, 2011).
City of Odessa-Billing and Collection. (2009). "Water/Sewer Rates". <http://www.odessa-
tx.gov/public/billingcollection/water-rates.asp>. (February 15, 2011).
Freese and Nichols, Inc. (2005). "Colorado River Municipal Water District-Regional Water
Reclamation Project Feasibility Project".
<http://rio.twdb.state.tx.us/RWPG/rpgm_rpts/2005483550_BigSpring_Feasibility.pdf>.
(February 2, 2011).
Irvin, Matt. City of Odessa Utilities Department-Director. E-mail. 2011.
McReynolds, Debbie. Water Environment Foundation. (2006). "Texas' Oldest Reuse System
Tells All". <http://www.environmental-
expert.com/Files%5C5306%5Carticles%5C12454%5C372.pdf>. (February 15, 2011).

174

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CITY OF ORLANDO WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT, ORLANDO, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 7/29/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of Orlando Wastewater Department

Contact Person: Daron Johnson
Title: Reclaimed Water

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1964 (WC I Plant)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. About 8,000 acres of citrus crop irrigation is completed using Orlando's reclaimed
water (Wastewater Division), which was a solution for not discharging effluent
into the Little Econlockhatchee River and for avoiding costly land acquisition
(Wastewater Division). Citrus irrigation with reclaimed water also reduced the
demand on the Floridan Aquifer.
2. Use of rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) in four different sites covering about 1,600
acres of freeze-damaged citrus groves and open land in an area of groundwater
recharge (Wastewater Division). The RIBs provide reuse capacity when the
irrigation demand is low (Wastewater Division).
3. Beneficial to agricultural users because reclaimed water is a dependable supply,
provides freeze protection, potentially reduces fertilization, reduces energy
costs since the supply is pressurized. According to Daron Johnson, freeze
protection of orange groves is an important use of reclaimed water such that

175

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 residences sometimes have to get shut off from the reclaimed system when the
demand is high enough (Johnson, 2010). Johnson expects that the 20 year
agreement to use reclaimed water will be renewed when the agreement expires
in the near future (Johnson, 2010).
4. FFMS completed the installation of an environmentally friendly car wash system
that uses reclaimed water (Budget, 2009).
5. Uses reclaimed water to supply a fire suppression system near the airport in order
to keep the system pressurized (Johnson, 2010).
6. Several developments in St. Petersburg use reclaimed water for irrigation uses and
use potable water for drinking water (Johnson, 2010).
7. The use of reclaimed water for cooling at a power plant was a unique use of
reclaimed water and saves about 3.5 mgd of drinking water (Johnson, 2010).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Orlando has a population of approximately 33,000 people and is located in
Orange County Florida (City Data 2009).

Potable Water System

The Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) was created by a special act of the State
Legislature in 1923 to manage and operate the City of Orlando's electric light and water works
plants (City of Orlando 2009/2010 Annual Budget, 2009). The potable water system consists of
1,768 miles of water line and 15.76 miles of chilled water line. The total demand on the water
system is approximately 187 gpcd, and the residential demand is 83 gpcd (OUC, 2009). The
OUC provides electric and water services to over 251,000 customers in Orlando, St. Cloud and
parts of unincorporated Orange and Osceola Counties (OUC, 2009). The potable water originates
from 32 deep wells that tap into the Floridan Aquifer, and seven water treatment plants treat the
water via ozone. The OUC also obtains water from the St. Johns River Water Management
District. The OUC pumped about 28.9 billion gallons of water in 2009 (OUC, 2009). The
projected water supply from the OUC for 2010 is 93.8 mgd from groundwater and 11.2 mgd
from reclaimed water (Ksionek, 2009).

Reclaimed Water System

Orlando has three wastewater treatment plants that produce reclaimed water consisting of
over 30 miles of pipeline. Reclaimed water is used for irrigating green spaces including golf
courses, apartment complexes, medians, schools, and parks. Orlando has successfully reduced
the amount of phosphorus, nitrogen, and other constituents in wastewater effluent as well as
reducing operation and maintenance costs of the reclaimed water system.

Iron Bridge Water Reclamation Facility:

Since the mid-1970s, Orlando strove for advanced levels of wastewater treatment,
including nutrient removal in order to prevent adverse impact to the Little Econlockhatchee
River. The formerly 24 MGD facility used rotating biological contactors (RBCs) for BOD
removal and nitrification, and denitrification. Since then, changes were made to the system and

176

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

processes, including a man-made wetland, were added to increase nitrogen and phosphorus
removal.In 1988, the Iron Bridge facility capacity was increased to 40 MGD through the use of a
five-stage Bardenpho™ biological nutrient removal (BNR) process. As a result, it also decreased
operating costs by over $300,000 per year and improved treatment efficiency and nutrient
removal capabilities. Several improvements were made since, including replacing failed RBCs
and the addition of a 12 mgd BNR plant. Water quality of the Little Econlockhatchee River has
greatly improved since 1980. Reclaimed water from the Iron Bridge plant will soon be conveyed
to Baldwin Park and to the southeast area of the City (OUC, 2009). Project RENEW involves
conveying reclaimed water to the City of Apopka (OUC, 2009).

Water Conservation I WRF:

Water Conservation I Water Reclamation Facility was constructed as a result of the
Consent Decree to eliminate discharges to Boggy Creek. The delivery point of this high quality
product is the Floridian Aquifer. The facility utilizes a two-stage biochemical process to achieve
the nitrogen level required for groundwater discharge.Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations
have been reduced since 1980.

Water Conservation II WRF:

Orlando faced a March 1988 zero-discharge mandate for its McLeod Road plant and an
Orange County plant faced a similar order. Thus, the Water Conservation II WRF was
constructed. Some effluent is disposed of via citrus irrigation. The reclaimed water is conveyed
to a distribution center located in west Orange County and then used for irrigating landscaping,
golf courses, six residential neighborhoods, and 3,200 acres of citrus groves (City of Orlando,
2007). Another portion of the effluent goes to rapid infiltration basins for recharge of the aquifer.
The Water Conservation II WRF also receives effluent from Orange County's South Regional
Water Reclamation Facilities (Water Conservation II). The facility is capable of producing 68
million gallons of reclaimed water per day and consists of a 55 miles of pipeline (City of
Orlando, 2007). Though the agreement was updated in 2006, the original agreement between
citrus growers and the City and Orange county required growers to receive a weekly amount of
reclaimed water for free under a 20 year agreement (Water Conservation II).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
According to Daron Johnson, there have been no cross connections or associated illnesses
(Johnson 2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

No other information is given concerning cross connections, illnesses, or other issues
with the reclaimed water system.

Principal Operational Issues

177

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 1. In recent years the demand for reclaimed water has gone up, which led to low
pressures in the system during peak demands. The citrus growers have priority
use, so residential areas get shut off from the reclaimed system during low
pressure events (Johnson, 2010).
2. Sediment in the reclaimed water system (Johnson, 2010).
3. Demand for reclaimed water has grown greater than the available supply, so
communities and businesses have only two days out of the week when they
can use reclaimed water (Green Works Orlando, 2008).
4. RBCs have proven to be costly due to the requirement for breakpoint chlorination
to remove residual ammonia (City of Orlando Reclaimed Water).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

The use of reclaimed water saved more than 50 mgd to the demand on the Florida aquifer
(Green Works Orlando Pillars).
The OUC has over 20 residential and commercial conservation programs in place and
offers incentives for water conservation (Ksionek, 2009).
Conservation programs along with the use of reclaimed water both reduce demand on the
aquifer but the savings was not quantified (Johnson, 2010).
The main goal of the reclaimed water system is water conservation by using more
reclaimed water for irrigation purposes such as citrus irrigation, landscaping, watering gardens,
and other such uses (Johnson, 2010). The demand for reclaimed water has increased which
means more potable water conservation (Johnson, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
Several expansions and modifications to the reclaimed water system have taken place
since Orlando began using reclaimed water. Three significant projects are being started by the
Environmental Services Wastewater Division in order to meet the wastewater and reclaimed
water capacity through 2025: "the re-rating and expansion of treatment capacity at the Iron
Bridge facility, the development of collection system improvements to allow for the conveyance
of future flow to Iron Bridge, and the implementation of a regional reclaimed water system in
east Orlando to return reclaimed water from Iron Bridge to the southeast expansion areas as well
as other communities". (City of Orlando-Environmental Services Management Division Budget,
2009).

The Environmental Services Management Division is working with the Orlando Utilities
Commission (OUC) to implement Project RENEW, which involves the reuse of 9.2 mgd of
reclaimed water to satisfy the requirements of OUC’s Consumptive Use Permit, for which, the
project is undergoing improvements (City of Orlando ESMD Budget, 2009).

The Wastewater Division is working in conjunction with the OUC to implement a

residential reclaimed water program for new developments. Because of concerns with limited
availability of groundwater supplies, OUC will be required to maximize the use of alternative
water sources to decrease the demand on the aquifer as part of their Consumptive Use Permit.

178

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Orlando is currently implementing the Eastern Regional Reclaimed Water Distribution
project, which will provide interconnections between the Iron Bridge reclaimed system and other
systems in need of additional reclaimed water supplies (Public Works Department Budget,
2009).
Orlando wants to take the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority hangar fire pumps off of
the Water Conservation I reclaimed water system and connect them to the OUC's potable water
system in order to provide them with continuous fire protection. Orlando reports that this move
would improve their reclaimed water system.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The water system operating expense in 2009 was $34,655,000, of which $14,997,000 was
for production and $5,560,000 for distribution.

Orlando obtained $74.4 million in the 2009/2010 fiscal year from the OUC from
franchise fees and OUC dividend. The franchise fee consists of 6% of the OUC's gross revenue
from electric and water services to customers within Orlando City limits. The dividend consists
of 60%, which has been recently raised to 70%, of the OUC's net income in payment annually to
the City of Orlando's General Fund (City of Orlando 2009/2010 Annual Budget, 2009). The City
of Orlando Public Works Department total wastewater revenue fund for the 2009/2010 fiscal
year is $46,354,779 of which, $2,833,556 is for the Water Conservation I Plant, $7,916,993 for
Water Conservation II Plant, $9,688,996 for the Iron Bridge Facility, and $9,120,488 for the
Easterly Wetlands (City of Orlando 2009/2010 Annual Budget, 2009). However, the budget
documents were unclear as to whether or not these numbers represent operations for all portions
of the reclaimed water system.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Other allocations for the wastewater budget are administration, water business
management, lift station operations, industrial automation group, environmental lab services, and
non-departmental wastewater projects (City of Orlando 2009/2010 Annual Budget, 2009).

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Potable water obtained from the OUC is charged based on meter size, whether or not the
user is within City limits, and the amount of water used. The OUC uses a five tier increasing
block rate structure for residential users. Commercial potable water users with meters 1" and
greater have a flat volumetric rate of $1.541 per 1,000 gallons for any consumption within City
limits and $1.772 outside City limits. Irrigation water is also provided to commercial users by the
OUC and is based on meter size, whether or not the user is within City limits, and volume
charges are based on a three tier increasing block rate structure and acreage irrigated (OUC,
2009).

Water Conservation II reclaimed water is currently provided to commercial citrus

growers at a rate of $0.15 per 1,000 gallons which will increase 3% annually. The base rate
depends on the size of the meter used. For commercial uses, the reclaimed water rates depend on

179

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

the type of commercial user, the size of the meter used, whether or not there is onsite storage for
water, and there is a limit on how much water the user may use (Water Conservation II) .

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

It is difficult to tell since the reclaimed water system was put into place to dispose of
effluent and information regarding conservation is limited. One source states that using
reclaimed water saves 50 million gallons of water from being pumped from the Floridan Aquifer
(Green Works Orlando Pillars).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

According to Daron Johnson, the reclaimed water system is a money maker for the City.
The profits are used to increase the reclaimed water quality. In addition, profits were recently
used to expand the reclaimed system with the addition of a booster pump and pipeline conveying
water from the north to the south side of town (Johnson, 2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

According to Daron Johnson, there have been no cross-connections or associated
illnesses (Johnson, 2010).

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
1. Yes, the reclaimed system proved to be a valuable asset when the City agreed to share
reclaimed water use with other entities in order to obtain more drinking water. In addition, the
City agreed to help develop alternative drinking water supplies for the region. (Dyer, 2005)
2. According to Johnson (2010), the more reclaimed water Orlando uses, St. Johns Water
Management District allows Orlando to pump more water from the aquifer for drinking
purposes.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Buddy Dyer, Orlando Mayor.(2005)."Message from Mayor Dyer".

<http://www.cityoforlando.net/thecitybeautiful/email/20050114.html>. (July 21, 2010)
City Data. (2009). "Orlando, FL". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Orlando-Florida.html>.
(August 31, 2010).
City of Orlando Public Works. "Reclaimed Water".
<http://www.cityoforlando.net/public_works/wastewater/distribution.htm>. (July 21,
2010)
City of Orlando. (2009). "Annual Report 2009/2010".
<http://www.cityoforlando.net/admin/omb/budget0910/20092010Budget.pdf>. (July 21,
2010)
City of Orlando, Wastewater Division. "Distribution Facility".
<http://www.cityoforlando.net/public_works/wastewater/distributionpg5.htm>. (July 21,
2010)
Green Works Orlando.(2008)."Reclaimed Water Conservation Strategy".
<http://cityoforlando.net/elected/greenworks/green_updates/08_05.htm>. (July 21, 2010)

180

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Johnson, Daron. (2010). Call. (July 30, 2010).
Ksionek, Ken. (2009). Orlando Utilities Commission. "OUC City Council Presentation".
<http://www.cityoforlando.net/cityclerk/citycouncil/workshop_files/presentations/2009-
11-2_OUC.pdf>. (July 21, 2010)
Orlando Utilities Commission. (2009). "2009 Annual Report".
Water Conservation II. "Orange County Commercial Citrus Grower Reclaimed Water Rate
Schedule-Water Conservation II". <http://www.waterconservii.com/agreements.html>.
(July 23, 2010).

181

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CITY OF OVIEDO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, OVIEDO, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 8/16/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of Oviedo Public Works Department

Contact Person: Josef Grusauskas
Title: Utilities Manager

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 2007 (reclaimed)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Several subdivisions have true (parallel lines installed at the same time) dual
water systems: The Sanctuary, Live Oak, Ekana Green, Waverlee Woods,
Oviedo Forest, subdivisions (Reclaimed & Potable Water Irrigation Procedures
Node, 1074). The "real benefit is to the homeowner…Typically reclaimed
water costs less to irrigate with than potable water, so they save money. Also,
reclaimed water has phosphorous and nitrogen which means they use much
less fertilizer" (Grusauskas, 2010).
2. Reclaimed water comes from two reclaimed systems in Oviedo: City of Oviedo
and Alafaya Utilities (Reclaimed & Potable Water Irrigation Procedures Node,
1074).
3. Conservation and incentives were put into place in 2007 due to the fact that
Oviedo was exceeding its permitted groundwater pumping (City of Oviedo,
2007). LEED certified facilities were constructed to encourage citizens to

182

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 implement water conservation methods at their homes. Oviedo offers free
irrigation audits in order to show customers where they could save the most
water (A Sustainable Commitment: Oviedo’s Green Stewardship).
4. The H2 Oviedo Water Conservation Incentive Program was established in 2009
and is an incentive approach to water conservation. Residents with or without
irrigation systems can benefit and the program works with the permitting
procedures of homeowners associations (A Sustainable Commitment: Oviedo’s
Green Stewardship).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Oviedo has a population of 33,529 people and is located in Seminole County
Florida (Oviedo CAFR, 2009).

Reclaimed Water System

Two reclaimed water systems serve customers in Oviedo. The Oviedo reclaimed system
consists of about 17 miles of water main serving approximately 720 reclaimed water customers
(Oviedo CAFR, 2009). Several subdivisions are served by the reclaimed system from Alafaya
Utilities including The Sanctuary, Live Oak Reserve, Waverlee Woods, Ekana Green, and
commercial property on County Road 419 (Reclaimed & Potable Water Irrigation Procedures
Node 1577). Oviedo's reclaimed water system serves Lake Rogers, Kingsbridge East,
Kingsbridge West, Chapman Groves, Chapman Oaks, Capman Cove and Easton Park
subdivisions. Subdivisions were built with dual systems to conserve potable water and prevent
the City from using too much groundwater (City of Oviedo, 2007).

The reclaimed water provided by Oviedo originates from Seminole County via the City
of Orlando's Iron Bridge Wastewater Treatment Facility facilitated through bulk service
agreements between Seminole County and the City of Oviedo (Wastewater & Lift Station
Systems). Oviedo is planning on buying out Alafaya Utilities as of April 2010, which currently
serves about 8,500 City residents with reclaimed and sewer service (Roberts, 2010). However,
residents have the final say as to whether or not the utility will be bought out (Roberts, Gary,
2010). "Alafaya Utilities is a subsidiary of Utilities, Inc., which operates more than 500 utility
systems in 15 states" according to Gary Robert of Knight Newspaper Production (Roberts, Gary,
2010). The buyout is expected to lead to more development in the area (Azam, 2010). According
to Grusauskas, "The City is currently trying to acquire Alafaya so it can add its contracted
reclaimed water to the private utilities distribution system to save money and make the Oviedo
system sustainable" (Grusauskas, 2010). "Alafaya is a private utility within the City limits. They
have limited reclaimed availability and trouble providing irrigation water to homes when it is
dry. Limited reclaimed and intermittent service availability is a customer service nightmare"
(Grusauskas, 2010). In addition, due to the "limited reclaimed supply from Alafaya, many
residents use potable water for irrigation and refuse to hook up to reclaimed" (Grusauskas,
2010).

Potable Water System

183

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Oviedo supplies drinking water to about 12,000 customers and the potable system
consists of about 160 miles of water main (Oviedo CAFR, 2009). The City operates two water
treatment plants including the West Mitchell Hammock Water Treatment Facility (WMHWTF),
which is the City's main production facility providing the entire City with high quality drinking
water. The other is the A.M. Jones Water Treatment Facility, which operates to boost water
production during high demand periods (Water Production). The distribution system consists of
over 160 miles of water main ranging from 2 to 36 inches in diameter and over 12,000 water
meters and service lines (Water Production).

Oviedo consumes about 4.67 million gallons of potable water per day, or about 150
gallons per person. The potable water comes from groundwater wells, 400 ft. deep in the aquifer,
and is controlled by the St. Johns River Water Management (City of Oviedo, 2007). As of 2007,
Oviedo was exceeding its allotted water use (City of Oviedo, 2007). Currently, the City is not
exceeding its groundwater allotment (Grusauskas 2010), probably due to the fact that the
reclaimed water program began in 2007 (Oviedo CAFR, 2009). According to Grusauskas, the
fact that the "City Fathers" invested heavily in the reclaimed system is the reason why
groundwater allotments are not exceeded (Grusauskas, 2010).

Reclaimed water is a benefit to homeowner's associations. Since Oviedo is a top 100 City
to live in, homeowners association want homes to be kept up with Florida-Friendly but “green”
yards (Grusauskas, 2010).According to Grusauskas, "reclaimed water keeps things green and it is
cheaper to use and less regulated then potable water" (Grusauskas, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
Every other year or so, the City encounters a do-it-yourself resident who may
contaminate their own system. Such residents are found out when they call the City about water
quality issues. Typically, cross connections are found with new constructions and are
subsequently corrected due to the "very pro-active" inspection program (Grusauskas, 2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

Every potable meter in the City has a backflow device to prevent system contamination.
The City is has also undertaken putting radio read meters in which automatically flag any back-
flow. (Grusauskas, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. Frequent (i.e. every other year) cross connections are caused by residents who
decide to perform their own potable/reclaimed water connections. These cases
are identified when they call the City about water quality issues.

184

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 2. City exceeded its allotted groundwater use in 2007 and had to put conservation
measures and incentives in place in order to reduce demand on the aquifer
(City of Oviedo, 2007). Incentives included: the removal of St. Augustine grass
with grass that required less water, use of more efficient toilets, aerators, etc. A
homeowner’s associate reportedly sent out letters to residents stating that it
would not implement conservation measures.
3. City planning on buying Alafaya Utilities in order to ensure a more efficient
operation of the reclaimed water system and curb the "rising tide" of increasing
rates for customers (Roberts, 2010). The rates are due to increasing electricity
costs according to Alafaya Utilities (Azam, 2010). Alafaya Utilities does not
provide good customer service and could not keep customers costs under
control. Azam reports that Alafaya Utilities has had some issues with their
customer service including cases in which customers were left without
reclaimed water for their lawns and landscaping. The City plans to link the two
reclaimed systems within three months of purchasing Alafaya Utilities, which
could be finalized in September 2010 (Azam, 2010) and add as many as 900
reclaimed water customers (Roberts, 2010).
4. Running two systems is more expensive than one system and the provider needs
to be diligent for cross contamination. The cheapest way would have been
using one potable system for drinking water that also provided irrigation.
However, since groundwater resources have become stressed (in Florida) that
is no longer possible, which created a need for two systems. Changing an
existing single system to dual system has left water suppliers with two
operational cost issues (Grusauskas, 2010).
• Retrofitting neighborhoods with a dual system is expensive. With revenue from
reclaimed water less than revenue from potable water, the City had to increase water rates. This
rate increase can be significant; as it not only compensates for lost water sales, but also may help
pay off new debt for reclaimed piping construction.
• The reduced use of water in the old drinking water piping system may allow water to
age and chemically change to no longer meet new EPA drinking water standards (e.g. THM’s).
This can result in the requirement of high water treatment standards or flushing (wasting) large
amounts of water to keep water fresh and compliant. Flushing also may cause a utility to go over
their consumptive use permit (CUP)" (Grusauskas, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

A total of 36 homes participated in the H20viedo Water Conservation Incentive Program
implemented in 2009. This saved 1.8 million gallons of potable water (40% savings per
household). Since implementation of water conservation measures and the startup of the
reclaimed water program, potable water consumption has declined by approximately 7 percent
(Oviedo CAFR, 2009).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
A total of 36 homes participated in the H20viedo Water Conservation Incentive Program
implemented in 2009. This saved 1.8 million gallons of potable water (40% savings per

185

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

household). Since implementation of water conservation measures and the startup of the
reclaimed water program, potable water consumption has declined by approximately 7 percent
(Oviedo CAFR, 2009).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

Water production cost was $1,669,881, water distribution and maintenance was
$464,168, cross-connection control was $166,051, and reclaimed water and conservation cost
was $223,212 in Fiscal Year 2009-10 (City of Oviedo Annual Budget, 2009).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Due to odor and THM issues, the City built a new state-of-the-art water plant (2006) with
forced draft aerators (Grusauskas, 2010). This new treatment plant meets and exceeds new
drinking water standards, but is more costly to operate than what neighboring cities experience
(Grusauskas, 2010). Oviedo budgeted $1,383,660 for reuse system expansion in the 2009-2010
Budget (City of Oviedo Annual Budget, 2009).

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The City switched from using a decreasing block rate structure to an increasing block rate
structure in 2007 to cut back on groundwater use (City of Oviedo, 2007). The potable water rates
are according to a five tier increasing block rate structure for residential use beginning with
$0.83 per 1,000 gallons for a bracket of 0 to 3,000 gallons of potable water use, whereas
irrigation residential use is a 3 tier increasing block rate structure beginning with a rate of $3.48
per 1,000 gallons of potable water use (Oviedo CAFR, 2009). Commercial use is a flat rate of
$2.50 per 1,000 gallons and commercial irrigation use is a flat rate of $3.89 per 1,000 gallons
(Oviedo CAFR, 2009). Reclaimed water rates are cheaper and are according to a three tier
increasing block rate structure for residential use beginning with $1.09 per 1,000 gallons for a
bracket of 0 to 15,000 gallons of reclaimed water use (Oviedo CAFR, 2009). Commercial
reclaimed water use is a flat rate of $1.09 per 1,000 gallons (Oviedo CAFR, 2009). Base rates for
both the reclaimed water and potable water depend on the user type, meter size, and whether or
not the customer is inside or outside the City limits. (Finance Department)

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes, since using reclaimed water is vital to not exceeding the pumping allowance from
the aquifer. According to Josef, "for every reclaimed gallon sold, ¾ of a gallon of potable is
saved. This is based on people seeing potable as a cost beneficial resource. They typically use
about 20 to 25% more reclaimed. They also feel good about using reclaimed water and believe
they are recharging their water aquifer". Since implementation of water conservation measures
and the startup of the reclaimed water program, potable water consumption was reduced about 7
percent (Oviedo CAFR, 2009).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

186

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Somewhat, according to Josef, "Reclaimed water infrastructure (Construction of piping
systems) is being subsidized by potable water system in Oviedo. This is because if the resident
had to pay for the reclaimed improvements directly, no one would hook up or want it. The whole
community wins by having reclaimed water use".

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

Although there have been reported cross connections, there have not been any associated
illnesses reported from the alternative chlorinated reclaimed water source.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, the reclaimed system is a significant contributor to ensuring a reliable water supply
for the next 20 years at least. Due to the consumptive use permit the City cannot obtain more
than 4.78 mgd, which is the 2013 projected quantity, the current demand being 4.6 mgd. Thus,
implementing reclaimed water irrigation is essential, Grusauskas stated, "water for new growth
will have to come from reductions in use by implementing reclaimed water irrigation". The
City's wastewater goes to the Iron Bridge Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and in
addition has a long term contract to purchase up to 3 MGD of reclaimed water for its new
reclaimed system (Grusauskas, 2010). The projected water need for 2030 is 6.6 mgd of which
4.78 mgd would come from groundwater and 1.82 mgd from reclaimed water, and 1.18 mgd is
excess reclaimed water capacity (Grusauskas, 2010).

V. REFERENCES CITED

Azam, Melanie. Orlando Business Journal. (2010). "$36 million in bonds may be issued for the
deal-City of Oviedo considering wastewater utility purchase".
<http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2010/05/31/story7.html>. (August 11,
2010).
City of Oviedo. (2009). "Annual Budget (Adopted) For Fiscal Year Ending September 30,
2010."
<http://www.cityofoviedo.net/files/GFOA%20Submission%20Book%20with%20links.p
df>. (August 16, 2010).
City of Oviedo. "A Sustainable Commitment: Oviedo’s Green Stewardship".
<http://www.ci.oviedo.fl.us/ED/?page_id=7>. (August 11, 2010).
City of Oviedo. (2007). "City of Oviedo: Community Meeting for Water Conservation".
<http://www.universityuus.org/green/CityofOviedo2008-ProposedWaterChanges.html>.
(August 11, 2010).
City of Oviedo. (2009). "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report".
<http://www.cityofoviedo.net/files/file/2009%20CITY%20OF%20OVIEDO%20FL%20
CAFR.pdf>. (August 11, 2010).
City of Oviedo-Finance Department. "Water Rates & Fees".
<http://cityofoviedo.net/index.php?q=node/888>. (August 11, 2010).
City of Oviedo, Florida-Public Works. "Reclaimed & Potable Water Irrigation Procedures".
<http://www.cityofoviedo.net/node/1074>. (August 11, 2010).
City of Oviedo, Florida - Public Works. "Reclaimed & Potable Water Irrigation Procedures".
<http://www.cityofoviedo.net/node/1577>. (August 10, 2010).

187

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

City of Oviedo, Florida - Public Works. "Water Production".
<http://www.cityofoviedo.net/node/1579>. (August 10, 2010).
City of Oviedo. "Wastewater & Lift Station Systems".
<http://www.cityofoviedo.net/node/1576>. (August 10, 2010).
Grusauskas, Josef. E-mail. August 16, 2010
Roberts, Gary. Knight Newspapers Production. (2010). "Oviedo set to buy Alafaya Utilities".
<http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2010/04/21/4bcf4f64cc40d>.
(August 11, 2010).

188

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

PINELLAS COUNTY UTILITIES, CLEARWATER, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 9/30/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: Pinellas County Utilities

Contact Person: Wayne Nichols
Title: Water Reclamation Facility Supt

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: N/A

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non -potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Several water conservation measures are utilized by Pinellas County Utilities, two
of which have recently been completed, the Ultra Low Flow Toilet Rebate
Program and the Alternate Water Sources Rebate Program. The ULFT
Program has surpassed the goal of saving 2 million gallons of potable water per
day (ULFT, 2010). The AWS Rebate Program provided financial assistance for
customers installing non-potable irrigation systems (AWS Rebate Program,
2010).
2. Pinellas County Utilities uses chloramine for drinking water disinfection, due to
environmental regulations for chlorine byproducts, but uses chlorine for a
temporary time during the year in order to maintain system water quality (Press
Release Aug 17, 2010).
3. Pinellas County Utilities does not utilize increasing block rate structures for water
use (Water and Sewer Rates, 2010).

189

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 4. Several subdivisions on the mainland and on the beach are hooked up to the
reclaimed water system as well as several schools, parks, and golf courses
(Reclaimed Water FAQs).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Pinellas County Utilities is located in Clearwater, Florida.

Potable Water System

Pinellas County Utilities obtains potable water through Tampa Bay Water. The water is a
blend of groundwater, treated surface water, and desalinated seawater. Approximately 2,000
miles of pipe constitute the Pinellas County Utilities potable water distribution system (Pinellas
County Drinking Water, 2010).

Reclaimed Water System

Reclaimed water produced by Pinellas County meets the requirements for use in public
areas, residential lawn and landscape irrigation (Reclaimed Water FAQs). The reclaimed water
program is voluntary. The total reuse was 7.72 mgd, of which 3.59 mgd is for residential
irrigation, 1.77 mgd for golf course irrigation, 1.56 mgd for other public access areas, and 0.8
mgd at the treatment plant (DEP Form, 2006). Reclaimed water is produced from three plants:
William E. Dunn WRF with 6.4 mgd of raw water, City of Clearwater Northeast AWWTF with
1.25 mgd of reclaimed water, and the City of Oldsmar WRF with 0.07 of reclaimed water (DEP
Form, 2006).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
According to a report completed in 2006, there have been two illegal cross connections
identified during the reporting period, but both cross connections were eliminated (DEP Form,
2006). New connections to the recycled water system are inspected at the time of initial
connection. Existing residential reclaimed water customers are inspected as needed for follow up
and HB re-inspections started (DEP Form, 2006).

Provide any other pertinent information

1. Has a wellhead protection program in order to comply with state regulations.
2. When a site is hooked up to the reclaimed water system a cross connection test is
conducted (Reclaimed Water FAQs). In addition, wells and irrigation systems hooked
up to the potable water system must be disconnected in order for a site to be hooked
up to the reclaimed water system (Reclaimed Water FAQs). Those hooked up to the
reclaimed water system in North Pinellas County are required to have wye strainers

190

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 for irrigation systems (Reclaimed Water FAQs).

Principal Operational Issues

1. At least one company not associated with Pinellas County Utilities has attempted
to scare drinking water customers into buying expensive potable water
treatment systems for their water (Utilities, 2010).
2. The reclaimed water system is experiencing low pressure issues and water
shortages during the non-rainy season and an appeal was made to customers to
limit their reclaimed water use (Conservation Measures-Seasonal Restrictions,
2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Coupled with conservation measures per capita water use was reduced from 153 gpcd in
1989-1990 to 72 gpcd in 2008-2009.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
There is not enough information to determine this.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

There is not enough information to determine this.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
There is not enough information to determine this.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Pinellas County Utilities does not use increasing block rate structures to encourage water
conservation. Retail water rates are composed of a base rate charge, $3.35, and a flat volumetric
rate of $4.78 per 1,000 gallons. Reclaimed water rates for retail customers on a “funded”
reclaimed water system are composed of a user fee of $14 and a volumetric rate of $0.64 per
1,000 gallons (if metered). If the customer is on an "unfunded" reclaimed water system, the user
fee is $7.00, the availability charge is $8.00, and the volumetric rate is $0.64 per 1,000 gallons.
The difference between a funded and an unfunded system is that the availability charge is used to
pay for infrastructure costs on the unfunded system (Water and Sewer Rates, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes since conservation measures and the reclaimed water system have substantially
reduced potable water demand. However, setting up an increasing block rate structure may lead
to more potable water conservation.

191

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Is the dual system more efficient economically?
There is not enough information to determine this.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

There have been a very limited number of cross connections, which were resolved
expeditiously.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, since conservation measures and the reclaimed water system have substantially
reduced potable water demand.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Pinellas County Florida-Utilities. (2010). "Pinellas County Utilities Issues Consumer Alert
Caution urged for free water testing offers."
<http://www.pinellascounty.org/utilities/press/pr-2010-09-01.html>. (September 29,
2010).

Pinellas County Florida-Utilities. (2010). "Ultra Low Flow Toilet (ULFT) Rebate Program."
<http://www.pinellascounty.org/utilities/ulft.html>. (September 29, 2010).
Pinellas County Florida-Utilities. (2010). "Alternate Water Sources Rebate Program."
<http://www.pinellascounty.org/utilities/rebate-aws.htm>. (September 29, 2010).
Pinellas County Utilities. (2010). “Pinellas County Utilities to Conduct Water System
Maintenance August 23 - October 8, 2010.”
<http://www.pinellascounty.org/utilities/press/pr-2010-08-17.html>. (September 29,
2010).
Pinellas County Utilities. (2010). "Pinellas County Drinking Water".
<http://www.pinellascounty.org/utilities/water-source.htm>. (September 29, 2010).
Pinellas County Utilities. (2010). "Water & Sewer Rates."
<http://www.pinellascounty.org/utilities/rates-water-sewer.htm>. (September 29, 2010).

192

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

PITTSBURG PUBLIC WORKS, PITTSBURG, CA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 7/26/2010

Prepared By: Pete Rogers

Utility Information

Utility Name: Pittsburg Public Works

Contact Person: Walter Pease
Title: Director of Water Utilities

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 2001

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other City Hall
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The dual system was originally designed to supply recycled water to two power
plants located in Pittsburg. With adequate capacity at the recycled water plant,
the City later installed the necessary pipelines and storage tank to incorporate
the parks and golf course into the system for irrigation.
2. The 1.2 MG recycled water distribution tank (used exclusively for irrigation) is
situated at an elevation so that the pressure in the recycled water lines is
approximately 20 psi below that of the potable water lines.
3. The City is not planning on expanding the recycled system coverage since the
cost of the dist. system expansion is not cost effective at this time. (Pease,
2010).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

193

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 The City of Pittsburg is located at the junction of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers
approximately 30 miles northeast of Oakland. The 2010 estimated population is 65,000
(California Department of Finance, 2009). The City’s Water Utilities Department is responsible
for providing the community with water, wastewater, and storm water services.

Potable Water

Raw water is provided to the City through the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)
which sells treated and untreated water to various municipal, industrial, and irrigation customers
throughout the area. The CCWD draws its water from the Rock Slough and Old River intakes on
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta under a contract with the United State Bureau of
Reclamation’s Central Valley Project (Contra Costa Water District, 2010). This water is
conveyed through the 48 mile Contra Costa Canal, which extends from the Rock Slough intake
to the Martinez Reservoir. Raw water provided by the CCWD is treated at the Pittsburg Water
Treatment Plant which has a plant capacity of 32 mgd. The Water Utilities department operates
the eight reservoirs, seven pumping stations, and 211miles of pipe that makeup the distribution
system.

Wastewater and Recycled Water

The City of Pittsburg owns and operates the 170 miles of wastewater collection system.
The treatment, effluent disposal, and recycled water services are provided by the Delta Diablo
Sanitation District (DDSD). DDSD services unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County and
the communities of Bay Point, Antioch, and Pittsburg. The DDSD wastewater treatment plant,
located on the Pittsburg-Antioch border, has capacity of 16.5 mgd with an average dry weather
flow of 14.2 mgd (Contra Costa LAFCO, 2007).

The City’s recycled water program began in 2001 with the completion of the Recycled
Water Facility (RWF) located adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant. The RWF is operated
by DDSD and sized to deliver a peak flow of 12.8 mgd (14,000 acre feet per year).
Approximately 8,600 AF per year of recycled water is used for the cooling towers of the Los
Medanos and Delta Energy Centers (Cohen et al., 2009). An additional 600 AF per year of
recycled water also used within Pittsburg to irrigate 5 parks (Central, Columbia Linear, 8th Street
Linear, City Park, and Stoneman North), City Hall, and the Delta View Golf Course. The golf
course is the largest user or recycled irrigation water, using approximately 1 mgd during the
spring and summer months (Pease, 2010). The use of recycled water for irrigation within the
City required the construction of a 1.2 mg distribution tank to make up for the water distribution
system pipeline capacity deficiencies (an 8 inch water supply line was reused for this project).
Any treated wastewater that is not used as recycled water is discharged in New York Slough
(canal) through a deep water outfall.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

194

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
N/A

Provide any other pertinent information

The City has a backflow prevention program with yearly testing.

Principal Operational Issues

Due to the large fluctuation in elevation throughout the City, a large portion of the
utility's operation budget is spent on pumping recycled water.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

1. The City estimates that the recycled water system reduces the potable water
demand by approximately 5% (600 AF per year).
2. The golf course alone consumes roughly 1 mgd of recycled water during the
spring and summer months.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
Due to the limited scope (coverage) of the dual system, the use of recycled water has had
a very minor impact on the remainder of the system.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

Since the Delta Diablo Sanitation District operates the recycled water plant for multiple
communities, it is difficult to extract this data for just the City of Pittsburg. Walter Pease
indicated that DDSD charges the power companies $398 per AF and the City $317 per AF.
Based on an average irrigation consumption of 600 AF per year, the recycled water production
costs would be $190,200.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Yearly back flow device testing and quarterly inspections.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The City uses an increasing block rate structure for potable water based on a per Ccf
(hundred cubic feet) interval rather than a per 1,000 gallon interval. The primary users (power
plants) purchase recycled water from DDSD at $398 per AF.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes. The primary use of the recycled water is for the power plants with other uses based
on the limitation of the distribution system. There is potential for an expansion of connections

195

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

based on their proximity to the existing system.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Yes, due to the high cost of potable water. Walter Pease indicated that the utility pays
approximately $750 per AF (raw water, treatment, and distribution) versus $310 per AF for
recycled water. Based on an average consumption of 600 AF, this results in $264,000 annual
savings.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No. There have been no reported cases of cross connections or illnesses related to the
consumption of recycled water.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes. The use of recycled water for the golf course alone has freed up approximately 1
mgd of water treatment plant and reservoir storage capacities during the spring and summer
months. This helps reduce the vulnerability of the potable system against droughts while also
protecting valuable water assets.

V. REFERENCES

California Department of Finance (2009). “Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the
State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2009 and 2010”
<http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/2009-10/>. (Last
accessed July 22, 2010)
Cohen R., Ortez, K., and Pinkstaff, C. (2009) “National Resource Defense Council Issue paper:
Increasing Water Efficiency in California Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII)
Sector.”
Contra Costa Water District (2010). http://www.ccwater.com/welcome/profile.asp (Last accessed
July 26, 2010)
Contra Costa LAFCO: Water and Wastewater Municipal Services Review (2007). Section 8
Delta Diablo Sanitation District Wastewater Service.
<http://www.contracostalafco.org/municipal_service_reviews/east_county_water_wastew
ater/8.0%20DDSD_WaterWastewater%20Final.pdf>. (Last accessed July 22, 2010).
Pease, Walter (2010). Director of Water Utilities. Phone call on July 26, 2010.

196

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, RALEIGH, NC

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 1/6/2011

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department

Contact Person: Marla Dalton
Title: Environmental Reuse Coordinator

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 2007

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Odor
control, fertilizer make up water, facility washdown, pesticide make up water, concrete
production
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. There are two reclaimed water systems served by Raleigh.

2. There are four bulk distribution systems serving reclaimed water.
3. Reclaimed water is used for toilet flushing.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Raleigh has a population of 405,791 people and is located in Wake County
North Carolina. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department water and sanitary sewer service
to about 450,000 people in Raleigh, Garner, Wake Forest, Rolesville, Knightdale, Wendell, and
Zebulon areas (Public Utilities Department, 2009). Raleigh has four wastewater treatment plants,
two water treatment plants, and two reuse systems (MPU, 2007).

197

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Potable Water System

Most of Raleigh's potable water originates from the Falls Lake Reservoir in northern Wake
County. The water is treated at the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant. According to Dalton
(2011), potable water use averages at about 50 mgd.An additional plant located in southwest
Wake County, the Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant, treats an additional potable water
(Articles).The potable water system consists of approximately 2,300 miles (Dalton, 2011) of
water line to serve an average of 44.8 mgd of water to 165,298 consumers (CAFR, 2009).

Reclaimed Water System

Raleigh's reclaimed water system, the Neuse River WWTP reuse system, was put into
service in 2000 (MPU, 2007). As of 2007, the system consisted of 10 miles of reclaimed water
line (MPU, 2007). Raleigh's Zebulon Service Area (ZSA) reclaimed water system has recently
been expanded including a system that was approximately 4,500 feet long in 2007. This
reclaimed water system began constructing their reclaimed water system in 2003 to use
reclaimed water for cooling tower make-up and irrigation (MPU, 2007). In addition, the ZSA is
also served with water and sewer service from Raleigh (Utility Billing). Reclaimed water users
include US Foods, Five County Stadium, four WWTP non-potable users, golf courses,
commercial irrigation, schools, residences, and nurseries (MPU, 2007). In 2007, there were 233
bulk reuse customers for which the annual average flow of 3.86 mgd (MPU, 2007). According to
Marla Dalton (2010), Raleigh has 4 bulk systems in which customers can pick up water in tanks,
and two reclaimed water systems, consisting of a total of 20 miles of pipeline. In 2010, 69,635,
825 gallons of reclaimed water was used (Dalton, 2010).

The reclaimed water system is currently being expanded, and as of December 2010, the
Southeast Raleigh Distribution System was expanded and currently serves 4 users for irrigation,
odor control, area wash down uses (Reuse Water, 2010). By 2011, Raleigh plans on the system
being expanded to serve more parks, recreational facilities, a softball complex, and other
locations (Reuse Water, 2010).

Concerning the distribution expansion for the City of Zebulon; 30,963,900 gallons of
reclaimed water was sold through October 2010 and now serves Glaxo Smith Kline for
irrigation, cooling tower, toilet flushing) and Alliance Concrete Company (Reuse Water, 2010).
The system will eventually serve a Wal-Mart (Reuse Water, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There have been no cross connections or associated illnesses (Dalton, 2011).

198

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Provide any other pertinent information
The measures taken to protect public health and safety are: cross connection testing,
system identification, and different reclaimed water meter set ups from that of potable water
(Dalton, 2011).

Principal Operational Issues

According to Dalton (2011), the principal operational issues are water quality and
quantity.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

On a limited scale since about 70 million gallons of reclaimed water was used in 2010.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The Town of Zebulon's water and reclaimed water is now provided by the City of
Raleigh.
Potable water system expansions have been deferred.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

A single staff member (coordinator) and support from other existing devisions.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
NA

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The potable water rates are organized by an increasing block rate structure and reclaimed
water rates are 50 percent of the potable rates (Dalton, 2011).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

On a limited basis since reclaimed water use is limited compared to potable water use.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Efficiency occurs with dual pipeline installation.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since there have not been any cross connections or associated illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Only on a limited basis.

199

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City of Raleigh. (2010). "City of Raleigh Reuse Water".

<http://www.oldriverridge.com/resources/Reuse+Newsletter+Sept+2010.pdf>.
(December 14, 2010).
City of Raleigh. (2009). "City of Raleigh Comprehensive Financial Report 2009".
<http://www.raleighnc.gov/home/content/Finance/Articles/FinanceReports.html>.
(December 15, 2010).
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department. (2009). "Public Utilities Department".
<http://www.raleighnc.gov/services/content/Departments/Articles/PublicUtilitiesDept.ht
ml>. (December 14, 2010).
City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department. (2007). "Reuse Water System Master Plan-January
2007."
<http://www.raleighnc.gov/content/PubUtilReuse/Documents/Reuse_Master_Plan.pdf>.
(December 14, 2010).
City of Raleigh. "Utility Billing".
<http://www.raleighnc.gov/search/content/PubAffairs/Articles/RulesEncourageReuseWater.html
>. (December 14, 2010).
Dalton, Marla. Environmental Reuse Coordinator. E-mail January 6, 2011.

200

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

REDWOOD CITY PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES, REDWOOD CITY, CA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 11/15/2010

Prepared By: Pete Rogers

Utility Information

Utility Name: Redwood City Public Works Services

Contact Person: Justin Ezell
Title: Public Works Superintendent

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 2000 (pilot)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The utility has a very extensive public outreach/education program consisting of:
a. Free training sessions twice a year on the safe and proper use of recycled
water.
b. Training for site supervisors. Recycled water customers are required to
have a
2. designated site supervisor, trained by the City, to manage recycled water at their
site.
a. Free one-on-one residential conservation consultations and site water use
analysis.
3. The utility has a "delta 10 control strategy" within the system that ensures that the
pressure in the recycled water lines is always 10 psi below that of the potable
lines.

201

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 4. Under the 2008 recycled water ordinance, new parks, playgrounds and schools
(urinals and irrigation) will use recycled water.
5. A portion of the recycled meters are connected to automated meter information
(AMI). These customers can view their usage online and also receive weekly
emails.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Redwood City is located in the Bay Area, approximately 25 miles south of San Francisco
and 27 miles north of San Jose. The 2010 estimated population is 80,000 (Redwood City Profile,
2008). The City’s Public Works Services Department provides the community with water,
wastewater, recycled, and storm water services. The City’s water supply is provided by the
Hetch Hetchy water system, operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC). The SFPUC provides water to over 2.4 million customers in the Bay Area and within
the City of San Francisco through contractual agreements with 29 wholesale customers in Santa
Clara, Alameda, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties (SFPUC, 2010). One such agreement is
with Redwood City for approximately 12,243 AFY (3.98 billion gallons per year).

Potable Water

Most of the City’s potable water supply comes from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir located
on the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park. The SFPUC operates the gravity fed 160 mile
long transmission from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to Redwood City. Because of the
watershed’s remote and pristine condition, the State has granted the Hetch Hetchy water source a
filtration exemption, although water is chloraminated (Ezell, 2008). A small portion of the City’s
water comes from two local watersheds which drain to the San Antonio and Calaveras reservoirs.
Prior to distribution, water from these reservoirs is treated at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment,
which was recently expanded to a capacity of 160 mgd. The plant uses coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection processes.

Wastewater and Recycled Water

Redwood City’s Public Works Services department is responsible for the collection and
treatment of wastewater. The collection system consists of 280 miles of sewer mains with 31 lift
stations (Public Works Services, 2008). The sewage is treated at the South Bayside System
Authority (SBSA) Wastewater Treatment Plant with a capacity of 29 mgd. Redwood City has
agreements with the County of San Mateo and the town of Woodside that permit these
jurisdictions to convey wastewater through the City system to the SBSA treatment plant (Draft
General Plan, 2009). SBSA is managed by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) made up of Redwood
City, San Carlos, Belmont, and the West Bay Sanitary District. Effluent from the SBSA is
discharged to the San Francisco Bay, as permitted by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB).

The City’s water recycling project was initiated in 2000 through a joint pilot study
between Redwood City and SBSA which demonstrated the feasibility of producing recycled
water that meets the distribution goals and health requirements specified by the California

202

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Department of Health Services. Despite the success of the pilot study, the City faced strong
opposition from citizen groups who objected the use of recycled water, particularly in areas
where children play. The City responded in 2003 by forming a professionally-affiliated and
consultant-staffed Recycle Water Task Force which explored different ways of achieving water
conservation goals while avoiding schools and playgrounds (Public Works Services, 2008).
Recently the recycled water project has expanded to include the completion of a recycled water
treatment facility with a capacity of 3200 AFY (2.85 mgd) at the SBSA plant in 2006 and recent
pipeline expansion projects in the Redwood Shores, Bayfront, and Seaport areas (Ezell, 2010).
The project is still a joint effort: SBSA is responsible for treating the wastewater for recycling,
while the City’s Public Works Services department is responsible for distribution and quality
testing. The City reports that the water recycling system also has sufficient capacity available to
supply recycled water to adjacent communities (Draft General Plan, 2009). Under the City’s
2008 Recycled Water Use Ordinance, the use of recycled water was expanded to include internal
separate plumbing for urinals, internal cooling, towers and external landscaping on new
apartments, townhouses and condominiums, and on industrial, commercial, and governmental
projects (including schools, parks, and playgrounds). For existing customers, it requires recycled
water for external landscaping on existing and remodeled commercial and industrial buildings
(Draft General Plan, 2009). The recycled water project currently services a total of 38 residential,
commercial, industrial, and municipal sites with an additional 40 applications in process
(Connections, 2009). Justin Ezell reports that the recycled project is gaining momentum; the
original protesters are now loyal supporters.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
N/A

Provide any other pertinent information

1. The utility has a cross connection control program that consists of routine
inspections to determine the degree of risk (used in determining backflow
device) and annual inspections of all existing devices.
2. The utilities "delta 10 control strategy" ensures that the pressure in the recycled
water mains is always (regardless of pressure changes) 10 psi less than that in
the potable mains. This minimizes any impact of potential cross connections.
3. The City conducts free training sessions twice a year on the safe and proper use of
recycled water.
4. Recycled water customers are required to have a designated site supervisor
trained by the City to manage recycled water at their site.

Principal Operational Issues

203

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 1. Increases in recycled water (and subsequent reductions in potable use) have led to
several potable water quality issues. Justin Ezell indicated that the potable
mains are now even more oversized.
2. Because the City's conservation and recycled water programs started at the same
time, there were some initial issues with brown lawns. While the public
initially blamed the high salinity (750 ppm) of the recycled water, a study
concluded that the public simply was not watering enough.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

From 2003 through 2008 the City exceeded its annual water allocation by SFPUC of
12,243 AF by an average of 800 acre feet with a peak of 1,400 AF in 2003. With the 2008 City
water reuse ordinance, massive infrastructure additions, and conservation measures, in 2009 the
City used only 11,589 AF (654 AF less than its allocation). Recycled water accounted for 360
AF (Ezell, 2010). Although the original goal of the recycled water program was 900 AFY by
2010, the City feels that this goal is met when including conservation (Ezell, 2010). Recycled
water use will increase once the 2008 ordinance is applied to new customers. Meanwhile, the
City is clearly moving in the right direction.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The increased use of recycled water has reduced potable water demand to the point that
the utility is experiencing some water quality issues (oversized mains).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The total 2009 recycled water budget was approximately $5 million. Most of this ($4.5
million) was allocated to debt service and the remaining $500,000 for the operation and
maintenance of the recycled water project (Ezell, 2010). Justin Ezell indicated that revenues
from the recycled water project are slightly less than the $500,000 operational costs.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
1. Doubled the number of valve exercising and main flushing operations.
2. Weekly sampling and testing from sample stations throughout the recycled system.
3. Quarterly cross connection inspections and reporting.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

1. The utility uses an increasing block rate structure for both potable water
consumption. Pricing for recycled water is priced at the lowest tier at a fixed
rate which is 75% that of potable water.
2. Existing customers do not have to pay a recycled water connection fee, however,
future customers will have to pay the fee.
3. The City uses a variety of other measures to conserve water including rebates
(washer, toilets), free conservation devices, and one-on-one conservation
consults.

204

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes. Combined with conservation, it has reduced the City's allocations from SFPUC to
the point that their use no longer exceeds the allotted withdrawals. They now use less than their
allotment.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

At this point probably not since the system is in its infancy. However, the project is
clearly gaining momentum and will improve economically

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No. There have been no reported cases of cross connections or illnesses relating to the
consumption of recycled water.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes. It reduces the community's dependence on the SFPUC's system and provides some
measure of security against droughts.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Connections: Recycled Water Project Update. (2009). <http://www.ci.redwood-

city.ca.us/publicworks/pdf/RC_Connections_Fall_09.pdf>. (Last accessed July 7, 2010).
Redwood City: Draft General Plan. (2009). <http://www.ci.redwood-
city.ca.us/government/council/packets/2009/1123/generalplan/11_GeneralPlan_Infrastruc
ture.pdf>. (Last accessed July 7, 2010).
Redwood City Profile. (2008). http://www.redwoodcity.org/about/population.html (Last
accessed July 6, 2010).
Redwood City: Public Works Services. (2008). http://www.redwoodcity.org/galloncount/ (Last
accessed July 6, 2010).
Redwood City: Water Quality Report. (2008).
<http://www.redwoodcity.org/publicworks/water/pdf/2008_RWC_Water_Quality_Annua
l_Report.pdf>. (Last accessed July 7, 2010)
San Francisco Public Utilities Comm. (2010). <http://sfwater.org/mc_main.cfm/MC_ID/13>.
(Last accessed July 6, 2010).
Ezell, Justin. (2010). Public Works Service Superintendent. Phone call on July 8, 2010.

205

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM, SAN ANTIONIO, TX

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 1/3/2011

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: San Antonio Water System (SAWS)

Contact Person: Pablo Martinez
Title: Water Recycling

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 2001

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Data center
cooling and other industrial processes, stream augmentation
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The SAWS also has an Aquifer Storage and Recovery facility that was opened in
2004, which produces about 15% percent of the total water supply (SAWS
Annual, 2009). As of January 2011 more than 90,000 AF of water has been
stored underground.
2. There is an effective leak detection program which resulted reduced the
percentage of unaccounted for water down to seven or eight percent annually
(2002 Annual Report, 2002).
3. The system uses an aggressive water conservation program with a goal to reduce
the per capita water demand to 116 gpcd during normal weather conditions.
Despite, a 50 percent increase in customers since 1987, the volume of water
distributed has been unchanged (2009 Water Management Plan Update, 2009).

206

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 The potable water usage in 2008 was 139 gpcd, and 115 gpcd in 2007, whereas
in 1982 it was 225 gpcd (2009 WMPU, 2009).
4. By the end of 2009, SAWS exceeded 98 percent beneficial biosolids use (Annual
Report, 2009). In 2009 conservation efforts resulted in 2,918 acre-feet of water
savings (Annual Report 2009).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The San Antonio Water System is located in the City of San Antonio, a population of
1,373,668, located in Bexar County Texas.

Potable Water System

In 2009, the potable water system consisted of 4,886 miles of water main and the total
potable water supply available was 343,717 acre-feet in 2010. The available water supply comes
from 3,500 AF from the Trinity Aquifer, 6,400 AF from the Carrizo Aquifer, 8,210 AF from
Canyon Lake, 67,000 AF from the Aquifer Recovery and Storage system, and 258,607 AF from
the Edwards Aquifer which is 80 percent of the total water supply. The total number of wells in
2009 was 140 (Annual Report 2009). The system also has a total storage capacity of 166.2
million gallons (Annual Report 2009). Currently, the actual potable water demand is about 55.3
billion gallons per year (Annual Report, 2009).

Reclaimed Water System

The reclaimed water system consists of approximately 130 miles of recycled water line
(Martinez, 2010) and 85,000 AF is the total available reclaimed water supply in 2010.
Approximately 50,000 AF is available for CPS Energy Power Plants and 35,000 AF to other
customers, which is 20 percent of the total water supply available. Since the program began in
2001 the total reclaimed water usage surpassed 10 billion gallons in 2008 (Freckmann, 2008).
According to Pablo Martinez (2010), the reclaimed water usage is approximately 7,600 acre feet
during a wet year and 13,400 acre feet during a dry year. Thus, the average usage is about 3.42
billion gallons per year. The SAWS has three water recycling centers: Medio Creek WRC, Leon
Creek WRC, and the Dos Rios WRC (Water Recycling Center Locations, 2010) (Service Areas,
2010).
The reclaimed water is used for lawn irrigation, which includes the Alamo, USAA,
Brackenridge Park, Trinity University, Lackland Air Force Base and the University of Texas at
San Antonio (Freckmann, 2008). Reclaimed water is proving to be an economic benefit to San
Antonio in that the City is competitive in the economic development arena. For instance, a data
center plans to use recycled water for cooling servers (Freckmann, 2008).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

207

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.

Reportedly, a cross connection occurred in March 2002, when the Brackenridge Golf
Course switched to using reclaimed water, and it affected the River Road neighborhood since
some non-potable water got into the water system. A lawsuit was filed since people in the
neighborhood claimed that they got sick as a result of the cross connection and that SAWS
operators took about two to three weeks to resolve the problem. In April 2002, one of the
residents affected reported that the water was brown in color, cloudy, had particulate matter, and
had a bad odor (Lavelle, 2002).

Provide any other pertinent information

The 2002 cross connection was the only cross connection that the system had since.
Public health and safety measures are: back flow devise annual testing, customer training, and
annual site inspections (Martinez, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. The SAWS is facing challenges related to aging infrastructure, and has the goal of
replacing water and wastewater infrastructure as well as accommodating new
growth (2002 Annual Report, 2002).
2. San Antonio Water System filed a lawsuit against the LCRA alleging that there
was a breach of contract for water.

The reclaimed water supply has been stable for the last ten years indicating that the
reclaimed water system is efficient and effective (Martinez, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Ever since SAWS has initiated a strong conservation program along with an assertive
recycling program San Antonio started noticing a reduction in gpcd consumption beginning in
the 1990s. Potable water has been saved according to the following provided by Pablo Martinez
(2010): In 1982 the GPCD was 225, in 2004 it was 117 and in 2006 it was 136.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The City is in the process of re-rating the Dos Rios WRC from its capacity of 125 mgd to
217 mgd in order to accommodate future growth in the San Antonio metropolitan area (Annual
Report 2009).

The City also plans on having a brackish groundwater desalination plant (Annual Report,
2009).

According to Martinez (2010) the SAWS is not planning on expanding the reclaimed
water system or increasing reclaimed water supply.

Economic Information

208

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?
The operating expense for the San Antonio Water System (which includes the wastewater
system) was $306,058,000 in 2009. The net income was -$14,116,000 before calculating in
capital contributions (Annual Report 2009). Martinez says that the reclaimed water system costs
about 2 million per year in operation and maintenance costs. In addition, Martinez reported that
the reclaimed water system does not pay for itself.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
The expenses included water delivery, supply, chilled water and steam distribution, and
wastewater (Annual Report 2009).

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Potable water rates depend on the user type, meter size, and whether the user is inside or
outside the City limits. User types that have volume rates depending on whether or not they are
standard or seasonal charges are: residential, general class (includes apartments, commercial,
industrial, and municipal customers), and landscape irrigation. There are also volumetric rates
for wholesale customers which are not organized into standard or seasonal rates. All potable
rates are organized into their respective four tier increasing block rates structures and are per 100
gallons.
Recycled water service depends on whether or not the customer is an Edwards Exchange
Customer or Non-Edwards Exchange Customer. The respective rates are organized into a two
tier increasing rate structure and the rates are per 100 gallons. The rates are also standard and
seasonal. (Water and Sewer Rates, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes, since the reclaimed water system conserves potable water. When combined with the
strong conservation program and the recycling program, SAWS has noticed the potable water
usage has gone down from 225 gpcd in 1982 to 136 gpcd in 2006.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

SAWS has some of the lowest water rates in the state, butthe reclaimed water system
does not pay for itself.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

In 2002 a cross connection caused a group of residents to become ill and incur medical
expenses as a result. However, there have not been any cross connections or associated illnesses
reported since.
SAWS has implemented a detailed process for retrofit connections plus new connections
including plan review, on-site construction observation, annual monitoring, and inspection.
Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
It does, since the potable water usage has reduced since substantially since the reclaimed
water system has been used in conjunction with a strong conservation program plus citizen

209

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

awareness regarding protection of natural resources.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Freckmann, Yvonne. (2008). "SAWS’ Recycled Water System Reaches 10 Billion Gallon
Mark". <http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2008/07/21/daily16.html>.
(December 8, 2010).
Lavelle, Marianne. (2002). "The Coming Water Crisis".
<http://haguewaterofmd.com/index_files/Page821.htm>. (December 14, 2010).
Martinez, Pablo. San Antonio Water System. (2010). E-mail.
San Antonio Water System. (2009). '2009 Water Management Plan Update".
<http://www.saws.org/our_water/waterresources/2009wmp/source_management.shtml>.
(December 8, 2010).
San Antonio Water System. (2002). "2002 Annual Report".
<http://www.saws.org/who_we_are/annual_reports/reports/2002/operations.shtml>.
(December 13, 2010).
SAWS. (2009). "Annual Report 2009".
<http://www.saws.org/who_we_are/annual_reports/reports/2009/index.shtml>. (December 8,
2010).
SAWS. (2010). "Service Areas". <http://www.saws.org/who_we_are/service.shtml>. (December
12, 2010).
SAWS. (2010). "Water and Sewer Rates". <http://www.saws.org/service/rates/>. (December 16,
2010).
SAWS. (2010). "Water Recycling". <http://www.saws.org/our_water/recycling/>. (December 8,
2010).
SAWS. (2010). "Water Recycling Center Locations".
<http://www.saws.org/our_water/recycling/centers/location.shtml>. (December, 8, 2010).

210

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, SAN DIEGO, CA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 7/6/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of San Diego Public Utilities Department, Recycled Water Section
Contact Person: Fabiola Amarillas
Title: Associate Engineer- Civil (OCA Senior Engineer)

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1850 with potable and 1997 with reclaimed water
Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Other
industrial use, irrigation of landfill, and irrigation of temple
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. North Central Water Reclamation Plant (NCWRP) is entirely powered by an on-

site cogeneration facility operated by Minnesota Methane, using methane from
Miramar landfill and MBC digester. The remainder of the power generated
after NCWRP usage is sold to the electrical grid. (San Diego RWMPU, 2005)
2. Reportedly, the reliability of the reclaimed water system does not have to be as
stringent as the potable water system since it does not provide essential
services, such as fire protection and sanitary services (San Diego RWMPU,
2005).
3. Aggressive water conservation program which requires retrofitting toilets with
ultra-low flush toilets and utilizes public information and education (San Diego
2002-2030 LRP 2010). The retrofits accounted for over half the water savings
(San Diego 2002-2030 LRP).

211

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The San Diego Water Department serves more than 1.3 million people and San Diego is
located in San Diego County California. San Diego relies almost entirely on surface water to
meet its water demand. Currently, San Diego obtains anywhere from 75% to 90% (San Diego,
2005) of its water by importing it from the San Diego County Water Authority (CWA), which
gets their water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The water
ultimately comes from the Colorado River and northern California (Wood 2007). Anywhere
from 10 to 25% of San Diego's water comes from runoff collected in the City's reservoirs (San
Diego UWMP, 2005).

Potable System

The potable system serves San Diego, customers in unincorporated areas, several cities,
and irrigation districts. The system has approximately 3,460 miles of pipeline (San Diego
UWMP, 2005) and has a system capacity of 294 mgd collectively from three water treatment
plants. In addition, there are 90 pressure zones in the potable distribution system (Public
Utilities, 2010).

Reclaimed System

The reclaimed system consists of about 83 miles of pipeline (Recycled Water Overview,
2010). Reclaimed water comes from either the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) or
the North Central Water Reclamation Plant (NCWRP) which both treat a portion of its
wastewater to standards suitable for being used as reclaimed water by reclaimed water customers
(San Diego RWMPU, 2005). The remainder of the effluent is discharged into the ocean (San
Diego RWMPU, 2005).
The NCWRP began operation in 1997 and has a capacity of 30 mgd, of which 22.5 mgd
of wastewater was treated in 2005. The NCWRP utilizes a Demineralization Facility to further
treat a third of the treated wastewater, which uses electro dialysis reversal (EDR) to reduce
salinity of the reclaimed water. The portion treated by EDR is eventually blended with filtered
effluent and chlorinated for 90 minutes prior to conveyance (San Diego RWMPU, 2005).
Some new developments in the North Service Area have installed reclaimed water
pipelines and installed irrigation system for future connections to the North City Recycled Water
Distribution System (San Diego RWMPU, 2005). There are rules and regulations which specify
who is required to hook up to the reclaimed water system depending on user type, distance from
reclaimed water system, and the amount of water the user uses or plans to use; the height,
occupancy, and square footage of new buildings; the type of cooling tower used; among other
rules (PBS&J, 2005).
The SBWRP began operation in 2002 and has a capacity to treat 15 mgd of wastewater.
San Diego entered into an agreement in 2005 with the Otay Water District to sell 6 mgd of
reclaimed water (San Diego RWMPU 2005). About 0.7 mgd of reclaimed water is conveyed to
the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) (San Diego RWMPU, 2005). The
SBWRP uses ultraviolet for tertiary treatment of the reclaimed portion of the wastewater treated.
The capacity of the plant to produce reclaimed water is 13.5 mgd (San Diego RWMPU, 2005).

212

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 San Diego is considering increasing the amount of reclaimed water it produces to
decrease reliance on imported water (San Diego RWMPU, 2005).
In all, the "City of San Diego has 2 reclamation plants with a capacity to treat 45 MGD of
wastewater and a recycled water production capacity of approx. 38 MGD" (Amarillas, 2010). In
2009, the actual amount of reclaimed water produced was approximately 7 MGD (Water, 2009).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
One cross connection in 2001 was found by a City inspector, valves were closed, and
there was no water flowing from one system to the other. In addition, there were no associated
illnesses. (Amarillas, 2010)

Provide any other pertinent information

1. San Diego has a 7 month supply of emergency water in case of catastrophe (San
Diego 2002-2030 Long Range Plan, 2010).
2. The potable water system serves as a backup supply for the reclaimed water
system (San Diego RWMPU, 2005).
3. Plan check and inspections of the reclaimed water system is a collaborative effort
of San Diego, California Department of Health Services (CDHS) and County
Department of Environmental Health (DEH).
4. Cross-connection control shutdown testing is required at each reclaimed water
customer site to identify any cross connections with the potable water system,
and is repeated every 4 years thereafter. In addition, site walks and record
checks are performed annually. (San Diego RWMPU, 2005).
5. Backflow Prevention Program which tests backflow devices annually (San Diego
County Apartment Association, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. Unreliable supply of surface water from the CWA/MWD due to drought,

increased competition amongst water users, new and more restrictive
environmental regulations (Wood, 2007).
2. Surface water obtained from CWA/MWD has high salinity which prevents the
reclaimed water system from being used to its fullest potential (San Diego
2002-2030 LRP 2010).
3. San Diego is in the process of finding new sources of local water to decrease
dependence on imported water (Wood, 2007).
4. Public acceptance issues (San Diego 2002-2030 LRP, 2010).
5. Disagreements over water rates and conveyance options between the CWA and
MWD (San Diego 2002-2030 LRP, 2010), which contributes to uncertainty in
utilizing imported water to meet water demand.

213

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 6. People posing as water utility service employees are "trying to collect water bills
or sell water treatment devices using false or misleading statements about the
quality or contents of your water" (Utility Service Imposters, 2010).
7. The City has committed to a TDS of 1000 mg/mL or less to its customers. This
level is less than the 1200 mg/ml level allowed by title 22. This is an added
cost at one of the treatment plants (Amarillas, 2010). At the other treatment
plant, conservation measures have led to the generation of less wastewater
leading to decreased supplies of raw water.
8. The reclaimed system was designed as a wastewater distribution system, not like
a water system, therefore there is no real reliability in the system, it is not
looped (Amarillas, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Concerning whether or not the reclaimed water system is a significant contributor to
conservation efforts in San Diego, Fabiola Amarillas stated that conservation accounted for a
12% reduction in potable water demands and recycled water 3% (Amarillas, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
In 2007, the San Diego City Council authorized the Water Reuse Demonstration Project.
The project consists of a one-million gallon per day advanced recycled water treatment plant at
the North City Water Reclamation Plant (Water History, 2010). In 2009, the Water Department
and the Metropolitan Wastewater Department merged to become the Public Utilities Department
(Water History, 2010).
Due to the presence of the reclaimed water system, San Diego has a policy that "recycled
water be used for any purpose approved for recycled water use when it is economically,
financially, and technically feasible, as mandated by Ordinance 0-17327" (San Diego Rules and
Regulations, 2008). Customers that meet the requirements for reclaimed water service are
required to apply for reclaimed service (San Diego Rules and Regulations, 2008).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The Water Department budget for the 2010 Fiscal Year is $536,311,930 which includes
the personnel, operations, and maintenance expenses. The reclaimed water program is also
included in this amount. Personnel expenses: $65,945,842; Non-personnel expenses:
$470,366,088. Non-personnel expenses are broken down into four categories, Supplies &
Services: $446,885,877; Information Technology: $11,571,975; Energy & Utilities: $9,741,215;
Equipment Outlay: $2,167,021.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Water purchases are included in the expenses for Fiscal Year 2010. Capital improvement
planning and management, stormwater and watershed management, and capital improvement
projects are a few unique expenses of the Water Department.

214

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:
The potable water rate for single family domestic customers is a three tier increasing
block rate structure to encourage conservation. For example, the first tier volumetric bimonthly
charge is $4.40 per 1,000 gallons. Other domestic customers pay a lower bimonthly rate, $3.571
per 1,000 gallons. Temporary construction and irrigation customers pay 4.89 per 1,000 gallons.
Generally, the volumetric charge for potable water use depends on the type of water user and the
base fee depends on the type of user and meter size (Water Rates, 2010).
The volumetric charge for reclaimed water currently is $0.80 HCF, or $1.07 per 1,000
gallons (Public Utilities RWR, 2010)

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Only on a small scale currently. The reclaimed system does not contribute as much to
reducing potable water use as does conservation measures. However, San Diego sees the need to
expand the use of reclaimed water to ensure that future water demand will be met. The City is
also exploring the use of desalination plants to treat salt water and brackish groundwater. Other
sources of water are also being explored to meet future demand.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

It is difficult to tell since the reclaimed and potable water revenue and expenses are
somewhat combined in the San Diego Budget for the water budget (Water, 2009). The revenue
from reclaimed water was $7,399,000 for Fiscal Year 2010, which could have been a target
revenue, and the revenue from potable water was $342,798,830.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since there has only been one cross connection, in 2001, and no associated illnesses
have been reported.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Currently, the City is in need of more water sources due to the heavy reliance on
imported water which is drought susceptible and comes with legal, environmental, and other
issues (San Diego 2002-2030 LRP, 2010).

V. REFERENCES CITED

Alma Rife - City of San Diego Public Utilities Department Long Range Planning and Water
Resources Division. (2010). "Carmel Valley Recycled Water Pipeline".
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/pdf/recycled/cvpipeline.pdf>. (June 21, 2010).
City of San Diego. (2009). "Water".
<http://www.sandiego.gov/fm/annual/pdf/fy10/57v2water.pdf> (July 2, 2010).
City of San Diego Public Utilities Department Long Range Planning and Water Resources
Division. (2010).
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/pdf/recycled/penasquitospipeline.pdf>. (June 21,2010).

215

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

City of San Diego Water Department. (2008). "Rules and Regulations For Recycled Water Use
and Distribution Within the City of San Diego".
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/pdf/rulesandregs.pdf>. (July 2, 2010).
Fabiola Amarillas. E-mail. July 6, 2010.
PBS&J. (2005). "City of San Diego Recycled Water Master Plan Update 2005".
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/pdf/uwmpfinal.pdf>. (June 21,2010).
Rola Wood. (2007). "City of San Diego Long-Range Water Resources Plan (2002-2030)".
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/pdf/lrwrplan070604.pdf>. (June 24,2010).
Public Utilities: Recycled Water. (2010). "Recycled Water Rate".
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/recycled/recycledrates.shtml>. (June 21, 2010).
Public Utilities: Recycled Water. (2010). "Future Recycled Water Rate Increase"
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/recycled/rateincrease.shtml>. (June 21, 2010).
Public Utilities: Water. (2010). "City of San Diego Water History".
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/gen-info/history.shtml>. (July 2, 2010).
Public Utilities: Water. (2010). "Overview". <http://www.sandiego.gov/water/gen-
info/overview.shtml>. (July 2, 2010).
Public Utilities: Water. (2010). "Recycled Water Overview"
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/recycled/overview.shtml>. (July 2, 2010).
Public Utilities: Water. (2010). "Water Operations - "Protect Yourself and Your Home From
Water Utility Service Imposters".
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/operations/imposters.shtml>. (July 6, 2010).
Public Utilities: Water. (2010). "Water & Sewer Bill/ Rates".
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/rates/rates.shtml>. (July 2, 2010).
San Diego County Apartment Association. (2007). "Cross-Connection Control Presentation".
<http://www.sandiego.gov/water/pdf/ccpp070419.pdf>. (July 2, 2010).

216

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

SANTA BARBARA PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.-WATER RESOUCES DIV., SANTA
BARBARA, CA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 2/1/2011

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information
Utility Name: Santa Barbara Public Works Department-Water Resources Division
Contact Person: Rebecca Bjork
Title: Water Resources Manager

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1989 (reclaimed water)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Public
areas irrigation, zoo
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

Reclaimed water is used for toilet flushing at public restrooms in sites where irrigation
water is also supplied using with recycled water.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Santa Barbara has a population of 86,353 people and is located in Santa Barbara county
California (City Data, 2009).

Potable Water System

The potable water system treats and distributes approximately 4.7 billion gallons of water
per year (FY 2011 Budget) and currently consists of 300 miles of water line (Bjork, 2011). In

217

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Fiscal Year 2010, 4.1 billion gallons of potable water was treated (CAFR 2010). There are two
water treatment plants (Cater WTP and Ortega GWTP), 9 wells, 1 water supply reservoir, 13
distribution reservoirs, and 12 pump stations (FY 2011 Budget).
The water demand is typically met by a combination of local surface water and recycled
water. In the case of an emergency, Santa Barbara's water demand is augmented by local
groundwater and state water. Also, the City owns a desalination facility, which is currently
offline (2009 Water Supply Management Report). The surface water supply comes from the
Gibraltar Reservoir and Lake Cachuma, the primary source of surface water. Average rainfall is
sufficient to fill the Gibraltar Reservoir (2009 Water Supply Management Report). However,
above average rainfall is necessary to produce significant inflow into Lake Cachuma, thus, the
City participates in a cloud seeding program administered by Santa Barbara County in order to
enhance rainfall (2009 Water Supply Management Report). In 2009, the cloud seeding program
was limited due to the Zaca Fire (2009 Water Supply Management Report). Groundwater is
infiltrated into the Mission Tunnel and from five of nine production wells (Bjork, 2011), some of
which are treated at Ortega Groundwater Treatment Plant (2009 Water Supply Management
Report). In 2009, the City received 427 AF of water from the State (2009 Water Supply
Management Report). The City is permitted to store carryover State water in San Luis Reservoir
(2009 Water Supply Management Report).

Reclaimed Water System

Santa Barbara treats and distributes approximately 260 million gallons of reclaimed water
per year (FY 2011 Budget) and contributes to about 5 percent of the total water demand in a
typical year (2009 Water Supply Management Report).There is one water reclamation plant, El
Estero Wastewater Treatment Plant, producing reclaimed water (FY 2011 Budget). There are
nine fill stations located throughout the reclaimed water system (Bazzell, 2008). Reclaimed
water is used at over forty sites throughout the community and the City is looking for additional
users adjacent to the existing system (Bjork, 2011). Reclaimed water is used at parks, schools, a
zoo, home associations and retirement homes, as well as for toilet flushing at public sites that are
irrigated with reclaimed water (Recycled Water). After several dry years in the 1970s, Santa
Barbara conducted a water supply analysis and concluded that additional water resources were
necessary and that reclaimed water was a potential additional water sources (Recycled Water).
After a feasibility study was conducted reclaimed water was found to be economically,
technically, and environmentally feasible (Recycled Water).
Currently, Santa Barbara requires the use of recycled water for irrigation for multiple
family developments, developments with common area irrigated lots, and commercial
developments that are adjacent to the recycled water main line (City Municipal Code 14.23.010-
14.23.030). Single family residences are encouraged but not required to use recycled water on
their sites (Recycled Water).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

218

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There have not been any reported cross connections or associated illnesses (Bjork, 2011).

Provide any other pertinent information

The City performs inspections in order to ensure public health and safety (Bjork, 2011).

Principal Operational Issues

1. There are water rights issues concerning Lake Cachuma as well as issues
regarding an endangered species, the steelhead trout (2009 Water Supply
Management Report).
2. The Gibraltar Reservoir is currently "silting in" due to the Zaca Fire and historical
siltation and the City is attempting to "'pass through" a portion of its Gibraltar
water to Lake Cachuma for delivery through Cachuma Project facilities (2009
Water Supply Management Report).
3. Since the recycled system wasn't designed for 100% availability, when the system
is down for maintenance the City must provide portable toilets for those that
use recycled water for toilet flushing (Bjork, 2011).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

On a limited basis currently since reclaimed water use accounts for 800 AF of water use
of a total water demand of 14000 AF per year, which is 5.71 percent of the total demand.

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
1. Several water wells are in the process of being reconstructed in order to ensure
that there is a reliable source of back-up water supplies during drought and
emergency water supply in case of catastrophic water supply interruptions
(2009 Water Supply Management Report).
2. Ozone treatment is being added to the Cater Water Treatment Plant.
3. Reservoir 1 is being improved in order to "facilitate distribution of water from
low elevations to higher zones as would be necessary during catastrophic water
supply interruptions (2009 Water Supply Management Report).
4. The City is currently evaluating the possibility of demineralizing the recycled
water at the El Estero Wastewater Treatment Plant (2009 Water Supply
Management Report).
5. The reclaimed water system infrastructure/use is not currently being expanded
(Bjork, 2011).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

For year ended June 30, 2010 the revenue for the water program (approx. $33 million)
exceeded the expenses (29,757,267) (CAFR 2010).

219

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
This information is not available.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Base potable water rates depend on the meter size and volumetric water rates depend on
the user type, whether the customer is inside or outside the City limits, and base allotments
which depend on user type. The allotments are either base allotment s which equal the average
monthly consumption during most recent January - June period, or annualized allotments which
run July to June. Single family residence charges are in a three tier increasing block rate structure
beginning with a charge of $2.93 per 100 cubic feet for up to 4 hcf of water use. Residential
volumetric charges are not based on allotments, but only commercial, irrigation, and industrial
use charges. Reclaimed water use is $1.75 per 100 cubic feet of use for all types of water users.
(Water and Sewer Rates, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

On a limited basis since reclaimed water use accounts for 5.71 percent of the total water
demand.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

No, since the reclaimed water system does not pay for itself. However, the cost has to be
factored against the cost of developing new sources (Bjork, 2011).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since there have not been any cross connections or associated illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
It is difficult to tell since the necessity of the system is measured against the cost of
having other water sources and is not currently being expanded.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Bazzell, K. (2008). "Rcl-site (1-9) Layout1 (1)".

<http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A977B191-7458-4D33-A0AC-
FAB74474AEAE/0/RecycledWaterFillStations.pdf> (January 27, 2011).
Bjork, Rebecca. Email on January 28, 2011.
City Data. (2009). "Santa Barbara, CA". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Santa-Barbara-
California.html> (January 27, 2011).
City of Santa Barbara. (2010). "Adopted Financial Plan For Fiscal Year 2011".
<http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/Documents/Budget/Current/01_Adopted_Budget_Docu
ment_ (Single_PDF)/00_Adopted_Budget_Document_ (Single_PDF).pdf> (January 27,
2011).
City of Santa Barbara. (2011). "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report-Fiscal Year Ended June
30, 2010".
<http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/Documents/Comprehensive_Annual_Financial_Report/
01_Current_City_CAFR_Document/2010_2010_City_CAFR.pdf> (January 27, 2011).
220

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

City of Santa Barbara-Public Works Water Resources Division. "El Estero Wastewater
Treatment Plant".
<http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/Resident/Water/Wastewater/WWElEstero.htm>
(January 13, 2011).
City of Santa Barbara-Public Works Water Resources Division. "Recycled Water".
<http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/Resident/Water/Wastewater/WWRecycledWater.htm>
(January 13, 2011).
City of Santa Barbara-Public Works Water Resources Division. "Water Supply Management
Report-2009 Water Year (October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2009)".
<http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/E9F81462-0B44-444F-9826-
DEA15FE40504/0/2009WaterSupplyManagementReport.pdf> (January 27, 2011).
City of Santa Barbara. (2010). "Water and Sewer Rates".
<http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/PagePrintVersion.htm?title=Water+%26+Sewer+Rates
&guid={7DC3BF0D-6B7E-465B-AEA3-6139557FF501}> (February 1, 2011).

221

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CITY OF SANTA ROSA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, SANTA ROSA, CA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 9/15/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department

Contact Person: Randy Piazza
Title: Reclamation Superintendent

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1970s (reclaimed water)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Sports
complex, power generation
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The City's conservation measures, affecting residents and businesses, saved over
1.4 billion gallons of water annually since 2004 (Water Conservation, 2009).
Measures include cash for clothes washer program and even providing
conservation awards to residents and businesses (City of Santa Rosa, 2009).
2. The potable water system has 25 steel reservoirs (Connections, 2010).
3. "During the 1980's when our original recycled water system was built, it was the
largest agricultural reuse system in the world. It still irrigates over 6,000 acres
with a variety of crops including pasture, oat hay, rye, sod farms, vegetables,
orchards, and vineyards. In the 1990's urban reuse became part of the system
and has been expending since. And in 2004 we began delivering recycled water
to the Geysers steam fields for generation of renewable green power. So the

222

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 current split of uses is about 60% to Geysers, 35% to agriculture, and 5% to
urban" (Carlson, 2010).
4. Recycled water is pumped from the treatment plant 41 miles and up 3,300 feet for
the Geysers Recharge Project (Carlson, 2010). "This does take energy but only
about 10% of the power that is made with this water". Calpine owns most of
the geothermal plants at the Geysers and is a partner in the project (Piazza,
2010). Calpine provides the power to pump the water at the three upper lift
stations and reimburses Santa Rosa for the cost of the power used at the
Laguna plant pump station. Calpine reportedly says that there is an 85 MW net
power gain, but it may be even greater than that (Piazza, 2010). There are some
other benefits to Calpine in addition to the steam field recharge, and such as
using the reclaimed water in cooling towers (Piazza, 2010).
5. The City has approximately 4500 AF of recycled water storage ponds. The system
was weather dependent originally, and the Geysers project was a way to have a
use for the water during the winter rainy season (Piazza, 2010).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Santa Rosa has a population of approximately 157,500 people and is located
in Sonoma County (City Data, 2009).

Potable System

Santa Rosa purchases potable water from Sonoma County Water Agency and Santa Rosa
only produces a small amount of its own water from wells located within the City limits (Russell,
2009). In all, more than seven billion gallons of water was distributed to customers via 620 miles
of distribution lines serving about 50,000 individual residences, basin, and irrigation users
(Russell, 2009). Wells only produced about 489 million gallons of water in 2008 (Russell, 2009).

Reclaimed System

The reclaimed water system started in the mid 1970's as a way to meet the plant's NPDES
requirement of zero discharge from May 15 through October (Piazza, 2010). The original system
consisted of an agricultural reuse system using secondary treated water. In 1989 the plant was
upgraded to tertiary treatment and the City began doing urban reuse and expanded to irrigation of
fruits (specifically vineyards) and vegetables (Piazza, 2010).
Sub regional operations comprised of eight sections that operate and maintain the Laguna
Plant, Oakmont Treatment Plant, Sub regional Compost Facility, and the Reclamation System
(Water Reuse System, 2009). Santa Rosa is a managing partner for the sub regional wastewater
treatment plant that provides treatment, disposal, reclamation, industrial waste inspection and lab
services to Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, Cotati and the South Park County Sanitation
District (City of Santa Rosa, 2009). The sub regional water reuse system has been using
reclaimed water for irrigation for over 35 years (Connections, 2009). The sub regional water
reuse system is funded by five regional partners (Russell, 2009). Each of the five partners pays
operating costs based on the flow into the plant from the year before, the debt service costs based
on the flows into the plant and growth calculations (Russell, 2009). Santa Rosa contributes about

223

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

73% of the sub regional operating budget (Russell, 2009), which includes operating the Laguna
Sub regional Water Reclamation Facility. About half of the sub regional system's reclaimed
water is sent to the Geysers where it is pumped into an underground steam field in order to
generate enough electricity for about 100,000 households (City of Santa Rosa Recycled Water,
2009). In 2008, 6.6 billion gallons of wastewater was converted to recycled water, of which, 2.3
billion gallons was used for irrigation (Russell, 2009). In addition, 2,003 dry tons of biosolids
was produced in 2008 (Russell, 2009). Water reuse is beneficial since the use of potable water
from the Russian River and its tributaries is reduced (Connections, 2009). Other incentives for
using reclaimed water include having a drought proof water supply and having an
environmentally friendly way to dispose of reclaimed water (Connections, 2009).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There have not been any cross connections or associated illnesses (Carlson, 2010). This
could be attributed to the fact that there are not many sites that are dual plumbed (Piazza, 2010).
For instance, there are two municipal parks and several buildings at Sonoma State University
that use reclaimed water for toilet flushing, six private sites use reclaimed water for landscape
irrigation and are classified as dual plumbed. All other parks, schools and other urban users use
reclaimed water for landscape irrigation and are not classified as dual plumbed (Piazza, 2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

The City uses air gap separation and on-going cross-connection checks along with site
supervisor training in order to protect public health and safety (Carlson, 2010). Also, all users are
either commercial or industrial and there are no individual homeowners (Carlson, 2010). All
urban sites that use reclaimed water are required to have dual check valve back flow preventers,
which are also tested annually (Piazza, 2010). Dual plumbed sites are required to have a cross
connection test every four years (Piazza, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. Rate revenue is the largest component of the Water Fund, contributing about 80
percent of the total water utility's main revenue sources (Hartz, 2009).
Conservation efforts have resulted in decreased rate revenue. Demand fee
revenue contributes about 10 percent of the total water utility's revenue, but
was a historical low in the 2008/09 Fiscal Year (Hartz, 2009). The City is
feeling the effects of the downturn in the economy with decreases in utility tax
revenue (Hartz, 2009).
2. The City operates both potable and recycled systems pretty much the same way
although the recycled is a bit more forgiving with regard to shutdowns and
interruptions (Carlson, 2010). Depending on the type and age of irrigation
systems, the recycled water system may need to be cleaned more often. Also,

224

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 since chlorine is not used for disinfection, since they are 100% ultra violet
light, the City periodically doses the recycled system whereas the potable
system always has a slight chlorine residual (Carlson, 2010).
3. For the reclaimed system the two biggest operational challenges are one, dealing
with algae and aquatic organisms that grow in the ponds which are difficult to
filter out (Piazza, 2010). The other problem is a result of the City beginning to
use UV disinfection in 1998, due to having no residual in the water, the City
began to have regrowth of algae and snails in some pipelines (Piazza, 2010).
To address the second issue, the City installed sodium hypochlorite
disinfection systems on all pump stations supplying urban areas (Piazza,
2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Yes, with the utilization of other conservation measures. Residents and businesses were
able to save over 1.4 billions of gallons of water annually as a result of conservation measures
(City of Santa Rosa, 2009).
The use of reclaimed water helped limit some of the results of pumping water. Rohnert
Park, one City served by the reclaimed plant, had issues with dropping ground water levels. But
in 1996, all the parks, schools and a large portion of the commercial landscape irrigation was
converted to reclaimed water, which helped decrease the groundwater over drafting problem
(Piazza, 2010). All reclaimed water use is metered so the City can tract how much is being used
(Piazza, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
A recycled water pilot project is currently under construction which seeks to expand
recycled water service by the design of recycled water mainline, customer retrofits, and outreach
in order to add customers to the system (Russell, 2009). The primary use of the reclaimed water
will be irrigation (Connections, 2010).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The 2009/10 Fiscal Year Sub regional Wastewater facility operations expenditure request
was $27,808,163 (Russell, 2009).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
There is not enough information to verify this.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The rate for recycled water use, by ordinance, is marketed at 95% of the cost of potable
water (Carlson, 2010).
The urban water users are charged 75% of the potable water rate which will be changed
to 95% of the potable water rate in the future. The urban reuse systems do pay for the operation
and maintenance costs to run them (Piazza, 2010). Potable water is quite expensive in Santa

225

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Rosa; the current rate for tier 1 water is $4.09 per 1000 gallons.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes, the City is irrigating about 500 million gallons per year of urban landscape that
would otherwise use potable water (Carlson, 2010).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

To some extent, but it is still slightly subsidized. "None of the original recycled system
was intended to pay for itself-it was necessary to avoid discharge of water to streams and other
more costly alternatives such as an ocean outfall, advanced treatments, etc. The urban reuse
systems that are now being expended do pay for themselves and as water supply (rather than
discharge avoidance) has become the primary driver which it will be for the continued future,
this will continue to grow. The Geysers steam fields reuse are also coming close to cost neutral.
The agricultural system will improve but likely always be slightly subsidized" (Carlson, 2010).
The system is not economical. However, the plant has to "treat the water to tertiary level
in order to discharge so the treatment costs cannot really be included in the cost calculation”.
Also, the majority of the agricultural users get reclaimed water for free, but the City has just
begun to negotiate agreements that charge agricultural users for the water. The reason is that the
agricultural use is one way to "discharge" the reclaimed water but still comply with the zero
discharge requirement. The City originally got farmers to agree to take a minimum amount of
water, but the need was reduced when the Geysers project went on line in 2004. The City
possibly could begin charging them for the reclaimed water, but there has been a "great deal of
conversion of dairies to vineyards in the last 15 years" (Piazza, 2010). According to Piazza,
"Originally almost all of our users were dairies; in the last 20 years over half the dairies that we
originally served either converted to vineyards or sold their herds and got out of the dairy
business. The ones that left have irrigation agreements that run to 2017 or 2018, at that time
agreements will be made where the farmers pay at least a low cost for the water". Once
agricultural users begin paying for the reclaimed water, then the system may be more economical
but still benefit the users.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No the system has not compromised safety since there have not been any cross
connections or associated illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
The projected reclaimed water use will meet the needs of Santa Rosa, "it is projected to
be 10% of the total estimated water needs for year 2030" (Carlson, 2010).
The investment in the reclaimed system will prove to be essential as the City grows.
Currently, the system is essential to Rohnert Park (Piazza, 2010). The prospect of Santa Rosa
getting any more water from Sonoma County is "not good in the next 10 years" (Piazza, 2010).
Thus, any increase in water supply would have to come from reclaimed water and groundwater
(Piazza, 2010).

V. REFERENCES CITED

226

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Carlson, Dan. (2010). E-mail, dcarlson@srcity.org. September 13, 2010.
City Data. (2009). "Santa Rosa, CA". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Santa-Rosa-
California.html>. (August 31, 2010).
City of Santa Rosa, California. (2009). "City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department".
<http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/utilities/Pages/default.aspx>. (August 30, 2010).
City of Santa Rosa, California. (2009). "Water Conservation". <http://ci.santa-
rosa.ca.us/departments/utilities/conserve/pages/default.aspx>. (August 31, 2010).
City of Santa Rosa, California. (2009). "Water Reuse System". <http://ci.santa-
rosa.ca.us/departments/utilities/treatment/Pages/default.aspx>. (August 31, 2010).
City of Santa Rosa Recycled Water. (2009). "The Sub regional System is a National Leader in
Water Reuse". <http://ci.santa-
rosa.ca.us/departments/utilities/recycle/Pages/default.aspx>. (August 31, 2010).
Connections. (2010). "City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department". <http://ci.santa-
rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/Summer%202010.pdf>. (August 31, 2010).
Hartz, Sheri. (2009). "Reserve Policy". <http://ci.santa-
rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/0910_CityRevenues_FINAL.pdf>. (August 31, 2010).
Piazza, Randy. E-mail. September 14, 2010.

227

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

ST. PETE BEACH PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ST. PETE BEACH, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 10/13/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: St. Pete Beach Public Services Department

Contact Person: Phil Christman
Title: Operations Manager

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated:1995
Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Street
sweeping
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Reclaimed water is used for firefighting, though on a limited basis, since there are
a limited amount of reclaimed water fire hydrants (Christman, 2010).
2. All residents of St. Pete Beach have access to reclaimed water and he is not
"aware of any buildings that irrigate with potable" (Christman, 2010). He did
not know if the reclaimed water lines are larger than the potable water lines.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

St. Pete Beach, FL has a population of approximately 9,800 people and is located on a
barrier island in Pinellas County (City Data, 2009).

Potable Water System

228

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 St. Pete Beach obtains potable water by Pinellas County Utilities.

Reclaimed Water System

St. Pete Beach owns and operates its own reclaimed water system but purchases
reclaimed water produced by Pinellas County Utilities (Estrada, 2010). St. Pete Beach also
establishes its own voluntary watering restrictions for the reclaimed water system. The reclaimed
water system was built as a result of 1992 referendum when voters approved the borrowing of
$24 million from the State of Florida in order to construct distribution lines to "every property in
the city" (Estrada, 2010). Currently, the reclaimed water system consists of 40 miles of water
line and the average daily consumption is about 1.8 mgd (CAFR, 2010). The reclaimed water
system has been losing money and the deficit is made up for by a loan from the City's general
fund (CAFR, 2010).
Residents do not generally oppose the use of reclaimed water but those who do can
choose to discontinue service (Christman, 2010). When residents discontinue reclaimed service,
they are advised that they will need to pay the activation fee if they change their mind
(Christman, 2010). Also if they sell their house the new owner will be required to pay the
activation fee if they want reclaimed water service (Christman, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There is not enough information to tell if there were cross connections or associated
illnesses.

Provide any other pertinent information

Principal Operational Issues

1. The reclaimed water system is not economical and the City has considered
charging an availability fee for those who are able to connect to the system but
will not. The City is struggling to offset the cost of the system by considering
raising rates for users (Estrada, 2010). The plan is to raise the reclaimed water
rates over a two year period by about 21 percent for users and charge an
availability fee to non-users of $7.70 (Estrada, 2010). Currently, about 80
percent of property owners are on the reclaimed water system and 800 are not
(Estrada, 2010). The rate increase and availability fee will be used to pay off
the nearly $400,000 loan from the general fund (Estrada, 2010 and CAFR,
2009).
2. The principal operational issues are reclaimed water line breaks, filter clogging,
and unauthorized use/irrigation hookups (Christman, 2010).

229

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

The reclaimed water system has been "very effective" (Christman, 2010) when it comes
to water conservation but no objective data was given. Christman agreed that the reclaimed water
system is essential to meeting current and projected water needs (Christman, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The economically inefficient reclaimed water system has led to the City considering
hiring a consultant to perform a rate study for the reclaimed water system (CAFR, 2009).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

Pinellas County Utilities owns and operates the potable water system but St. Pete Beach
owns and operates the reclaimed water system. St. Pete Beach purchases the reclaimed water
produced from Pinellas County Utilities. The cost for the reclaimed water system operation was
$776,244 in Fiscal Year 2009 (CAFR, 2010).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Pinellas County Utilities provides the reclaimed water and potable water and system.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Unlike most reclaimed water providers, reclaimed water in St. Pete Beach is available for
a residential flat fee of $11.50 per month or $23.00 on a bi-monthly basis. Two-family, multi-
family, and commercial property fees are calculated according to permeable square footage of
the lot size (St. Pete Beach). Christman reported that there was a recent increase in water rates,
"We recently had a slight rate increase, though rates were the same for over a decade"
(Christman, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes. But Christman reported that as people conserve potable water the supply of
reclaimed water goes down. Thus, St. Pete Beach also encourages conservation of reclaimed
water (Christman, 2010).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

The reclaimed water system is not economically efficient since the program has been
losing money.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

There is not enough information to tell if the reclaimed water system has a negative
impact on public health.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?

230

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Yes, since the reclaimed water system is considered necessary to meet future and current
water needs.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City Data. (2009). "St. Pete Beach". <http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Pete-Beach-

Florida.html>. (September 30, 2010).
Estrada, Sheila Mullane, Times Correspondent . St. Petersburg Times. (2010). "In St. Pete
Beach, reclaimed water fees to increase".
<http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/in-st-pete-beach-reclaimed-water-
fees-to-increase/1101700>. (July 26, 2010).
St. Pete Beach, Florida. (2010). "City of St. Pete Beach, Florida Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report For the Year Ended September 30, 2009".
<http://www.stpetebeach.org/SPBNEW/Files/Finance/Information/2009%20CAFR%20-
%20City%20of%20St%20%20Pete%20Beach.pdf>. (September 21, 2010).
St. Pete Beach, Florida. "The City of St Pete Beach owns and operates the St Pete Beach
Reclaimed Water System".
<http://www.stpetebeach.org/SPBNEW/DepartmentHP.asp?DeptID=64>. (September 30,
2010).
Phil Christman. Operations Manager. October 5, 2010. E-mail.

231

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, ST. PETERSBURG, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 7/25/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of St. Petersburg

Contact Person: John Riera
Title: Manager- Water and Reclaimed Water Division

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1977, (Reuse)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Uses reclaimed water for backup fire protection (Nelson, Niles 2010). However,
the fire department does not prefer to use reclaimed water because the chloride
content is higher than for potable water (Riera, 2010). Firefighters prefer
potable water for use in engines and storage tanks (Riera, 2010). Reclaimed
water is generally used for fire line flushing when it is used (Riera, 2010).
2. Initially, there was public opposition to reclaimed water use due to a concern
about the spread of viruses and others claimed that leaf damage and plant death
was directly related to irrigating with reclaimed water. However, studies have
shown that the reclaimed water was sufficiently treated except in a few cases
(State of Utah, 2005).
3. St. Petersburg achieved zero discharge into Tampa Bay in 1987 (State of Utah,
2005).

232

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 4. Offers free sprinkler system checkups in order to encourage conservation of
potable, reclaimed, and well water. The City offers a free water efficient pre-
rinse spray valve for dishwashers and indoor conservation kits (low flow
shower heads, a toilet leak detection dye tab, and faucet aerators for the kitchen
and bathroom). St. Petersburg also employs a low flow toilet rebate to potable
water customers (Riera, 2010).
5. Green buildings in St. Petersburg are reportedly using reclaimed water for urinal
flushing (Niles, 2010), of which, three buildings use cisterns of rainwater, and
reclaimed water as a back-up supply, for use inside the buildings for toilet
flushing.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of St. Petersburg has a population of approximately 244,000 people and is
located in Pinellas County (City Data, 2009).

Potable Water System

The St. Petersburg potable water system consists of approximately 1,600 miles of
pipeline. Water from deep wells is conveyed from northwest Hillsborough County via a 26 mile
pipeline to St. Petersburg (Water Treatment and Distribution, 2010). The conveyed water is
treated at the Cosme Water Treatment Plant via chloramination due to increasingly stringent
water quality standards for disinfecting with chlorine (Water Resources, 2010). St. Petersburg
also obtains water from surface and desalinated water (Water Treatment and Distribution, 2010).

Reclaimed Water System

St. Petersburg began using reclaimed water in 1977 and was the first large urban reuse
system in the United States (SFWMD, 2009). St. Petersburg faced limited access to potable
water sources, strict effluent discharge regulations set by the Department of Pollution Control,
and an increasing population (State of Utah, 2005). The Wilson-Grizzle Act required any
discharges into Tampa Bay area's bays, bayous, sounds or sound tributaries to undergo advanced
treatment approved by the Department of Pollution Control. The stringent requirements included
5 mg/L BOD, 5 mg/L of TSS, 1 mg/L of phosphorous, and 3 mg/L of nitrogen with a minimum
treatment efficiency of 90%. The requirements spurned the reuse system use since a 1971 pilot
study showed that spray irrigation with reclaimed water was more feasible and cost effective
than discharging into Tampa Bay. St. Petersburg later used reclaimed water for an aquifer
storage recovery project (State of Utah, 2005).
Four water reclamation plants provide about 37 mgd of reclaimed water to 10,284 active
customers via 291 miles of pipeline, including to 316 fire hydrants as a secondary water supply.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

233

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
Operators at the Northeast and Northwest Water Reclamation Facilities respectively
stated that they are not aware of any cross connections or associated illnesses.
About 12 years ago some people decided to use reclaimed water in their homes as well as
for non-potable uses, and there were no illnesses as a result. However, the City required them to
disconnect from the reclaimed system for potable water uses (Riera, 2010). Otherwise, there
have not been any unintentional cross connections (Riera, 2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

Personnel on staff inspect for cross connections on a yearly basis. St. Petersburg would
not allow customers to connect to the reclaimed water system for irrigation unless they have an
underground sprinkler system (Niles, 2010). Cross connection inspectors go onto residential
property in order to inspect for cross connections (Niles, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. In 2000, the reclaimed water system has "virtually shut down under peak
demand" every day for a week according to the St. Petersburg Times (St.
Petersburg Times, 2000). Ron Nelson says that during droughts it is difficult to
provide enough pressure in the reclaimed water system since the demand for
reclaimed water goes up (Nelson, 2010). From January through July is the time
of the year when it is difficult to maintain pressure in the system (Nelson,
2010). St. Petersburg has non-watering days in order to keep the demand from
peaking too high (Nelson, 2010). Golf courses have responded to the seasonal
shortages by constructing reclaimed water ponds for storage (Nelson, 2010).
1. The reclaimed water system has been shut down at times due to line
breaks, and the typical response to it was to valve off the line, and
repair the line. There was a time where the reclaimed system leaked so
much that Niles had to call the other three plants telling them to shut
down (Niles, 2010).
2. During droughts sometimes the reclaimed system is shut down in order to
fill up storage tanks (Niles, 2010).
3. Very high tides, though rarely, increase the salinity of the reclaimed water
supply since the ocean water backs up the stormwater system and
intrudes into manholes. The City would not distribute any reclaimed
water that is greater than 600 "parts of chlorides" (Niles, 2010). High
tides lead to more salt water in the reclaimed system since the City
treats wastewater from beach communities that have salt water
intrusion into the wastewater system (Riera, 2010).
4. There have been public acceptance issues in the past, but more people are
on board with using reclaimed water. Originally, there were many
misconceptions, but the fact that reclaimed water supply is drought
tolerant to a greater degree than potable water, more have decided to
use it (Nelson, 2010).

234

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 5. In 1976, when the system was new, the City had to ask people to hook up
to the system and it took a lot of government funding to get potential
users (such as schools) to use reclaimed water. Now, there is a great
demand for reclaimed water but they cannot get it, since the City is
built out and the reclaimed water system has been "maxed out" (Riera,
2010). At one time, there was a ten year moratorium on reclaimed
water system expansions due to the fact that the system was maxed out,
and expansions would have led to unacceptable low pressures (Riera,
2010). St. Petersburg has put into place conservation measures and
added more reclaimed water storage capacity that allowed them to
expand the system to more customers (Riera, 2010).
3. There are occasional turbidity issues at the Albert Whitted Wastewater Treatment
Plant and it must be put offline until water quality meets standards before
distribution (Riera, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

According to a "Needs and Sources" report in 1987, St. Petersburg was to expect a deficit
in water supply of 23 mgd if a 20 year drought, but a surplus of 1 mgd was to be expected if St.
Petersburg fully implemented water reuse (State of Utah, 2005).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
St. Petersburg had to employ more conservation measures and add more reclaimed water storage
capacity to distribute reclaimed water to more customers that demanded it (Riera, 2010).
St. Petersburg is trying to get reclaimed water to salt water intrusion areas (Riera, 2010).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The expense for the Water Resources Division, which handles water and wastewater services,
was $95,656,000 in 2009.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
The potable water revenue partially subsidizes the reclaimed water system (Riera, 2010). Since
the reclaimed water system is fairly new, the City does not expect to have significant
maintenance monetary issues related to pipe (or other materials), plant deterioration, for another
15 to 20 years.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The charges for reclaimed water service are dependent on whether or not the user is inside or
outside the City limits, the acreage of the land irrigated, and whether or not the service is
metered or not. Any property that is less than 1 acre pays a flat rate, and any acre or fraction
above one acre is charged an additional amount. Metered connections are $0.45 per 1,000
gallons ($15.62 minimum). A 10% tax is added to customers inside the City limits.All rates are
125% greater than those inside the City limits for customers outside the City limits. Unmetered

235

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

services are charged a flat fee of $15.62 for one acre or less and an additional $8.95 per acre
above one acre. (City of St. Petersburg, 2010)

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

The potable water demand has gone down due to conservation measures, which include
mandatory water restrictions during droughts. Demands used to be about 35 to 36 mgd and now
the typical demand is around 27-28 mgd (Riera, 2010).
The reclaimed water system is good for irrigation since the City is situated at the coast
and people are unable to drill wells and would otherwise get all their water from potable supply
(Niles, 2010).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

The reclaimed system does not pay for itself since it is partially subsidized by potable
water revenue, but the conservation of potable water makes the reclaimed water system
beneficial (Riera, 2010).
Conservation of potable water by using reclaimed water for large water users such as
schools and golf courses make the system worth the added cost (Riera, 2010). The system is also
economical due to the fact that the system is new and the PVC water line used for the reclaimed
system has not led to water quality issues (Riera, 2010).
The flat rates give a predictable amount of income and metered customers are smarter
about water use. Niles says that in either case, to the best of his knowledge, the reclaimed water
system is economical (Niles, 2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

Since there have not been any deliberate cross connections or associated illnesses, the
reclaimed water system has not compromised safety. The users that had reclaimed water for use
in their homes 12 years ago did not get sick from consuming it (Riera, 2010).

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, the potable water system demand has gone down due to conservation measures.
Water consumption has gone down from 35 to 36 mgd to a 27 to 28 mgd. The reclaimed system
has also been a contributor to potable water savings.

V. REFERENCES CITED

Bryan, Gilmer. St. Petersburg Times. (2000). "Reclaimed Water Loses Pressure-Peak Demand
and Repairs Are Causing Some Who Paid For Unlimited Water To Get None At All".
http://www.sptimes.com/News/052300/SouthPinellas/Reclaimed_water_loses.shtml.
(May 24, 2010).
City Data. (2009). "St. Petersburg, FL". <http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Petersburg-
Florida.html>. (August 31, 2010).
City of Austin Water Reclamation Program. "Water Reclamation Program Frequently Asked
Questions". <http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/wri/reusefaq.htm>. (June 5, 2010).

236

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

City of St. Petersburg, Florida. (2009). "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report-Fiscal Year
2009". <http://www.stpete.org/finance/docs/CAFR_2009_FINAL.pdf>. (July 26, 2010).
City of St. Petersburg. (2010). "Reclaimed Water Rates".
<http://www.stpete.org/utilitybill/utility_rates/reclaimed_water.asp>. (July 26, 2010).
City of St. Petersburg-Water Treatment and Supply. (2010). "Welcome to the City of St.
Petersburg Water Treatment and Distribution System".
<http://www.stpete.org/water/watertreatment_and_supply/index.asp>. (July 26, 2010)
City of St. Petersburg- Water Resources. (2010). "Chloramination".
<http://www.stpete.org/water/chloramination.asp>. (July 26, 2010)
Nelson, Ron, Chief Plant Operator. Northeast Water Reclamation Facility. Phone (727-839-
7779). July 30, 2010.
Niles, John, Chief Plant Operator. Northwest Water Reclamation Facility. Phone (727-893-
7770). July 30, 2010.
Riera, John, Manager of Water and Reclaimed Water Division. Phone. August 2, 2010.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. (2009). "Reclaimed Water- A Reliable, Safe
Alternative Water Supply".
<http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/files/database/site_file_sets/118/reclaimed_water_lev2_
08.09.pdf>. (May 19, 2010).
State of Utah Natural Resources Division of Water Resources. (2005). "Water Reuse in Utah -
Utah State Water Plan". <http://www.water.utah.gov/WaterReuse/WaterReuseAA.pdf>.
(May 20, 2010).

237

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TALLAHASSEE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, TALLAHASSEE, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 10/26/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information:

Utility Name: Tallahassee Underground Utilities

Contact Person: Craig Dough.
Title: Plant Supervisor

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated:1966
Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. The City produces Class AA biosolids that are sold as fertilizer and soil
conditioner, since 2005 the City ceased all land application of biosolids.
2. Water conservation measures include implementing advanced stormwater
controls and water considerations and a water reduction plan for the largest
customers.
3. In order to reduce nitrogen content in water sources, ecosystems, and storm water,
the City has a fertilizer ordinance that regulates any and all applicators of
fertilizer and areas of application. This includes application rates, a prohibition
against applying fertilizer to impervious surfaces to limit nitrogen content
entering the stormwater system and water bodies, a prohibition against using
fertilizer within a "fertilizer free zone", encouraging limited fertilizer use in
"low maintenance zones", and specifying modes of application requirements,

238

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 among other rules (Ordinance No. 08-O-72AA, 2009).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Tallahassee, Florida has a population of 172,574 and is located in Leon County (City
Data, 2009).

Potable Water System

The Water Division owns, operates, and maintains a water production and distribution
system that serves Tallahassee and portions of Leon and Wakulla counties. As of March 2009,
the potable water system consisted of approximately 1,199 miles of water main and
approximately 4.5 billion gallons of water have been sold to 75,100 customers. Capital
improvement plan consists of maintaining, replacing, and upgrading water system infrastructure,
which includes water supply wells, storage tanks, and distribution facilities (Fund Pro Forma,
2009). All the potable water comes from the Floridan Aquifer (Will, 2010).

Reclaimed Water System

The City is in the process of expanding the Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT)
Program, which is expected to be completed in January 2014. The wastewater treatment system
consists of the Thomas P. Smith Water Reclamation Facility (TPSWRF), the Lake Bradford
Road Wastewater Treatment Facility (LBRWWTF), the Southeast Farm, and the Tram Road
Reuse Facility (TRRF). Effluent is conveyed to the Southeast Farm for agricultural reuse via an
eight and a half mile 36 inch water line. Various crops are grown each year on each of the
sixteen spray fields. The LBR has a capacity of 4.5 mgd and the TPS a capacity of 26.5 mgd and
the majority of treated effluent is used for spray irrigation for crops and pasture. In addition,
about 2 mgd of reuse water is used for plant operations at the TPS facility. The other major use
of reclaimed water is landscape irrigation (Will, 2010). Additionally, the reclaimed water system
is an interruptible water supply (Will, 2010).
The Southwest Sprayfield, Southeast Farm, and Tram Road Wastewater Reuse Facilities
use effluent for spray irrigation. About 2,200 acres of crop fields, where corn, soybeans, coastal
Bermuda grass, and other feed and fodder crops, is irrigated with reclaimed water. The capacity
of the spray irrigation system is 27.4 mgd, of which, 17 mgd was reused in 2003.
The TRRF currently uses highly treated wastewater to irrigated the South Wood Country
Club golf course and for a high school. Eventually, the TRRF will be used to serve additional
customers, including government facilities, commercial office buildings, apartment complexes,
athletic fields, golf courses, roadway medians and other properties in the Southwood area (Green
Initiative, 2009). The TRRF has a production capacity of 1.2 million gallons per day. Currently
Southwood Golf Course, government facilities, schools and open spaces within the Southwood
development are receiving the treated wastewater (Green Initiative, 2009). The TRRF project has
taken about ten years and came as a result of a partnership between the City's Water Utility, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Northwest Florida Water
Management District (NWFWMD) and the St. Joe Company. The project began operation in
2007. Benefits of the TRRF project include lessening the demand on the Floridan Aquifer,
reducing the volume of water being disposed of at the City’s Southeast Sprayfield, reducing the

239

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

costs for high volume water customers, and preserving potable water for more critical needs
(Green Initiative, 2009).
The main incentives for using reclaimed water are conservation of the Floridan Aquifer
water and preserving area ecosystems, such as Wakulla Springs.

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There have not been any cross connections according to Will (2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

Tallahassee requires backflow prevention on all potable water services where reuse is
also present (Will, 2010). The City also has a cross connection control program that regulates
and inspects backflow prevention devices (Will, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. The Southeast Farm project was suspected of contributing to the environmental

degradation of Wakulla Springs State Park, since increased nitrogen levels
have been detected (A Clear Commitment to Protecting Our Environment,
2010). The City responded by: beginning a scientific study with the USGS and
added 10 new water quality monitoring wells near the Southeast Farm; stopped
applying biosolids on land in Wakulla and Leon counties; installing a dryer
that converts biosolids to fertilizer material suitable for residential use;
reducing fertilizer application at the farm by more than 80 percent since 1994;
upgrading wastewater treatment facilities in order to remove more nitrogen;
created a Nutrient Management Plan for the Southeast Farm for optimal
nutrient removal by plants and other methods; constructing the TRRF;
extending wastewater service to residents on septic tanks that had overflow
issues; implementing a Water Utility Environmental Management System;
providing free sewer connections for qualified homeowners with septic tanks;
eliminating fertilizer and cows at the Southeast Farm; completing a 20-year
Wastewater Treatment Master Plan (Clear Commitment to Protecting Our
Environment, 2010).
2. The potable water system has multiple sources throughout the system: 28 deep
water wells into the Floridan Aquifer supply water to the potable system, of
which, five require carbon filtration to remove hydrocarbon contamination,
one requires green sand filtration due to high levels of iron, and the remainder
receive chlorination and fluoridation (Will, 2010).The major operational issue
with the potable system is preventing excessive water age (Will, 2010).

240

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 3. The reuse water coming from the Water Reclamation Facilities requires constant
monitoring and operational control to maintain the water quality (Will, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Although the reclaimed water system is relatively new and serves a very limited area,
within the service area there has been a significant drop in water use for irrigation (Will, 2010).
In addition, "while Tallahassee sits on an abundant water supply, reclaimed water is considered
to be an important tool in maintaining aquifer withdrawals near current levels" (Will, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The City is in the process of upgrading from secondary wastewater treatment to advanced
wastewater treatment standards, which involves the modifying or replacing existing equipment in
both the liquids processes and in the biosolids processes. The upgrade is geared toward all
wastewater facilities (Green Initiative, 2009).
The build out of the TRRF reuse system will include using the water for irrigation
purposes at the Southwood Golf Club, the Capital Circle Office Complex, athletic fields at the
Florida State University Developmental Research School (Florida High) and Pope John Paul II
High School as well as medians and landscaping along Capital Circle Southeast.
The TPS facility is being upgraded in order to bring down the nitrogen in the effluent to 3
mg/L or less by January 2014 (Green Initiative, 2009). The first milestone consisted of bringing
down the concentration to 12 mg/L or less by January 2009, due to a permit requirement.
Fortunately, the plant average was 8.81 mg/L as of 2009. The next milestone consists of bringing
down the concentration to 9.0 mg/L by January 2011 (Green Initiative, 2009).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The actual comprehensive total expenditure of the Utilities Services was $119,158,323
for Fiscal Year 2008, which includes water and reclaimed water operational costs. The City has a
detailed summary specifying the actual various expenses for Fiscal Year 2008 (Fiscal Year 2010
Approved Budget).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
As mentioned above the expenditure includes everything from administration costs to
sewer system collection systems to water quality testing.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The potable water rates are structured to encourage conservation, with the reclaimed
water rate being lower to encourage the use of reclaimed water instead of potable water (Will,
2010). The reclaimed water rate is $1.00 per thousand gallons (Will, 2010). The base potable
water rate depends on the meter size (Water and Sewer Rates, 2010). The volumetric rates for
potable water use depend on user type, whether the customer is located inside or outside the City
limits (Water and Sewer Rates, 2010). For residential customers, the potable rates are organized
in a three tier increasing block rate structure beginning with a charge of $1.29 per 1,000 gallons

241

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

(Water and Sewer Rates, 2010). Commercial rates are $1.29 per 1,000 gallons up to a monthly
allowance and the charge is $1.51 per 1,000 gallons beyond the allowance. Irrigations rates are
also $1.29 up to a monthly allowance and are $2.20 beyond the allowance (Water and Sewer
Rates, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

On a limited scale since the reclaimed water system is relatively new and is rather small
(Will, 2010).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

No, since the reclaimed water system does not pay for itself (Will, 2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since there have not been any cross connections or associated illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes, since the reclaimed water system is useful to reduce pumping from the Floridan
Aquifer (Will, 2010).

V. REFERENCES CITED

City Data. (2009). "Tallahassee, FL". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Tallahassee-Florida.html>

(September 21, 2010).
City of Tallahassee. (2010). "Water and Sewer Rates-Effective 4/1/2010". E-mail via Ken Will.
Ken Will Jr. (2010). E-mail. October 26, 2010.
City of Tallahassee. (2006). "A Clear Commitment to Protecting Our Environment".
<http://www.talgov.com/you/water/pdf/sefarm.pdf> (September 21, 2010).
City of Tallahassee. (2010). "Fiscal Year 2010 Approved Budget".
http://www.talgov.com/dma/budget/fy10/pdf/utilitysvc.pdf (September 21, 2010).
City of Tallahassee, FL. (2009). "Green Initiatives 2009 Annual Report".
http://www.talgov.com/eper/pdf/green_inits_annual_2009.pdf (September 21, 2010).
City of Tallahassee, Florida. (2009). "Ordinance No. 08-O-72AA".
http://www.talgov.com/you/stormwater/pdf/fertilizerordinance.pdf (September 21, 2010).

242

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TAMPA WATER DEPARTMENT, TAMPA, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 9/7/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: Tampa Water Department

Contact Person: Jeff Vilagos
Title: Production Manager

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other Wastewater

department produces the reclaimed water

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 2000 (Pre-design enrollment campaign)

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Tampa does not have unique uses for reclaimed water other than using it for
cooling towers. At one time the City encouraged aquariums to use it, but they
did not want to even though aquariums heavily treat their water already.
2. Utilizes various water conservation measures in order to conserve Potable Water
toilet rebates, plumbing codes that require low water use toilets, aerators, and
special shower heads. Conservation measures have been successful. (Vilagos,
2010).
3. An additional conservation measure is requiring customers to quit using their in-
ground sprinkler systems during times of extreme drought (Vilagos, 2010) and
only allowing them to hand water once a week.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

243

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 The City of Tampa, FL has a population of approximately 344,000 people and is located
in Hillsborough County (City Data, 2009).

Potable System

Tampa obtains most of its water from Hillsborough River which is treated at the David L.
Tippin Water Treatment Facility. The City is limited in how much water can be withdrawn from
the river (annual average of 82 MGD) and any additional potable water is purchased from Tampa
Bay Water. Currently, Tampa is right at its maximum permitted use from the River and plans on
maximizing reclaimed water use to replace an estimated 23.4 mgd of that with reclaimed water.
(Reclaimed Water Master Plan, 2009). Tampa Bay water obtains water from various sources:
surface water, ground water, and desalinated water (Bracciano, 2010). Tampa, Florida typically
obtain water from TBW when the reliability of their reservoir is lowest, which is usually during
the dry season and after an extended drought (Bracciano, 2010).

Reclaimed System

The reclaimed water system consists of 120 miles of distribution main and 8 miles of
transmission mains (Weiss 2010). Tampa uses approximately 2 mgd of the effluent discharged
from the Howard F. Curren AWTP, which has a capacity of 57.5 mgd. The Wastewater
Department produces the reclaimed water and the Water Department is responsible for reclaimed
water distribution. Tampa primarily uses reclaimed water for irrigation and cooling purposes
since the two uses demand the most reclaimed water and have the greatest potential to conserve
potable water supply. Water users include a Refuse to Energy Facility for cooling purposes and
CF Industries for a chemical heating process. The STAR Project has about 3,000 of the possible
5,000 residential users voluntarily hooked up to the reclaimed water system. Tampa plans on
expanding and maximizing the use of reclaimed water in order to reduce dependence on Tampa
Bay Water to provide additional water when the City maximizes its permit to divert water from
Hillsborough River. Additional water (above the permitted limit) is purchased at a cost of $2.25
per 1,000 gallons (Reclaimed Water Master Plan, 2009).
Florida, along with the USEPA, is considering reducing discharges into Hillsborough
Bay (Reclaimed Water Master Plan, 2009). Tampa may need to reduce nitrogen discharges into
Hillsborough Bay and Tampa Bay as well. Tampa desires to use more reclaimed water in order
to offset the amount of discharge into the two bays.
Tampa considers using reclaimed water for fire flow to be infeasible due to the fact that
the reclaimed water system was designed primarily for irrigation and does not have the degree of
reliability that the potable system has. Tampa determined that supplying the needed standby
power for fire protection purposes was too costly. However, Tampa considers grey water
applications, such as toilet flushing, with reclaimed water to be feasible. (Reclaimed Water
Master Plan, 2009).
Tampa has given away reclaimed water for free to keep from discharging more water into
Tampa Bay (Times, 2009). Vilagos heard about the idea of trucking reclaimed water to
customers but did not know if anyone actually had water trucked to them for residential
irrigation use (Vilagos, 2010). The City attempted to get more people interested in getting
reclaimed water trucked to them by eliminating all charges for delivery in 2009 (Times, 2009).

244

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

The City also trucks water in order to water right of ways and for the Parks Department use
during droughts (Vilagos, 2010).
The cost of installing reclaimed water lines into existing developed areas is too high, so
the City at one time investigated using indirect potable reuse (pumping effluent directly to the
potable system reservoir) in order to use reclaimed water.The indirect potable reuse would have
been cheaper than retrofitting the potable system (Vilagos, 2010). However, there were serious
public acceptance issues with indirect potable reuse concerning endocrine disruptors and other
health issues (Vilagos, 2010). The issue of endocrine disruptors, viruses, and other health issues
could be taken out by using ozone, lime softening, and membrane technology (Vilagos, 2010).
Public opposition was due to perceptions rather than actual characteristics of reclaimed water.
Tampa is late in the game with having a reclaimed water system since the City originally
investigated indirect potable reuse and upgraded the wastewater facility to tertiary treatment
(Vilagos, 2010). In addition, Tampa Bay Water did not like the idea either, instead desiring to
use other water sources such as groundwater (Vilagos, 2010). According to Dave Bracciano, the
idea to use indirect potable reuse was a politically charged issue and that Tampa, FL is no longer
considering it was far as he knows.
The plant cannot be upgraded in order to reduce nitrogen in discharged effluent, but
would have to use different technology (like membranes) to reduce it more (Vilagos, 2010). The
City is under pressure to use the nitrogen instead of discharging it (Vilagos, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
Tampa requires backflow preventers on the domestic water line if the residence (and the
same is true for commercial users) has reclaimed water as well (Vilagos, 2010). The City pays
for the backflow preventer, which is intended to protect the potable water system, and uses the
more reliable double check valve assemblies instead of dual check valves (Vilagos, 2010).
There have been no cross connections but Vilagos reported that St. Petersburg at one time
had issues with cross connections, in that entire subdivisions were connected to the reclaimed
system by accident (Vilagos, 2010).

Provide any other pertinent information

The public generally accepts the use of reclaimed water for irrigation (Reclaimed Water
Master Plan, 2009). There were significant issues with indirect potable reuse so the Tampa
instead used the reclaimed water system for irrigation uses as well as cooling (Vilagos, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. The reclaimed water system is shut down sometimes due to water quality issues
(Reclaimed Water Master Plan, 2009). Generally, shut downs do not occur
since there is a lot more available water than demand (Vilagos, 2010).

245

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

2. Tampa is limited on how much the Howard F. Curren ATWP is able to discharge
into the Hillsborough Bay, 96 mgd on an average annual basis. In addition,
Tampa is limited to discharging 3.0 mg/L of total nitrogen on an average
annual basis into Hillsborough Bay. There is no limit on phosphorous
discharge, unlike other cities (Vilagos, 2010). Currently, Tampa discharges 60
mgd of effluent and 2.5 mg/L of total nitrogen on an average annual basis.
Since Tampa is approaching the limit of total nitrogen, it is seeking to
maximize reclaimed water use to prevent costly upgrades to the plant. The
limit of total nitrogen may be lowered in the near future due to the Tampa Bay
Estuary Program and Nitrogen Management Consortium. (Reclaimed Water
Master Plan, 2009). Nitrogen removal is successful, the sea grass level in
Tampa Bay is at the level it was in 1950 (Vilagos, 2010).
3. In the reclaimed water system service area, hooking up to it is voluntary, but the
City wants to maximize reclaimed water use (Answering Your Questions
About Tampa's Reclaimed Water). There are no restrictions on how much
customers can use (Vilagos, 2010), so the voluntary hook up does not hinder
the accomplishment of Tampa's goal.
4. During the peak demand season, March through June, Tampa still only suggests
that water users spread out the demand by watering certain days (Answering
Your Questions About Tampa's Reclaimed Water).
5. In 2009, the City adopted new watering restrictions, effective during the dry
season, to limit potable water irrigation to once a week by hand. Reclaimed
water demand went up, but the City's reclaimed water system could only
convey water by pipe to 8,700 residents, of which, only 3,000 were hooked up
at the time. The City decided to deliver reclaimed water for free, by trucking it
to customers who otherwise would not be able to get it (The Tampa Tribune,
2009).
6. There are a few flush points in the reclaimed water system which leads to more
issues with nutrients, black water, etc. Installation of the PVC reclaimed water
lines is a problem due to not flushing out the lines, including the shavings,
prior to putting the lines to use. Leaving the shavings has led to clogging in
sprinklers and other appurtenances (Vilagos, 2010).
7. Only half of the people that made a commitment to sign up for reclaimed water
use actually signed up for reclaimed water (Vilagos, 2010).
8. Tampa has had bad press regarding the fact that the chloride level in the reclaimed
water is a lot more than the potable water, and plants like azaleas are not very
chloride tolerant (Vilagos, 2010). Since the City is a coastal city, chloride
problems are hard to avoid with reclaimed water production (Vilagos, 2010).
However, during a drought, the news media helped people realize that people
need to reduce their potable water use and possibly use reclaimed water
(Vilagos, 2010).
9. The reclaimed water system is a maintenance headache due to biological growth,
shavings in meters, stagnation in reclaimed water lines since only relatively
few people use it, currently figuring out what to do about having so much
reclaimed water during non-use times (Vilagos, 2010).

246

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 10. The principal operation and maintenance issues for the reclaimed system stem
from the design. Tampa did not have a robust capital budget to build the
reclaimed system. Several cost-saving measures were implemented in the
design that impacted operation and maintenance. The principal "cost-saving"
measure was the installation of the distribution system via horizontal
directional drilling (HDD). At the time, Tampa did not have extensive
experience with HDD to understand the shortcomings. The shortcomings were
as follows:

* The pipe wall thickness was too thin. This resulted numerous service saddle failures.
* The pipes were installed too deep during construction to avoid hitting sanitary sewer
laterals/water services. This resulted in significant O&M effort to perform repairs or add future
reclaimed services.
* A sufficient number of blow-offs were not installed. This resulted in no efficient
method to flush the system.
* The design specified that service saddles be installed using electrofusion. Electrofusion
requires the main to be completely free of dirt and water. Our water table in Tampa is extremely
shallow and hard to dewater. This resulted numerous service saddle failures subsequent to
startup." (Weiss, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

The primary goal of the reclaimed water system is to conserve potable water, maximize
the use of reclaimed water, maximize potable water offsets, reduce nutrient discharge into
Hillsborough Bay, and have more control over reclaimed water as a resource (Reclaimed Water
Master Plan, 2009). The reclaimed water system has a minor impact on potable water
conservation, but coupled with water conservation measures, the dual system has improved
conservation (Vilagos, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
Tampa is considering having reclaimed water projects in South and North Tampa and
partnering with Tampa Bay Water, and tasks include capital improvement projects, project
phasing, funding strategies, changes to City policies and procedures (Reclaimed Water Master
Plan, 2009).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The operation expenditure fund was $67,543,766 for the 2010 budget and the operation
from which the water sales were $77,514,149 and reclaimed water sales were $2,170,000.Since
the reclaimed water meter fund, consisting of installing reclaimed water lines and meters into
existing residential areas, was $1,000,000, the reclaimed water sales probably do not make up for
the operation and maintenance costs of the reclaimed system . Prior to construction, customers
pay $375 for the water meter installation plus an application fee of $15 if they want to reclaimed

247

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

water service.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Costs associated with the installation & testing of backflow devices.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The reclaimed water rate is a flat rate of $1.20 per hundred cubic feet (CCF), or $1.60 per
1,000 gallons, for both residential and non-residential reclaimed customers (Reclaimed Water,
2010 and Weiss, 2010). For potable water usage Tampa employs a 6 tier increasing block rate
structure for single family residences to encourage conservation, with tiers 5 and 6 being
effective May 2010. Customers are billed per 100 cubic feet (748 gallons) of water. Overall, the
number and size of the usage blocks are based on the customer classification. Customers outside
the City limits are charged higher rates. There are charges according to bi-monthly thresholds
based on the square footage for certain types of customers, and the number of beds for others,
and number of rental rooms for others (Schedule of Rates, 2009).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

The use of the reclaimed water system has contributed to lowering potable water demand,
but implementing conservation measures have the greatest impact. About 2 mgd of reclaimed
water is used while conservation measures dropped the potable water demand from about 80
mgd to 65 mgd almost immediately after the extreme drought measures were implemented
(Vilagos, 2010).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

The reclaimed portion of the dual system is not economical, but was the "next best option
to an indirect potable use project that was rejected in 1998 in favor of a desalination plant and a
regional 15 billion gallon reservoir" (Weiss, 2010). The federal government agreed and the City
was able to build the reclaimed water system (Weiss, 2010). The reclaimed system is getting
close to paying for itself. Weiss stated, "Our billings now exceed $2 million per year for just over
4,000 customers. Our system cost $34 million to build, but we received over $13 million in
grants. Our annual debt service associated with reclaimed water is $1.3 million for a $12.1
million principal. We obviously used some money of Wastewater and Water reserves to make up
the difference" (Weiss, 2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

No, since there have been no cross connections or associated illnesses.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Currently, the reclaimed water system only saved 2 mgd of water, but coupled with
conservation measures, the system positions Tampa better for the future. Reducing potable water
use and effluent discharges keeps the City below diversion and discharge limits.

V. REFERENCES CITED

248

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Bracciano, Dave. Phone call. August 10, 2010.
City Data. (2009). "Tampa, FL". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Tampa-Florida.html>. (August
31, 2010).
City of Tampa Water Department. (2009). "Reclaimed Water Master Plan."
<http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Water/files/Reclaimed/RCWMP_Final_Version_Bookm
arked_June_2009.pdf>. (August 1, 2010).
City of Tampa, Florida. "Reclaimed Water".
<http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Water/programs_and_services/Reclaimed_Water/>.
(August 1, 2010).
City of Tampa, Florida. "Answering Your Questions About Tampa's Reclaimed Water".
<http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Water/how_do_i/Reclaimed_Water.asp>. (August 2,
2010).
Vilagos, Jeff. Phone call. August 3, 2010.
Weiss, Eric. E-mail. August 27, 2010.

249

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TUCSON WATER, TUCSON, AZ

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 6/17/2010

Utility Information

Utility Name: Tucson Water

Contact Person: Karen Dotson
Title: Reclaimed Water/Backflow Prevention Coordinator

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1983

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other:
Agriculture, City of Oro Valley, construction, cemetery, multifamily residences
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

Potable: Groundwater and Colorado River (CAP) water. CAP water treated through
recharge and recovery. There are 17 pressure zones

Reclaimed: Treated through mechanical filtration plant or recharge and recovery. Serves
900 sites.

Principal Operational Issues

Wide range of pressures for the potable and reclaimed water pressures.

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Potable System

250

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 In 2003, Tucson Water delivered 109,700 acre-feet of potable water to the Tucson area
(Clark and Dotson 2007). The potable water comes from a combination of the Central (93
MGD), Avra Valley (31 MGD), Santa Cruz (9 MGD), and Southside (9 MGD)groundwater
fields (Tucson Water 2007), which collectively consist of 200 wells and combined capacity of
196 MGD (City of Tucson 2008) including CAVSARP, the blend of Colorado River water and
native groundwater, is 54 MGD.

The potable system consisted of 4,200 miles of pipe, served more than 200,000
businesses and residences, had 124 booster stations, utilized more than 50 reservoirs, and had an
overall storage capacity of 273 million gallons (City of Tucson 2008). The CAVSARP,
otherwise known as the Central Avra Valley Storage and Recovery Project, is a recharge and
recovery facility in Avra Valley providing a blend of native groundwater and Colorado River
water (City of Tucson 2008). The City of Tucson has water rights to 135,966 acre-feet of
Colorado River water, but the water has a high mineral content, which detracts from aesthetic
quality (City of Tucson 2008). Thus, the water must be blended with higher quality groundwater
before being distributed for potable use. Using the Colorado River water helps to offset the
amount of water pumped from wells and some wells were discontinued (Tucson Water LRWRP
2004).

Reclaimed Water System

The Tucson Water reclaimed water system began operation in 1984 providing water to
La Paloma destination resort golf course (Thomure and Kmiec 2008) and the U of A Farms as
the first customers (Tucson Water 2003).In 2007, there were 220,571 potable water connections,
over 4,500 miles of pipeline, 51 potable reservoirs, and 296 million gallons of storage capacity
(Tucson Water 2007-2).As of 2007, Tucson Water delivered 4.5 billion gallons of reclaimed
water for turf irrigation (Tucson Water 2007-2). Water deliveries in 2009, was 17,249 AF
(Dotson 2010). 18 golf courses consumed 58% of the supply, 39 parks 16%, other providers
11%, 52 schools 8%, and other users 7% of (Dotson 2010). In 2010, the reclaimed water system
had 160 miles of pipeline, 29 MGD peak day demand, and the pressure range from 10 psi to 200
psi (Dotson 2010).
As of 2008, the Tucson Water Regional Reclaimed Water System covered the majority of
the City of Tucson-Pima County metropolitan area (Thomure and Kmiec 2008). In addition the
City of Tucson provides a regional service by treating and wheeling effluent supplies owned by
other regional entities (Thomure and Kmiec 2008). For instance, some reclaimed water is
provided to the Town of Oro Valley for distribution and use (Thomure and Kmiec 2008).
The reclaimed water originates from the Pima County Roger Road Wastewater Treatment
Facility then is conveyed to Tucson Water’s reclaimed water treatment plant, or “filtration
plant”, for tertiary treatment of secondary effluent (Thomure and Kmiec 2008) via pressure
filters containing anthracite coal and sand and disinfected by chlorine (Tucson Water 2003). The
filtration plant is permitted to produce up to 10 MGD (Clark and Dotson 2007). After treatment
at the filtration plant, the water is stored in a reservoir before being piped through its own system
of pipes and reservoirs to customers throughout the Tucson region (Tucson Water 2003). The
backwash water from the filtration plant is piped to the Sweetwater Recharge and the Recovery
Facility where it is naturally treated and released to recharge basins (Tucson Water 2003). The
Sweetwater Recharge facility is permitted, as of 2007, to allow 6,500 acre-feet of treated

251

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

wastewater to be recharged and recovered annually (Clark and Dotson 2007). Some of the
effluent from the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility is piped directly to Tucson Water’s
recharge basins. Tucson Water also blends water from the recharge facilities with water
produced at the filtration plant in order to meet Tucson’s Reuse Permit requirements (Clark and
Dotson 2007). Some of the effluent is discharged into the Santa Cruz River (City of Tucson
2008). The primary purpose of the City of Tucson, Arizona’s reclaimed water system is
irrigation. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) allows Class A reclaimed
water, which Tucson Water provides, to be used for irrigation of food crops and spray irrigation
of orchards and vineyards (Tucson Water 2005).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
More information is needed to verify this.

Provide any other pertinent information

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requires all sites using
reclaimed water to have a backflow prevention assembly on the drinking water service (Tucson
Water 2009). The backflow prevention is intended to protect the potable water system in case
there is a cross connection between the reclaimed and potable systems (Tucson Water 2007). The
backflow prevention system is tested annually (Dotson 2007). The reclaimed water system
produces Class A water which is safe for areas where there is unrestricted public access (Tucson
Water LRWRP 2004).
In order to ensure the safety of water customers, Tucson Water assures that the water
“always meets or is better than the State regulatory standards by monitoring water quality more
often and at more locations than is required by the Reuse Permit” (Dotson Customers 2006).
Tucson Water also tests every site for potential cross connections before initiating reclaimed
water service (Dotson Customers 2006.)

Parks, schools, residences, and other smaller customers generally rely on the distribution
system pressure to power their irrigation systems, and Tucson Water has analyzed various
alternatives for curbing the wide range of pressures that are experienced in the distribution
system (Dettmer et al 2006). Pressures can be as low as 40 psi to as high as 190 psi depending on
the proximity of the use site to the booster facilities (Dettmer et al 2006). The system has 17
pressure zones in order to even out the water pressures (Tucson Water LRWRP 2004).
Reservoirs are placed at strategic locations to provide backup storage for peak use periods and
water can be conveyed across pressure zones when needed (Tucson Water LRWRP 2004).

The potable system has a series of emergency system interconnect located where the
Tucson Water system abuts other water providers (Tucson Water LRWRP 2004). These
interconnect supply water to other providers in case of an emergency.

252

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

The City of Tucson, Arizona is located in a desert environment and receives less than 11
inches of rainfall per year (Clark and Dotson 2007). The City of Tucson owns and operates
Tucson Water, which serves more than 690,000 people (about 80 percent of the metropolitan
population) (Clark and Dotson 2007), and historically relied heavily on groundwater to meet
water needs (Dettmer et al 2006). As of 2007, Tucson Water serves over 710,000 people, which
was about 75 percent of the metropolitan population (Dotson 2007). Population increases in
Tucson after World War II, caused accelerated depletion of groundwater (Thomure and Kmiec
2008). The water level declines resulted in the gradual loss of native riparian habitat, increased
pumping costs, the production of lower quality water, and measured land subsidence (Thomure
and Kmiec 2008). In 1984, Tucson Water constructed a reclaimed water system originally
intended to irrigate golf courses and has since expanded to include parks, schools, residences,
and other types of customers (Dettmer et al 2006). By 2001, the system delivered approximately
12,000 acre-feet of reclaimed water annually to about 560 customers (Dettmer et al 2006). In
2008, the reclaimed water system had more than 800 accounts, of which less than 20 were golf
courses, and delivered a total of 14,000 acre feet per year (Thomure and Kmiec 2008). Tucson
Water has a conservation target of 164 gpcd of water use in its service area (Dotson 2007). In
2006, reclaimed water use accounted for 15 gpcd that otherwise would have been potable water
use (Dotson 2007).
The destination resort golf industry, which historically relied on mined groundwater,
represented the “largest economic index” associated directly with the success of the regional
reclaimed water program as of 2008 (Thomure and Kmiec 2008). The switch to reclaimed water
occurred as a result of the passage of local laws and regulations, such as the 1980 Groundwater
Management Act, the Assured Water Supply Rules, and the Recharge and Recovery Program, to
curb groundwater use (Thomure and Kmiec 2008). Golf courses were previously identified by
Tucson Water to be major water users and thus, candidates for the reclaimed water system.
According to Tucson Water, most publicly owned golf courses can consume up to 400 acre-feet
per year and destination resort golf courses, as much as 800 acre-feet per year in the Tucson area
(Thomure and Kmiec 2008). During the past few decades, the resort golf industry continued to
develop in southern Arizona, “providing economic opportunities for the local communities that
might otherwise have been prohibited” (Thomure and Kmiec 2008).
Tucson Water sought to lay the water line to not only supply water to golf courses but
also to secondary water users such as schools, parks, and residences (Thomure and Kmiec 2008).
The combined water use per capita per day for both the potable and reclaimed water
system is 177 (City of Tucson 2008). Of this 14 gpcd is for reclaimed water and 163 for the
potable system (City of Tucson 2008). The water use of 177 gpcd has remained relatively stable
for the last 20 years (City of Tucson 2008). The priority in using reclaimed water is water
conservation, matching water quality with water use in that the high quality groundwater is used
for drinking and bathing, and saving money (Tucson Water 2005). According to Tucson Water
the main considerations in determining where to locate reclaimed water lines are as follows
(Clark and Dotson 2007):
1. What is the goal of reuse, conservation or disposal of effluent?
2. Volume of water that could be saved by to reclaimed water
3. Probable customer satisfaction with reclaimed water

253

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 4. Utility infrastructure costs to deliver reclaimed water
5. Utility staff time required to assure that reclaimed water is used safely and in
compliance with all of the State and local regulations
6. Whether other ways to conserve drinking water, i.e. xeriscaping or water harvesting,
might be more cost-effective and acceptable to the customer
The main goal was water conservation with regards to groundwater use and the water
demand has remained around 177 gpcd, which is due to a combination of factors. Dotson
estimates the reclaimed water saves enough potable water annually to serve 60,000 people.
A benefit of having a dual system is the ability of the reclaimed water system to reduce
the summer peak demand on the potable system and as a result delays the need for acquisition of
addition potable supplies and expansion of the potable treatment and distribution systems
(Dotson 2007).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The reclaimed water system has allowed Tucson Water to move towards its goal of full
"wet water" use of its effluent entitlement.

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The City of Tucson’s total budget for the potable water system for 2010 is $65,552,230.
The total budget for the reclaimed water system is $3,858,440. The total budget for the entire
Tucson Water utility is $180,753,940 of which $128,631,940 is for maintenance and
$52,122,000 is for capital. Dotson indicated that 3% of the current reclaimed water costs of
service is subsidized by the potable water system.

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Included in the total cost, Tucson Water decided to subsidize reclaimed water use for
various reasons of which the major reasons are (Dotson 2007):
1. Community acceptance of use of reclaimed water
2. Reclaimed water as water supply
3. Role in meeting regulatory requirements
4. Ability to delay potable system capital expenditures
5. Customer off-site expenses
6. Customer on-site expenses

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Potable water rates depend on the size of meter used and the amount of water used. The
following is the monthly service charge for potable water service effective July 2010 (Tucson
Water Rate Schedule 2010).

Meter Size Rate

5/8 inch $5.87
1 inch $10.70
1-1/2 inch $18.75
2 inch $28.41

254

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 2-1/2 inch $41.29
3 inch $54.17
4 inch $91.20
6 inch $183.93
8 inch $276.34
10 inch $421.23
12 inch $694.92

The potable usage charges depend on the meter size and type of water user. For instance,
the single family residential usage charges are as follows effective July 2010:

Usage Residential Block Rates

1 – 15 Ccf $1.39 $1.54
16 – 30 Ccf $5.13 $5.75
31 – 45 Ccf $7.25 $8.14
Over 45 Ccf $9.90 $11.13

The reclaimed service charge is identical to the potable service charge but the usage
charge is $1.83 per Ccf no matter the amount of water used (Tucson Water Rate Schedule 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Yes, the reclaimed water system allows capital expenditures on the potable system to be
delayed or deferred, saves groundwater credits for future use, and delays the need to use
additional costly Colorado River water.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

In the 27 years that the reclaimed water has been operating, there have been no
documented reports of injury or illness caused by reclaimed water. There have been no cross-
connections with the potable water system that have resulted in contamination of the potable
system.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes. The reclaimed water system allows Tucson Water to continue reusing a portion of
its effluent entitlement for non-potable uses and allows for the wheeling of the effluent
entitlements of other entities. It also allows for the wheeling of Tucson Water's effluent not used
for non-potable purposes to facilities for long-term storage and/or indirect potable reuse.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City of Tucson. (2009). “Adopted Budget-Fiscal Year 2010”.

<http://www.tucsonaz.gov/budget/docs/10BOOK-Op.pdf> (June 13, 2010).

255

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Clark, Tom and Dotson, Karen. (2007). “Reclaimed Water- Is It For Everyone?”
<http://www.watereuse.org/files/images/Importance_Tucson.pdf> (June 9, 2010).
Dettmer, James W, Dotson, Karen K. & Schram, Todd J. (2006). “Getting a Grip On Pressure”.
<http://www.watereuse.org/files/images/GripOnPressure.pdf> (June 9, 2010).
Dotson, Karen. (2006). “Reclaimed Water Rates Help Achieve Water Supply and Conservation
Goals.” <http://www.watereuse.org/files/images/ReclaimedWaterRates.pdf> (June 9,
2010).
Dotson, Karen. (2006). “What Do Customers Really Want?”
<http://www.watereuse.org/files/images/WhatDoCustomersReallyWant.pdf> (June 9,
2010)
Dotson, Karen. (2007). “Should Reclaimed Water Systems is Self-Supporting?”
<http://www.watereuse.org/files/images/WateReuse2007-DotsonTucsonWater.pdf>
(June 9, 2010).
Dotson, Karen. (2010). “Communicating the Reclaimed Water Message”.
<http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/waterManagement/Blue%20Ribbon%20Panel%20on%2
0Water%20Sustainability/documents/TucsonWaterPresentation.pdf> (June 11, 2010)
Tucson Water. (2007-2). “Tucson Water Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report”.
<http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/ar2006.pdf> (June 11, 2010).
Thomure, Tim and Kmiec, John. (2008). “The Importance of the Tucson Water Regional
Reclaimed Water System to the Economic Vitality of the City of Tucson-Pima County
Region”. <http://www.watereuse.org/files/images/Importance_Tucson.pdf> (June 9,
2010).
Tucson Water. (2009). “Reclaimed Water & Backflow Prevention”.
<http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/rcbf-brochure.pdf> (June 9, 2010).
Tucson Water. (2007). “Getting Ready For Reclaimed Water-Reclaimed Water Irrigation System
Labeling Requirements”. <http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/getready4recl.pdf>
(June 9, 2010).
Tucson Water. (2005). “Reclaimed Water – For Residential Reclaimed Water Users”.
<http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/residential.pdf> (June 9, 2010).
Tucson Water. (2003). “Reclaimed Water System”. <
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/rwsb.pdf> (June 9, 2010).
City of Tucson Water Department. (2008). “Water Plan: 2000-2050”. <
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/waterplan.pdf> (June 11, 2010)
Tucson Water LRWRP. (2004). “Tucson Water’s Long Range Water Resource Planning-Our
Water Resource: Groundwater”.
<http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/groundwater.pdf> (June 11, 2010)
Tucson Water Department. (2007). “Reclaimed Water System-Status Report 2007”. <
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/docs/ar2007.pdf > (June 14, 2010)
Tucson Water. (2010). “Council Adopts New Rate Schedule”
<http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/water/rates.htm#reclaim> (June 9, 2010)

256

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITY, WINTER SPRINGS, FL

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 12/8/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of Winter Springs, Public Works/Utility

Contact Person: Kipton Lockcuff, P.E.
Title: Director

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other: Public Works -

Roads, sidewalks, landscaping, facilities maintenance, fleet services.

Dual System Information

Year initiated:1989
Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

Winter Springs is currently in the process of augmenting the reclaimed water system with
surface water from Lake Jesup, which is "geographically fortuitous". The surface water will be
pumped into the reclaimed system after treatment on an as needed basis (Lockcuff, 2010).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Winter Springs, Florida has a population of 33,282 and is located in
Seminole County (City Data, 2009).

Potable Water system

257

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 The City's potable water system consists of 167.6 miles of water main, 1,000 fire
hydrants, and water is drawn via 8 deep wells from the Floridan Aquifer (FY 2009 CAFR). The
groundwater is pumped to aerator trays that remove about 20 percent of the sulfur content, and
then the treated water is stored, chlorinated, and then pumped to customers (Lockcuff, 2010). In
spite of the treatment process being "behind the times" the water quality still meets regulatory
requirements and is cheaper than surrounding cities (Lockcuff, 2010). There are 12,802 potable
water customers and water use is 110 gallons per capita (FY 2009 CAFR). Compared to the 13
water main breaks in 2008, there were 21 in FY 2009 (FY CAFR 2009). In November, a typical
month, the potable water use was 3.79 mgd (Lockcuff, 2010). In 2008, 1,448,385 gallons of
potable water was sold (Tables Final, 2010) and a total of 1,527,947 gallons was produced
(Tables Final, 2010).

Reclaimed Water System

The City currently produces 2.2 mgd of reclaimed water to supply 1,644 homes, the
Tuscawilla Golf Courses, city parks, such as the Sunshine, Sam Smith, Trotwood and Central
Winds Parks, and right of ways, such as the medians on Highway 434, Tuscawilla Blvd and
Winter Springs Blvd (Reclaimed Water System, 2009). The system consists of 48 miles of
reclaimed water main (Lockcuff, 2010). Residences on the system are required to only have in-
ground sprinkler systems (Reclaimed Water System, 2009)
The City plans on constructing the Lake Jesup Reclamation Plant which will allow the
City to expand reclaimed water service by adding 2,500 homes to the system. The driver for the
expansion is reducing groundwater withdrawals as mandated by St. Johns River Water
Management District (Lake Jesup Plant). In 2009, approximately 390 million gallons of
reclaimed water was used for irrigation (Lockcuff, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There have been several cross connections over the years between the reclaimed water
system and homeowners' private wells. Fortunately, there have never been any cross connections
between the potable and reclaimed systems (Lockcuff, 2010). The City has initiated an annual
inspection of customers for cross connections and tested backflow devices during those
inspections where possible.

Provide any other pertinent information

Yearly testing for cross connections of residences is not feasible and a "waste of
resources". However, Winter Springs does have double check valves on all meters for both the
reclaimed and potable water systems.

Principal Operational Issues

258

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 The demand for reclaimed water sometimes exceeds the supply and Winter Springs must
put limits on the use. In addition, the City is in the process of planning for an additional
treatment plant to augment the supply of reclaimed water (Reclaimed Water System, 2009). Peak
demand can exceed the supply of reclaimed water leading to running out of reclaimed water or
low pressure at a minimum, which is the principal operating issue, and that the large variations in
demand are weather dependent. (Lockcuff, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

Approximately 390 million gallons of reclaimed water is used per year for irrigation
which replaces potable water, but Lockcuff recognizes that it may not be a 1:1 correction in
potable water savings, since "reclaimed water is cheaper" (Lockcuff, 2010). Also, conservation
savings are difficult to measure (Lockcuff, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The reclaimed water demand sometimes exceeds the supply so the City is seeking to
augment the reclaimed water system with water drawn from Lake Jesup during peak periods
(Utility/Public Works).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The expenses for the water and reclaimed water systems are all under one category
"Operating Expenses-Water System" with the projected amount being $1,661,278 for 2009 based
on historical data up to 2008. The category includes everything from expenses related to postage
and telephone use to repair and maintenance of the reclaimed water system. Expenses were
broken down and were projected to be $0 for reclaimed water, $73,500 for water plants repair
and maintenance, $8,800 for fire hydrants R&M, $24,500 for water line R&M, $11,760 for water
meter R&M, $25,480 for water plant chemicals, $3,920 for backflow devices, $57,452 for
chlorine for 2009 (Tables Final, 2010).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
The total potable water system revenue was $2,853,069 in 2008. The total reclaimed
water revenue was $157,718 in 2008.

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

The commercial potable water rates depend on the meter size, for the base charge, and a
flat rate of $1.80 per 1,000 gallons and a 10% utility tax. Commercial irrigation customers are
charged according to a five tier increasing block rate structure beginning with a charge of $1.72
per 1,000 gallons for up to 5,000 gallons of use. Commercial reclaimed water customers are
charge a base rate of $4.10 and volumetric charges are according to a five tier increasing block
rate structure beginning with a charge of $0.75 per 1,000 for up to 5,000 gallons of use.
Reclaimed water customers are also charged a 10% utility tax. (Commercial Water and Sewer
Rates, 2010).

259

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Residential potable water customers are charged a base rate according to the meter size
and volumetric rates are according to a six tier increasing block rate structure beginning with a
charge of $1.19 per 1,000 gallons for up to 10,000 gallons of use. Residential reclaimed water
customers are charged a base rate of $4.10 and volumetric charges are according to a five tier
increasing block rate structure beginning with a charge of $0.75 per 1,000 gallons for up to 5,000
gallons of use. Residential irrigation water customers are according to a five tier increasing block
rate structure beginning with a charge of $1.72 for up to 5,000 gallons of use. All residential
customers also are charged a 10 percent utility tax. (Residential Water and Sewer Rates, 2010).

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

Yes it does since approximately 390 million gallons of reclaimed water is used for
irrigation saving potable water.

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

No, since the reclaimed water system does not pay for itself. In 2009, Winter Springs
tripled its reclaimed water rates raising rates from $0.25 per 1,000 gallons to $0.75 per 1,000
gallons. However, there was a significant backlash from existing customers who were used to
low (discounted) rates. Winter Springs has the goal of making the reclaimed water rates "roughly
equivalent" to potable rates, but the "political will to make it happen may not be present in these
economic conditions" (Lockcuff, 2010).

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

Although there have been several cross connections over the years, the absence of
illnesses did not allow the dual system to compromise public health and safety.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
Yes. Although the reclaimed water system is reportedly not necessary in the present it is
necessary in that a groundwater withdrawal limit cap in 2013 was implemented by the local
water management district. Thus, the goal of Winter Springs is to have zero potable water
irrigation within the next 20 years. This is to avoid the expensive use of surface water in order to
meet future potable water needs (Lockcuff, 2010).

V. REFERENCES CITED

City of Winter Springs, Florida. (2009). "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report".

<http://www.winterspringsfl.org/noncms/finance/CAFR2009/FY09CAFR.pdf>. (October
15, 2010).
City of Winter Springs, Florida. "Lake Jesup Reclamation Plant".
<http://www.winterspringsfl.org/EN/web/dept/42317/WaterConservation/50568/lakejesu
pplant.htm>. (November 2, 2010).
City of Winter Springs, Florida. (2010). "Residential Water and Sewer Rates Recap".
<http://www.winterspringsfl.org/assets/FormsDocsandPub/UtilitiesBilling/RESIDENTIA
L%20WATER%20AND%20SEWER%20RATES%20RECAP%20OCTOBER%201%20
2010.pdf>. (October 15, 2010).

260

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

City of Winter Springs, Florida. (2010). "Commercial Water and Sewer Rates Recap".
<http://www.winterspringsfl.org/assets/FormsDocsandPub/UtilitiesBilling/COMMERCI
AL%20WATER%20AND%20SEWER%20RECAP%20EFFECTIVE%20OCTOBER%2
01%202010.pdf>. (October 15, 2010).
City of Winter Springs, Florida - Utility/Public Works. "Reclaimed Water Augmentation".
<http://www.winterspringsfl.org/EN/web/dept/42317/capitalprojects.htm>. (October 15,
2010).
Lockcuff, Kip -Public Works/Utility Director. (Dec 7, 2010). E-mail.

261

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
CITY OF YELM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, YELM, WA

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Evaluation Date: 8/26/2010

Prepared By: Stephanie Edmiston

Utility Information

Utility Name: City of Yelm Public Works Department

Contact Person: Jim Doty
Title: Plant Manager

Services Provided

Water Wastewater Recycled water Stormwater Other: Parks and animal

control.

Dual System Information

Year initiated: 1999

Non potable water source: Reclaimed water
Uses of the non-potable line
Landscape Irrigation:
Commercial Golf courses Parks Playgrounds
Road medians Residential Schools Other: Plant
equipment wash-down and process water, street cleaning, dust control, vehicle washing, concrete
plant
Agricultural Irrigation
Toilet and urinal flushing:
Commercial Residential
Cooling towers
Fire fighting

Unique System Features

1. Supplies water to fire hydrants, but the water is not used for firefighting, but for
hose testing (Doty 2010).
2. There are a number of conservation measures taken in order to conserve limited
potable water resources including providing free conservation kits to customers
with low flow shower heads, toilet leakage tabs, toilet balloons, faucet aerators,
lawn and garden nozzles, and irrigation timers (City of Yelm-Appendix 4,
2010).
3. Yelm has successfully reduced potable water loses to a three year average of 6.9%
from 2005 to 2007 by implementing an annual leak detection survey and
working with the fire department to track water usage (City of Yelm-Appendix

263

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 4, 2010). Leakage was on average 13 percent from 1996 to 2000 (City of
Yelm-Appendix 4, 2010).
4. According to the City of Yelm Water Conservation Strategy, once the annual
allocation of potable water is reached, irrigation meters will be locked (City of
Yelm Water System Plan, 2009).

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The City of Yelm is a small community of about 6,000 (City Data, 2009) residents
located in Thurston County. The first wastewater/reclaimed water plant went online in 1999 and
had a capacity of 1 mgd. Yelm is located in a "critical water supply area", meaning that the City
has limited water resources (Water System Plan-Chapter 1, 2010). According to the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-290, a critical water service supply area is “a
geographical area which is characterized by a proliferation of small, inadequate water systems,
or by water supply problems which threaten the present or future water quality or reliability of
service in such a manner that efficient and orderly development may best be achieved through
coordinated planning by the water utilities in the area” (Water System Plan, 2010). In 2008, the
City used 11,565,531 gallons of reclaimed water (Water System Plan-Chapter 1, 2010). The need
for a treatment plant was due to concerns about public health if the City continued to rely on
septic systems. In addition, the need for water reuse was driven by the fact that the Nisqually
River supported 5 species of Pacific Salmon and wastewater effluent would have a negative
effect on the Nisqually River Salmon (USEPA, 2004).

Potable Water System

Yelm is supplied with potable water primarily from two wells, with a third being used as
a monitoring well located in the same well field as the other two wells (Water System Plan-
Chapter 1, 2010). Under normal operating conditions water is drawn from the two wells, treated,
and stored into Baker Hill reservoir (Water System Plan-Chapter 1, 2010). Each well can supply
up to 1,200 gpm, but only one well can operate at any given time (Water System Plan-Chapter 1,
2010). As of 2008, the total potable water produced and purchased was 238 million gallons (City
of Yelm-Appendix 4, 2010).

Reclaimed Water System

The primary use of the reclaimed water system is irrigation for parks, church, school, ball
fields, and the public works facility (Doty, 2010 and Yelm, 2005). During the winter rainy
season where there is little irrigation demand, excess water is sent to generate power in the
Centralia Power Canal. Currently, there are about 30 users connected to the reclaimed water
system (Doty, 2010). Since the City has concentrated on providing reclaimed water to large
water users, no residential users have been connected to the system since the cumbersome
regulatory requirements (backflow testing, etc.) (Doty, 2010). Yelm has a goal of 100 percent
upland reuse via a program to add reclaimed water users and customers (USEPA, 2004), and is
successful since the demand for reclaimed water is approximately equal to production (Doty,
2010).

264

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Yelm also uses reclaimed water for groundwater recharge, which is produced at the
Cochrane Memorial Park Facility, which amounts to approximately 56 acre-feet of water per
year (City of Yelm-Appendix 4, 2010).

III. EVALUATION INFORMATION

Water Safety and Public Health Protection

Have there been any reported cases of cross connections? Yes No

If yes, provide detail regarding the number of cases and any reported illnesses.
There have been no cross connections or associated illnesses reported due to reclaimed
water exposure.

Provide any other pertinent information

When the reclaimed water is not produced to standards, particularly for turbidity, the
pumps automatically shut down in order to quit producing reclaimed water (Doty, 2010). There
is also an automatic dialer monitoring the chlorination and dechlorination systems of the plant,
so that the manager would find out about it immediately during off hours (Doty, 2010).

Principal Operational Issues

1. The main operational issue is keeping the total nitrogen (nitrate, nitrite, etc.)
concentration below 10 mg/L in the reclaimed water, which is difficult to do
during the winter (Doty, 2010).
2. Keeping the nutrient level low as well as maintaining adequate chlorine residual
throughout the reclaimed water system (Doty, 2010).
3. The Nisqually River Coalition, whose primary objective is to protect the pristine
condition of the Nisqually River, was formed out of concern for the discharge
of secondary effluent and reclaimed water into the river. The City has shown
that the reclaimed water supplements the flow of the Nisqually River and
desires to use as much reclaimed water as possible in order to offset impacts to
Yelm Creek (City of Yelm-Appendix 4, 2010).

Effectiveness in Meeting System Goals

Explain how the dual system has improved conservation:

The reclaimed water system has been a significant contributor to water conservation in
Yelm. Approximately 350,000 gallons of reclaimed water is produced in Yelm every day, mainly
during the summer months, which amounts to a significant water savings for a small town like
Yelm (Doty, 2010). To encourage conservation, the City's water trucks no longer use potable
water, but reclaimed water for irrigation purposes (Doty, 2010).
The City has limited water resources, so a number of water conservation measures are
being implemented in order to meet conservation goals. One conservation goal is to reduce
single family residential use to 200 gallons per day within 5 years; currently usage is about 215
gallons per day (City of Yelm, 2009). Measures include installing locks on 380 fire hydrants in

265

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

order to prevent water theft (City of Yelm-Appendix 4, 2010).

How has the dual system has impacted any other (system capacity, etc.) goals?
The demand for reclaimed water has been on the rise to the point where storage tanks
were built in order to ensure a more reliable supply of reclaimed water during peak demand
times (Doty, 2010). Yelm was producing 350,000 gallons in a 24 hour time frame, but the
demand for all 350,000 gallons was during an eight hour time period every day (Doty, 2010).

Economic Information

What is the yearly O & M budget for the system?

The 2007 budget (most recent detailed report) shows that the City had a total of
$2,074,200 for "municipal water" use and a total of $2,982,000 for "sewer/reuse operation and
maintenance" (City of Yelm, 2007).

Discuss any additional O & M costs associated with the dual system:
Other costs relating to the dual system are capital improvements, capital reserves, debt
repayment, among other costs (City of Yelm, 2007).

Discuss any rate structures used by the utility to regulate consumption:

Water base rates depend on the meter size, and user type. Volumetric rates are according
to an increasing block rate structure. There are seasonal rate increases for dry season months for
certain tiers (City of Yelm-Appendix 4, 2010). Overall water demand reduced from 254 gpd in
2003 to 206 gpd in 2007 which is primarily attributed to increasing block rate structure for water
use (City of Yelm-Appendix 4, 2010). There needs to be farther investigation to see if the City
charges for reclaimed water use since reclaimed water rates are not found on the rate table.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Does the dual system provide a better use of water?

According to the City of Yelm, about 9 million gallons of potable water is saved per year
due to using reclaimed water primarily for irrigation (Yelm, 2005).

Is the dual system more efficient economically?

Given the limited amount of revenue information, it is difficult to ascertain if the
reclaimed water system costs exceed any its revenue.

Has the use of a dual system compromised safety?

Since there have been no reported cross connections or associated illnesses from
reclaimed water and the City is not providing reclaimed water to any residential customers, the
dual system has not compromised safety.

Does the dual system position the water authority better for the future?
The water savings is significant for a city of its size, and given the limited water
resources, the dual system does ensure a more reliable water supply for future water needs.

266

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

V. REFERENCES CITED

City Data. (2009). "Yelm, Washington". <http://www.city-data.com/city/Yelm-

Washington.html>. (August 25, 2010).
City of Yelm. (2010). "City of Yelm Water System Plan-Chapter 1, Description of Water
System".<http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/publicworks/waterplan/finalplan/F_Chapter%201.pd
f>. (August 18, 2010).
City of Yelm. (2010). "Appendix 4-Chapter 4 Appendices".
<http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/publicworks/waterplan/finalplan/Chapter%204%20Appendic
es.pdf>. (August 18, 2010).
City of Yelm. (2010). "2010 Water Rate Table". <http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/>. (August 18,
2010).
City of Yelm. (2007). "2007 Budget". <http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/_data/forms/2007budget.pdf>.
(August 26, 2010).
City of Yelm. (2005). "Reclaimed Water".
<http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/default.asp?dept=publicworks>. (August 18, 2010).
Doty, Jim. Phone call on July 3, 2010.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2004). "EPA Guidelines For Water Reuse-
Chapter 2, Type of Reuse Applications".
<http://www.epa.gov/NRMRL/pubs/625r04108/625r04108chap2.pdf>. (August 18,
2010).

267

©2013 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.