EPA/625/R-04/108 

September 2004 

Guidelines for Water Reuse 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Municipal Support Division 

Office of Wastewater Management 

Office of Water 

Washington, DC 

Technology Transfer and Support Division 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Office of Research and Development 

Cincinnati, OH 

U.S. Agency for International Development 

Washington, DC 
Notice 

This document was produced by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. under a Cooperative Research 

and Development Agreement with the US Environmental Protection Agency. It has been 

subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication. 

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use. 

ii
Foreword

In an effort to help meet growing demands being placed 

on available water supplies, many communities throughout the U.S. and the world are turning to water reclamation and reuse. Water reclamation and reuse offer an 

effective means of conserving our limited high-quality 

freshwater supplies while helping to meet the ever growing demands for water. 

For many years, effluent discharges have been accepted 

as an important source for maintaining minimum stream 

flows. The investment in treatment technologies required 

to meet restrictive discharge limits has lead an increasing number of industries and communities to consider 

other uses for their treated wastewater effluents as a 

means to recover at least a part of this investment. 

Further, as sources of water supplies have become limited, there has been greater use and acceptance of reclaimed wastewater effluents as an alternative source 

of water for a wide variety of applications, including landscape and agricultural irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing, industrial processing, power plant cooling, wetland 

habitat creation, restoration and maintenance, and 

groundwater recharge. In some areas of the country, 

water reuse and dual water systems with purple pipe 

for distribution of reclaimed water have become fully 

integrated into local water supplies. 

The 2004 Guidelines for Water Reuse examines opportunities for substituting reclaimed water for potable water supplies where potable water quality is not required. 

It presents and summarizes recommended water reuse 

guidelines, along with supporting information, as guidance for the benefit of the water and wastewater utilities and regulatory agencies, particularly in the U.S. The 

document updates the 1992 Guidelines document by 

incorporating information on water reuse that has been 

developed since the 1992 document was issued. This 

revised edition also expands coverage of water reuse 

issues and practices in other countries. It includes many 

new and updated case studies, expanded coverage of 

indirect potable reuse and industrial reuse issues, new 

information on treatment and disinfection technologies, 

emerging chemicals and pathogens of concern, economics, user rates and funding alternatives, public involvement and acceptance (both successes and failures), research activities and results, and sources of 

further information. It also includes as an updated matrix of state regulations and guidelines, and a list of state 

contacts. This information should be useful to states in 

developing water reuse standards, and revising or expanding existing regulations. It should also be useful to 

planners, consulting engineers and others actively involved in the evaluation, planning, design, operation or 

maintenance of water reclamation and reuse facilities. 

Benjamin H. Grumbles 

Assistant Administrator for Water U.S. EPA 

Paul Gilman 

Assistant Administrator for Research & Development 

U.S. EPA

Jacqueline E. Schafer 

Deputy Assistant Administrator 

Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade 

U.S. Agency for International Development

iii 
iv
Contents 

Chapter Page 

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Objectives of the Guidelines ............................................................................................ 1

1.2 Water Demands and Reuse .............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Source Substitution .......................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Pollution Abatement ......................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Treatment and Water Quality Considerations ................................................................... 3

1.6 Overview of the Guidelines .............................................................................................. 4

1.7 References ....................................................................................................................... 5

2 TYPES OF REUSE APPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Urban Reuse .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Reclaimed Water Demand ................................................................................... 8

2.1.2 Reliability and Public Health Protection ............................................................... 9

2.1.3 Design Considerations ....................................................................................... 10

2.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Faciliities ............................................................... 10

2.1.3.2 Distribution System .............................................................................. 10

2.1.4. Using Reclaimed Water for Fire Protection ........................................................ 12

2.2 Industrial Reuse ............................................................................................................. 13

2.2.1 Cooling Water .................................................................................................... 13

2.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling Water Systems ................................................. 13

2.2.1.2 Recirculating Evaporative Cooling Water Systems ............................... 13

2.2.1.3 Cooling Water Quality Requirements .................................................... 15

2.2.2 Boiler Make-up Water ........................................................................................ 16

2.2.3 Industrial Process Water ................................................................................... 17

2.2.3.1 Pulp and Paper Industry ....................................................................... 17

2.2.3.2 Chemical Industry ................................................................................ 17

2.2.3.3 Textile Industry .................................................................................... 17

2.2.3.4 Petroleum and Coal .............................................................................. 20

2.3 Agricultural Reuse .......................................................................................................... 20

2.3.1 Estimating Agricultural Irrigation Demands ........................................................ 21

2.3.1.1 Evapotranspiration ................................................................................ 21

2.3.1.2 Effective Precipitation, Percolation and Surface Water

Runoff Losses ...................................................................................... 21

2.3.2 Reclaimed Water Quality ................................................................................... 22

2.3.2.1 Salinity ................................................................................................. 23

2.3.2.2 Sodium ................................................................................................. 23

2.3.2.3 Trace Elements .................................................................................... 24

2.3.2.4 Chlorine Residual .................................................................................. 24

2.3.2.5 Nutrients ............................................................................................... 24

2.3.3 Other System Considerations ........................................................................... 26

2.3.3.1 System Reliability ................................................................................ 26

v 
Chapter Page 

2.3.3.2 Site Use Control ................................................................................... 26

2.3.3.3 Monitoring Requirements ...................................................................... 26

2.3.3.4 Runoff Controls .................................................................................... 26

2.3.3.5 Marketing Incentives ............................................................................ 27

2.3.3.6 Irrigation Equipment .............................................................................. 27

2.4 Environmental and Recreational Reuse .......................................................................... 27

2.4.1 Natural and Man-made Wetlands ....................................................................... 28

2.4.2 Recreational and Aesthetic Impoundments ....................................................... 30

2.4.3 Stream Augmentation ........................................................................................ 30

2.5 Groundwater Recharge ................................................................................................... 31

2.5.1 Methods of Groundwater Recharge ................................................................... 32

2.5.1.1 Surface Spreading ................................................................................ 32

2.5.1.2 Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems .......................................................... 35

2.5.1.3 Vadose Zone Injection .......................................................................... 37

2.5.1.4 Direct Injection ..................................................................................... 38

2.5.2 Fate of Contaminants in Recharge Systems ..................................................... 38

2.5.2.1 Particulate Matter ................................................................................. 39

2.5.2.2 Dissolved Organic Constituents ........................................................... 39

2.5.2.3 Nitrogen ................................................................................................ 40

2.5.2.4 Microorganisms .................................................................................... 40

2.5.3 Health and Regulatory Considerations ............................................................... 41

2.6 Augmentation of Potable Supplies ................................................................................. 41

2.6.1 Water Quality Objectives for Potable Reuse ..................................................... 42

2.6.2 Surface Water Augmentation for Indirect Potable Reuse ................................... 44

2.6.3 Groundwater Recharge for Indirect Potable Reuse ............................................ 45

2.6.4 Direct Potable Water Reuse .............................................................................. 46

2.7 Case Studies ............................................................................................................. 48

2.7.1 Water Reuse at Reedy Creek Improvement District .......................................... 49

2.7.2 Estimating Potable Water Conserved in Altamonte Springs due

to Reuse ............................................................................................................ 50

2.7.3 How Using Potable Supplies to Supplement Reclaimed Water

Flows can Increase Conservation, Hillsborough County, Florida ....................... 51

2.7.4 Water Reclamation and Reuse Offer an Integrated Approach to

Wastewater Treatment and Water Resources Issues in Phoenix,

Arizona. ............................................................................................................. 54

2.7.5 Small and Growing Community: Yelm, Washington .......................................... 55

2.7.6 Landscape Uses of Reclaimed Water with Elevated Salinity;

El Paso, Texas ................................................................................................. 57

2.7.7 Use of Reclaimed Water in a Fabric Dyeing Industry ........................................ 58

2.7.8 Survey of Power Plants Using Reclaimed Water for

Cooling Water .................................................................................................... 58

2.7.9 Agricultural Reuse in Tallahassee, Florida ........................................................ 60

2.7.10 Spray Irrigation at Durbin Creek WWTP Western Carolina

Regional Sewer Authority .................................................................................. 60

2.7.11 Agricultural Irrigation of Vegetable Crops: Monterey, California ......................... 62

2.7.12 Water Conserv II: City of Orlando and Orange County, Florida ......................... 62

2.7.13 The Creation of a Wetlands Park: Petaluma, California ..................................... 64

2.7.14 Geysers Recharge Project: Santa Rosa, California .......................................... 64

2.7.15 Advanced Wastewater Reclamation in California .............................................. 65

2.7.16 An Investigation of Soil Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water ..................... 66

2.7.17 The City of West Palm Beach, Florida Wetlands-Based Water

Reclamation Project .......................................................................................... 67

vi 
3 

Chapter Page 

2.7.18 Types of Reuse Applications in Florida ............................................................. 69

2.7.19 Regionalizing Reclaimed Water in the Tampa Bay Area .................................... 70

2.8 References ................................................................................................................................. 71

TECHNICAL ISSUES IN PLANNING WATER REUSE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 77

3.1 Planning Approach ......................................................................................................... 77

3.1.1 Preliminary Investigations ................................................................................. 78

3.1.2 Screening of Potential Markets ......................................................................... 78

3.1.3 Detailed Evaluation of Selected Markets ........................................................... 79

3.2 Potential Uses of Reclaimed Water ................................................................................ 80

3.2.1 National Water Use ........................................................................................... 81

3.2.2 Potential Reclaimed Water Demands ................................................................ 81

3.2.3 Reuse and Water Conservation ......................................................................... 85

3.3 Sources of Reclaimed Water .......................................................................................... 86

3.3.1 Locating the Sources ........................................................................................ 86

3.3.2 Characterizing the Sources ............................................................................... 87

3.3.2.1 Level of Treatment and Processes ....................................................... 87

3.3.2.2 Reclaimed Water Quality ...................................................................... 88

3.3.2.3 Reclaimed Water Quantity .................................................................... 89

3.3.2.4 Industrial Wastewater Contributions ..................................................... 90

3.4 Treatment Requirements for Water Reuse ..................................................................... 90

3.4.1 Health Assessment of Water Reuse ................................................................. 91

3.4.1.1 Mechanism of Disease Transmission ................................................... 91

3.4.1.2 Pathogenic Microorganisms and Health Risks ..................................... 92

3.4.1.3 Presence and Survival of Pathogens .................................................... 95

3.4.1.4 Pathogens and Indicator Organisms in Reclaimed Water ..................... 96

3.4.1.5 Aerosols ............................................................................................... 98

3.4.1.6 Infectious Disease Incidence Related to

Wastewater Reuse ............................................................................. 100

3.4.1.7 Chemical Constituents ....................................................................... 102

3.4.1.8 Endocrine Disrupters .......................................................................... 104

3.4.2 Treatment Requirements ................................................................................. 106

3.4.2.1 Disinfection ........................................................................................ 107

3.4.2.2 Advanced Wastewater Treatment ....................................................... 109

3.4.3 Reliability in Treatment .................................................................................... 113

3.4.3.1 EPA Guidelines for Reliability ............................................................. 113

3.4.3.2 Additional Requirements for Reuse Applications ................................ 115

3.4.3.3 Operator Training and Competence .................................................... 118

3.4.3.4 Quality Assurance in Monitoring ......................................................... 118

3.5 Seasonal Storage Requirements .................................................................................. 118

3.5.1 Identifying the Operating Parameters .............................................................. 120

3.5.2 Storage to Meet Irrigation Demands ................................................................ 121

3.5.3 Operating without Seasonal Storage ............................................................... 122

3.6 Supplemental Water Reuse System Facilities ............................................................. 122

3.6.1 Conveyance and Distribution Facilities ............................................................ 122

3.6.1.1 Public Health Safeguards ................................................................... 124

3.6.1.2 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................. 127

3.6.2 Operational Storage ......................................................................................... 128

3.6.3 Alternative Disposal Facilities ......................................................................... 129

3.6.3.1 Surface Water Discharge .................................................................... 130

3.6.3.2 Injection Wells .................................................................................... 130

vii 
Chapter Page 

3.6.3.3 Land Application ................................................................................. 131

3.7 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 132

3.7.1 Land Use Impacts ........................................................................................... 132

3.7.2 Stream Flow Impacts ...................................................................................... 133

3.7.3 Hydrogeological Impacts ................................................................................. 134

3.8 Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 134

3.8.1 Code of Good Practices for Water Reuse ........................................................ 134

3.8.2 Examples of Potable Water Separation Standards from the

State of Washington ........................................................................................ 135

3.8.3 An Example of using Risk Assessment to Establish Reclaimed

Water Quality .................................................................................................. 136

3.9 References ................................................................................................................... 137

4 WATER REUSE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES IN THE U.S. ....................................................... 149

4.1 Inventory of Existing State Regulations and Guidelines ............................................... 149

4.1.1 Reclaimed Water Quality and Treatment Requirements .................................. 153

4.1.1.1 Unrestricted Urban Reuse ................................................................... 153

4.1.1.2 Restricted Urban Reuse ...................................................................... 154

4.1.1.3 Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops ......................................................... 155

4.1.1.4 Agricultural Reuse – Non-food Crops .................................................. 156

4.1.1.5 Unrestricted Recreational Reuse ........................................................ 157

4.1.1.6 Restricted Recreational Reuse ........................................................... 158

4.1.1.7 Environmental – Wetlands .................................................................. 159

4.1.1.8 Industrial Reuse ................................................................................. 159

4.1.1.9 Groundwater Recharge ....................................................................... 160

4.1.1.10Indirect Potable Reuse ....................................................................... 161

4.1.2 Reclaimed Water Monitoring Requirements ..................................................... 162

4.1.3 Treatment Facility Reliability ........................................................................... 162

4.1.4 Reclaimed Water Storage ................................................................................ 164

4.1.5 Application Rates ............................................................................................ 164

4.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................................... 165

4.1.7 Setback Distances for Irrigation ...................................................................... 165

4.2 Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse ........................................................................ 165

4.3 Pathogens and Emerging Pollutants of Concern (EPOC) ............................................. 172

4.4 Pilot Testing ................................................................................................................. 172

4.5 References ................................................................................................................... 173

5 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ................................................................................................. 175

5.1 Water Rights Law ......................................................................................................... 175

5.1.1 Appropriative Rights System ........................................................................... 176

5.1.2 Riparian Rights System ................................................................................... 176

5.1.3 Water Rights and Water Reuse ....................................................................... 176

5.1.4 Federal Water Rights Issues ........................................................................... 177

5.2 Water Supply and Use Regulations .............................................................................. 178

5.2.1 Water Supply Reductions ................................................................................ 178

5.2.2 Water Efficiency Goals .................................................................................... 178

5.2.3 Water Use Restrictions .................................................................................... 179

5.3 Wastewater Regulations ............................................................................................... 179

5.3.1 Effluent Quality Limits ..................................................................................... 180

5.3.2 Effluent Flow Limits ......................................................................................... 180

viii 
Chapter Page 

5.4 Safe Drinking Water Act – Source Water Protection .................................................... 180

5.5 Land Use and Environmental Regulations .................................................................... 181

5.5.1 General and Specific Plans ............................................................................. 181

5.5.2 Environmental Regulations .............................................................................. 182

5.5.2.1 Special Environmental Topics ............................................................ 183

5.6 Legal Issues in Implementation .................................................................................... 183

5.6.1 Construction Issues ........................................................................................ 183

5.6.1.1 System Construction Issues .............................................................. 184

5.6.1.2 Onsite Construction Issues ................................................................ 184

5.6.2 Wholesaler/Retailer Issues .............................................................................. 184

5.6.2.1 Institutional Criteria ............................................................................. 185

5.6.2.2 Institutional Inventory and Assessment .............................................. 185

5.6.3 Customer Issues ............................................................................................. 186

5.6.3.1 Statutory Customer Responsibilities ................................................... 186

5.6.3.2 Terms of Service and Commercial Arrangements .............................. 187

5.7 Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 187

5.7.1 Statutory Mandate to Utilize Reclaimed Water: California ......................................................... 187

5.7.2 Administrative Order to Evaluate Feasibility of Water Reclamation:

Fallbrook Sanitary District, Fallbrook, California ....................................................................... 188

5.7.3 Reclaimed Water User Agreements Instead of Ordinance:

Central Florida ........................................................................................................... 188

5.7.4 Interagency Agreement Required for Water Reuse: Monterey

County Water Recycling Project, Monterey, California .............................................................. 189

5.7.5 Public/Private Partnership to Expand Reuse Program:The City of

Orlando, Orange County and The Private Sector – Orlando,

Florida ........................................................................................................... 190

5.7.6 Inspection of Reclaimed Water Connections Protect Potable Water

Supply: Pinellas County Utilities, Florida ............................................................................................... 191

5.7.7 Oneida Indian Nation/Municipal/State Coordination Leads to

Effluent Reuse: Oneida Nation, New York .............................................................................................. 191

5.7.8 Implementing Massachusetts’ First Golf Course Irrigation System

Utilizing Reclaimed Water: Yarmouth, Massachusetts ........................................................................... 196

5.8 References ................................................................................................................... 198

6 FUNDING WATER REUSE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 199

6.1 Decision Making Tools ................................................................................................. 199

6.2 Externally Generated Funding Alternatives .................................................................. 200

6.2.1 Local Government Tax-Exempt Bonds ............................................................ 200

6.2.2 State and Federal Financial Assistance .......................................................... 201

6.2.2.1 State Revolving Fund ......................................................................... 201

6.2.2.2 Federal Policy .................................................................................... 202

6.2.2.3 Other Federal Sources ....................................................................... 202

6.2.2.4 State, Regional, and Local Grant and Loan Support ........................... 203

6.2.3 Capital Contributions ....................................................................................... 203

6.3 Internally Generated Funding Alternatives ................................................................... 204

6.3.1 Reclaimed Water User Charges ...................................................................... 204

6.3.2 Operating Budget and Cash Reserves ............................................................. 205

6.3.3 Property Taxes and Existing User Charges .................................................... 205

6.3.4 Public Utility Tax ............................................................................................. 206

6.3.5 Special Assessments or Special Tax Districts ............................................... 206

6.3.6 Impact Fees .................................................................................................... 206

ix 
7 

Chapter Page 

6.4 Incremental Versus Proportionate Share Costs ........................................................... 206

6.4.1 Incremental Cost Basis ................................................................................... 206

6.4.2 Proportionate Share Cost Basis ...................................................................... 207

6.5 Phasing and Participation Incentives ........................................................................... 208

6.6 Sample Rates and Fees ............................................................................................... 209

6.6.1 Connection Fees ............................................................................................. 209

6.6.2 User Fees ....................................................................................................... 209

6.7 Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 209

6.7.1 Unique Funding Aspects of the Town of Longboat Key Reclaimed

Water System ................................................................................................. 209

6.7.2 Financial Assistance in San Diego County, California ..................................... 212

6.7.3 Grant Funding Through the Southwest Florida Water Management

District......................................................................................................212

6.7.4 Use of Reclaimed Water to Augment Potable Supplies:

An Economic Perspective (California) ............................................................. 213

6.7.5 Impact Fee Development Considerations for Reclaimed Water

Projects: Hillsborough County, Florida ............................................................. 215

6.7.6 How Much Does it Cost and Who Pays: A Look at Florida’s

Reclaimed Water Rates ................................................................................... 216

6.7.7 Rate Setting for Industrial Reuse in San Marcos, Texas ................................. 218

6.8 References ................................................................................................................... 219

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 221

7.1 Why Public Participation? ............................................................................................ 221

7.1.1 Informed Constituency .................................................................................... 221

7.2 Defining the “Public” ..................................................................................................... 222

7.3 Overview of Public Perceptions ................................................................................... 222

7.3.1 Residential and Commercial Reuse in Tampa, Florida .................................... 223

7.3.2 A Survey of WWTP Operators and Managers ................................................. 223

7.3.3 Public Opinion in San Francisco, California .................................................... 223

7.3.4 Clark County Sanitation District Water Reclamation Opinion

Surveys ........................................................................................................... 223

7.4 Involving the Public in Reuse Planning ........................................................................ 224

7.4.1 General Requirements for Public Participation ................................................ 226

7.4.1.1. Public Advisory Groups or Task Forces ............................................. 228

7.4.1.2 Public Participation Coordinator .......................................................... 229

7.4.2 Specific Customer Needs ................................................................................ 229

7.4.2.1 Urban Systems .................................................................................. 229

7.4.2.2 Agricultural Systems .......................................................................... 229

7.4.2.3 Reclaimed Water for Potable Purposes .............................................. 230

7.4.3 Agency Communication .................................................................................. 230

7.4.4 Public Information Through Implementation .................................................... 231

7.4.5 Promoting Successes ..................................................................................... 231

7.5 Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 231

7.5.1 Accepting Produce Grown with Reclaimed Water: Monterey,

California ......................................................................................................... 231

7.5.2 Water Independence in Cape Coral – An Implementation Update

in 2003 ........................................................................................................... 232

7.5.3 Learning Important Lessons When Projects Don’t Go as Planned .................. 234

7.5.3.1 San Diego, California .......................................................................... 234

7.5.3.2 Public Outreach May not be Enough: Tampa, Florida ........................ 235

x 
8 

Chapter Page 

7.5.4 Pinellas County, Florida Adds Reclaimed Water to Three R’s of

Education ........................................................................................................ 236

7.5.5 Yelm, Washington, A Reclaimed Water Success Story .................................. 237

7.5.6 Gwinnett County, Georgia – Master Plan Update Authored

by Public ......................................................................................................... 237

7.5.7 AWWA Golf Course Reclaimed Water Market Assessment ............................ 238

7.6 References ................................................................................................................... 240

WATER REUSE OUTSIDE THE U.S. .................................................................................................... 241

8.1 Main Characteristics of Water Reuse in the World ....................................................... 241

8.2 Water Reuse Drivers .................................................................................................... 242

8.2.1 Increasing Water Demands ............................................................................. 243

8.2.2 Water Scarcity ................................................................................................ 243

8.2.3 Environmental Protection and Public Health ................................................... 245

8.3 Water Reuse Applications – Urban and Agriculture ...................................................... 245

8.4 Planning Water Reuse Projects .................................................................................... 246

8.4.1 Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage ........................................................... 247

8.4.2 Technical Issues ............................................................................................. 247

8.4.2.1 Water Quality Requirements ............................................................... 249

8.4.2.2 Treatment Requirements .................................................................... 252

8.4.3 Institutional Issues .......................................................................................... 253

8.4.4 Legal Issues .................................................................................................... 253

8.4.4.1 Water Rights and Water Allocation ..................................................... 253

8.4.4.2 Public Health and Environmental Protection ....................................... 254

8.4.5 Economic and Financial Issues ...................................................................... 254

8.5 Examples of Water Reuse Programs Outside the U.S. ................................................ 255

8.5.1 Argentina ......................................................................................................... 255

8.5.2 Australia .......................................................................................................... 255

8.5.2.1 Aurora, Australia ................................................................................. 255

8.5.2.2 Mawson Lakes, Australia ................................................................... 256

8.5.2.3 Virginia Project, South Australia ......................................................... 256

8.5.3 Belgium ........................................................................................................... 257

8.5.4 Brazil ........................................................................................................... 258

8.5.4.1 Sao Paulo, Brazil ................................................................................ 258

8.5.4.2 Sao Paulo International Airport, Brazil ................................................ 259

8.5.5 Chile ........................................................................................................... 259

8.5.6 China ........................................................................................................... 260

8.5.7 Cyprus ........................................................................................................... 261

8.5.8 Egypt ........................................................................................................... 261

8.5.9 France ........................................................................................................... 262

8.5.10 Greece ........................................................................................................... 262

8.5.11 India ........................................................................................................... 263

8.5.12.1Hyderabad, India ................................................................................ 264

8.5.12 Iran ........................................................................................................... 264

8.5.13 Israel ........................................................................................................... 265

8.5.14 Italy ........................................................................................................... 266

8.5.15 Japan ........................................................................................................... 267

8.5.16 Jordan ........................................................................................................... 267

8.5.17 Kuwait ........................................................................................................... 268

8.5.18 Mexico ........................................................................................................... 269

8.5.19 Morocco .......................................................................................................... 271

xi 
Chapter Page 

8.5.20.1Drarga, Morocco ................................................................................. 271

8.5.20 Namibia ........................................................................................................... 272

8.5.21 Oman ........................................................................................................... 272

8.5.22 Pakistan .......................................................................................................... 273

8.5.23 Palestinian National Authority ......................................................................... 274

8.5.24 Peru ........................................................................................................... 275

8.5.25 Saudi Arabia .................................................................................................... 275

8.5.26 Singapore ........................................................................................................ 276

8.5.27 South Africa .................................................................................................... 277

8.5.28 Spain ........................................................................................................... 278

8.5.28.1Costa Brava, Spain ............................................................................ 278

8.5.28.2Portbou, Spain.................................................................................... 279

8.5.28.3Aiguamolls de l’Emporda Natural Preserve, Spain ............................. 279

8.5.28.4The City of Victoria, Spain ................................................................. 279

8.5.29 Sweden ........................................................................................................... 279

8.5.30 Syria ........................................................................................................... 280

8.5.31 Tunisia ........................................................................................................... 280

8.5.32 United Arab Emirates ...................................................................................... 282

8.5.33 United Kingdom ............................................................................................... 282

8.5.34 Yemen ........................................................................................................... 283

8.5.35 Zimbabwe ........................................................................................................ 284

8.6 References ........................................................................................................... 284

APPENDIX A STATE REUSE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES ................................................................ 289

APPENDIX B STATE WEBSITES ........................................................................................................... 441

APPENDIX C ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... 443

APPENDIX D INVENTORY OF RECLAIMED WATER PROJECTS ................................................................ 445

xii 
Tables 

Table Page 

2-1 Typical Cycles of Concentration (COC) ............................................................................................ 14

2-2 Florida and California Reclaimed Water Quality ................................................................................ 15

2-3 North Richmond Water Reclamation Plant Sampling Requirements ................................................. 18

2-4 Industrial Process Water Quality Requirements ............................................................................... 19

2-5 Pulp and Paper Process Water Quality Requirements ...................................................................... 19

2-6 Efficiencies for Different Irrigation Systems ..................................................................................... 22

2-7 Recommended Limits for Constituents in Reclaimed Water for Irrigation ......................................... 25

2-8 Comparison of Major Engineering Factors for Engineered Groundwater

Recharge .......................................................................................................................................... 33

2-9 Water Quality at Phoenix, Arizona SAT System .............................................................................. 37

2-10 Factors that May Influence Virus Movement to Groundwater ........................................................... 41

2-11 Physical and Chemical Sampling Results from the San Diego Potable

Reuse Study .................................................................................................................................... 47

2-12 San Diego Potable Reuse Study: Heavy Metals and Trace Organics Results .................................. 48

2-13 Average Discharge Rates and Quality of Municipal Reclaimed Effluent in

El Paso and Other Area Communities .............................................................................................. 57

2-14 Treatment Processes for Power Plant Cooling Water ....................................................................... 59

2-15 Field Sites for Wetlands/SAT Research ........................................................................................... 67

3-1 Designer Waters ............................................................................................................................... 89

3-2 Infectious Agents Potentially Present in Untreated Domestic Wastewater ....................................... 93

3-3 Ct Requirements for Free Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide to Achieve 99

Percent Inactivation of E. Coli Compared to Other Microorganisms ................................................. 95

3-4 Microorganism Concentrations in Raw Wastewater .......................................................................... 96

3-5 Microorganism Concentrations in Secondary Non-Disinfected Wastewater ...................................... 96

xiii 
Table Page 

3-6 Typical Pathogen Survival Times at 20-30 oC .................................................................................. 97

3-7 Pathogens in Untreated and Treated Wastewater ............................................................................. 98

3-8 Summary of Florida Pathogen Monitoring Data ................................................................................ 99

3-9 Operational Data for Florida Facilities ............................................................................................... 99

3-10 Some Suggested Alternative Indicators for Use in Monitoring Programs ........................................ 100

3-11 Inorganic and Organic Constituents of Concern in Water Reclamation

and Reuse ...................................................................................................................................... 103

12-12 Examples of the Types and Sources of Substances that have been

Reported as Potential Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals .................................................................. 105

3-13a Microfiltration Removal Performance Data ..................................................................................... 112

3-13b Reverse Osmosis Performance Data ............................................................................................. 112

3-14 Summary of Class I Reliability Requirements ................................................................................ 115

3-15 Water Reuse Required to Equal the Benefit of Step Feed BNR Upgrades ...................................... 131

3-16 Average and Maximum Conditions for Exposure ............................................................................ 137

4-1 Summary of State Reuse Regulations and Guidelines ................................................................... 152

4-2 Number of States with Regulations or Guidelines for Each Type of Reuse Application .................. 151

4-3 Unrestricted Urban Reuse ............................................................................................................... 153

4-4 Restricted Urban Reuse .................................................................................................................. 154

4-5 Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops .................................................................................................... 155

4-6 Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops ............................................................................................. 157

4-7 Unrestricted Recreational Reuse .................................................................................................... 158

4-8 Restricted Recreational Reuse ....................................................................................................... 158

4-9 Environmental Reuse – Wetlands ................................................................................................... 159

4-10 Industrial Reuse ............................................................................................................................. 160

4-11 Groundwater Recharge ................................................................................................................... 161

4-12 Indirect Potable Reuse ................................................................................................................... 163

4-13 Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse .......................................................................................... 167

xiv 
Table Page 

5-1 Some Common Institutional Patterns ............................................................................................. 185

6-1 Credits to Reclaimed Water Costs .................................................................................................. 208

6-2 User Fees for Existing Urban Reuse Systems ............................................................................... 210

6-3 Discounts for Reclaimed Water Use in California ........................................................................... 209

6-4 Estimated Capital and Maintenance Costs for Phase IVA With and Without

Federal and State Reimbursements ............................................................................................... 214

6-5 Cost Estimate for Phase I of the GWR System ............................................................................. 214

6-6 Total Annual Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 215

6-7 Reclaimed Water Impact Fees ....................................................................................................... 216

6-8 Average Rates for Reclaimed Water Service in Florida .................................................................. 217

6-9 Percent Costs Recovered Through Reuse Rates ........................................................................... 218

7-1 Positive and Negative Responses to Potential Alternatives for Reclaimed

Water .............................................................................................................................................. 224

7-2 Survey Results for Different Reuse ................................................................................................ 227

7-3 Trade Reactions and Expectations Regarding Produce Grown with

Reclaimed Water ............................................................................................................................ 232

7-4 Chronology of WICC Implementation .............................................................................................. 233

8-1 Sources of Water in Several Countries ........................................................................................... 242

8-2 Wastewater Flows, Collection, and Treatment in Selected Countries in

1994 (Mm3

/year) ............................................................................................................................. 247

8-3 Summary of Water Quality Parameters of Concern for Water Reuse ............................................. 250

8-4 Summary of Water Recycling Guidelines and Mandatory Standards

in the United States and Other Countries ....................................................................................... 251

8-5 Life-Cycle Cost of Typical Treatment Systems for a 40,000

Population-Equivalent Flow of Wastewater ..................................................................................... 254

8-6 Summary of Australian Reuse Projects .......................................................................................... 257

8-7 Water Demand and Water Availability per Region in the Year 2000 ................................................ 259

8-8 Effluent Flow Rates from Wastewater Treatment Plants in

Metropolitan Sao Paulo .................................................................................................................. 259

8-9 Water Reuse at the Sao Paulo International Airport ........................................................................ 260

xv 
Table Page 

8-10 Major Reuse Projects ..................................................................................................................... 263

8-11 Uses of Reclaimed Water in Japan ................................................................................................ 268

8-12 Water Withdrawal in Kuwait ............................................................................................................ 269

8-13 Reclaimed Water Standards in Kuwait ............................................................................................ 270

8-14 Effluent Quality Standards from the Sulaibiya Treatment and

Reclamation Plant .......................................................................................................................... 270

8-15 Plant Performance Parameters at the Drarga Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................... 273

8-16 Reclaimed Water Standards for Unrestricted Irrigation in Saudi Arabia .......................................... 276

8-17 Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Cities of Syria ....................................................................... 281

xvi 
Figures 

Figure Page 

1-1 Estimated and Projected Urban Population in the World ...................................................................... 2

2-1 Potable and Nonpotable Water Use – Monthly Historic Demand Variation,

Irvine Ranch Water District, California .................................................................................................. 9

2-2 Potable and Nonpotable Water Use – Monthly Historic Demand Variation,

St. Petersburg, Florida ......................................................................................................................... 9

2-3 Cooling Tower .................................................................................................................................... 14

2-4 Comparison of Agricultural Irrigation, Public/Domestic, and Total

Freshwater Withdrawals ..................................................................................................................... 20

2-5 Agricultural Reuse Categories by Percent in California ...................................................................... 20

2-6 Three Engineered Methods for Groundwater Recharge ...................................................................... 32

2-7 Schematic of Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems .................................................................................. 36

2-8 Contaminants Regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations ........................................................................................................................................ 43

2-9 Water Resources at RCID .................................................................................................................. 50

2-10 Altamonte Springs Annual Potable Water Demands per Capita ......................................................... 51

2-11 Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Best LEM Method .......................................................... 52

2-12 Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using the CCM Method ............................................................ 52

2-13 Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Both Methods ................................................................ 53

2-14 Estimated Raw Water Supply vs. Demand for the 2002 South/Central

Service Area ...................................................................................................................................... 53

2-15 North Phoenix Reclaimed Water Service Area ................................................................................... 56

2-16 Durbin Creek Storage Requirements as a Function of Irrigated Area ................................................. 61

2-17 Project Flow Path ............................................................................................................................... 68

2-18 Growth of Reuse in Florida ................................................................................................................. 69

xvii 
Figure Page 

2-19 Available Reclaimed Water in Pasco, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties ........................................ 70

3-1 Phases of Reuse Program Planning .................................................................................................. 77

3-2 1995 U.S. Fresh Water Demands by Major Uses ............................................................................... 81

3-3 Fresh Water Source, Use, and Disposition ........................................................................................ 82

3-4 Wastewater Treatment Return Flow by State, 1995 ........................................................................... 83

3-5 Total Withdrawals ............................................................................................................................... 83

3-6 Average Indoor Water Usage (Total = 69.3 gpcd) .............................................................................. 84

3-7 Potable and Reclaimed Water Usage in St. Petersburg, Florida ........................................................ 86

3-8 Three Configuration Alternatives for Water Reuse Systems .............................................................. 87

3-9 Reclaimed Water Supply vs. Irrigation Demand ................................................................................. 90

3-10 Generalized Flow Sheet for Wastewater Treatment ......................................................................... 107

3-11 Particle Size Separation Comparison Chart ..................................................................................... 109

3-12 Average Monthly Rainfall and Pan Evaporation ............................................................................... 120

3-13 Average Pasture Irrigation Demand and Potential Supply ................................................................ 121

3-14 Example of Multiple Reuse Distribution System .............................................................................. 124

3-15 Reclaimed Water Advisory Sign ....................................................................................................... 125

3-16 Florida Separation Requirements for Reclaimed Water Mains .......................................................... 126

3-17 Anticipated Daily Reclaimed Water Demand Curve vs. Diurnal Reclaimed

Water Flow Curve ............................................................................................................................. 129

3-18 TDS Increase Due to Evaporation for One Year as a Function of Pond

Depth ............................................................................................................................................... 130

3-19 Orange County, Florida, Redistribution Constructed Wetland ........................................................... 132

3-20 A Minimum 5-Foot (1.5 m) Horizontal Pipe Separation Coupled with and

18-Inch (46 cm) Vertical Separation ................................................................................................. 135

3-21 Irrigation Lateral Separation ............................................................................................................. 136

3-22 Lateral Crossing Requirements ........................................................................................................ 136

3-23 Parallel Water – Lateral Installation .................................................................................................. 136

4-1 California Water Reuse by Type (Total 358 mgd) ............................................................................. 150

xviii 
Figure Page 

4-2 California Water Reuse by Type (Total 584 mgd) ............................................................................. 150

6-1 Comparison of Reclaimed Water and Potable Water Rates in Southwest

Florida .............................................................................................................................................. 211

6-2 Comparison of Rate Basis for San Marcos Reuse Water ................................................................. 218

7-1 Public Beliefs and Opinions ............................................................................................................. 225

7-2 Support of Recycled Water Program Activities ................................................................................ 225

7-3 Survey Results for Different Reuse .................................................................................................. 226

7-4 Public Participation Program for Water Reuse System Planning ..................................................... 227

7-5 Survey Responses ........................................................................................................................... 239

8-1 World Populations in Cities .............................................................................................................. 243

8-2a Countries with Chronic Water Stress Using Non-Renewable Resources .......................................... 244

8-2b Countries with Moderate Water Stress ............................................................................................. 244

8-3a Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Over

80 Percent ....................................................................................................................................... 248

8-3b Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Over

50 Percent ....................................................................................................................................... 248

8-4 Future Demand for Irrigation Water Compared with Potential Availability of

Reclaimed Water for Irrigation in the West Bank, Palestine ............................................................. 274

xix 
xx
Acknowledgements

The Guidelines for Water Reuse debuted in 1980 and 

was updated in 1992. Since then, water reuse practices have continued to develop and evolve. This edition of the Guidelines offers new information and greater 

detail about a wide range of reuse applications and introduces new health considerations and treatment technologies supporting water reuse operations. It includes 

an updated inventory of state reuse regulations and an 

expanded coverage of water reuse practices in countries outside of the U. S. Dozens of reuse experts contributed text and case studies to highlight how reuse 

applications can and do work in the real world. 

The 2004 Guidelines for Water Reuse document was 

built upon information generated by the substantial research and development efforts and extensive demonstration projects on water reuse practices throughout 

the world, ranging from potable reuse to wetlands treatment. Some of the most useful sources drawn upon in 

developing this update include: proceedings from American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federal (AWWA/WEF) Water Reuse conferences, WEF 

national conferences, and WateReuse conferences; 

selected articles from WEF and AWWA journals; materials provided by the Guidelines review committee; and 

a series of WERF reports on water reclamation and related subjects published by the National Research Counsel/National Academy of Sciences, WEF/AWWA. 

Please note that the statutes and regulations described 

in this document may contain legally binding requirements. The summaries of those laws provided here, as 

well as the approaches suggested in this document, do 

not substitute for those statutes or regulations, nor are 

these guidelines themselves any kind of regulation. This 

document is intended to be solely informational and does 

not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, 

local or tribal governments, or members of the public. 

Any EPA decisions regarding a particular water reuse 

project will be made based on the applicable statutes 

and regulations. EPA will continue to review and update these guidelines as necessary and appropriate. 

This version of the Guidelines for Water Reuse document was developed by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 

(CDM) through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) under the direction of Robert 

L. Matthews, P.E., DEE as Project Director and David

K. Ammerman, P.E. as Project Manager, with hands-on

assistance from Karen K. McCullen, P.E., Valerie P. 

Going, P.E., and Lisa M. Prieto, E.I. of CDM. These 

developers also wish to acknowledge the help of Dr. 

James Crook, P.E., Dr. Bahman Sheikh; Julia Forgas, 

Gloria Booth, and Karen Jones of CDM, as well as; 

MerriBeth Farnham of Farnham and Associates, Inc. 

and Perry Thompson of Thompson and Thompson 

Graphics Inc. 

Partial funding to support the preparation of the updated 

Guidelines document was provided by EPA and the U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID). The 

Guidelines document was prepared by CDM with contributions from more 100 participants from other consulting firms, state and federal agencies, local water and 

wastewater authorities, and academic institutions. We 

wish to acknowledge the direction, advice, and suggestions of the sponsoring agencies, notably: Mr. Robert 

K. Bastian and Dr. John Cicmanec of EPA, as well as

Dr. Peter McCornick, P.E., Dr. John Austin, and Mr. Dan 

Deely of USAID. We would also like to thank the many 

technical reviewers who so painstakingly reviewed this 

document. 

Our special thanks go to the following group of our colleagues who took the time to share their life experiences 

and technical knowledge to make these Guidelines relevant and user-friendly. The contributors are broken 

up into three categories: those who directly authored 

and/or edited text, those who attended the technical 

review meeting (TRC), and those who were general reviewers. Some contributors are listed more than once 

to demonstrate their multiple roles in the preparation of 

the document. 

xxi 
Please note that the listing of these contributors in no

way identifies them as supporters of this document or

represents their ideas and/or opinions on the subject.

These persons are the leaders in the field and their expertise from every angle has added to the depth and

breadth of the document.

The following colleagues contributed in the way of editing or submitting text and/or case studies. The asterisks annotate those who were part of the international

efforts.

*Dr. Felix P. Amerasinghe

International Water Management Institute

Sri Lanka

Daniel Anderson, P.E.

CDM

West Palm Beach, Florida

Anthony J. Andrade

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Brooksville, Florida

Laura Andrews, P.E.

CDM

Sarasota, Florida

Ed Archuleta

El Paso Water Utilities

El Paso, Texas

*Dr. Takashi Asano

University of California at Davis

Davis, California

Richard W. Atwater

Inland Empire Utilities Agency

Rancho Cucamonga, California

Shelly Badger

City of Yelm

Yelm, Washington

John E. Balliew, P.E.

El Paso Water Utilities

El Paso, Texas

Kristina Bentson

Katz and Associates

La Jolla, California

Randy Bond

SE Farm Facility - City of Tallahassee

Tallahassee, Florida

*Brandon G. Braley, P.E.

CDM International

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dennis Cafaro

Resource Conservation Systems

Bonita Springs, Florida

Kasey Brook Christian

University of Florida

Gainesville, Florida

Dr. Russell Christman

University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

*Max S. Clark, P.E.

CDM International

Hong Kong

Pat Collins

Parsons

Santa Rosa, California

Aimee Conroy

Phoenix Water Services Department

Phoenix, Arizona

Dr. Robert C. Cooper

BioVir Laboratories, Inc.

Benicia, California

Robin Cort

Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.

Oakland, California

*Geoffrey Croke

PSI-Delta

Australia

Dr. James Crook, P.E.

Environmental Consultant

Norwell, Massachusetts

Phil Cross

Woodard & Curran, Inc./Water Conserv II

Winter Garden, Florida

Katharine Cupps, P.E.

Washington Department of Ecology

Olympia, Washington

*Jeroen H. J. Ensink 

International Water Management Institute 

India 

xxii 
William Everest

Orange County Water Department

Fountain Valley, California

David Farabee

Environmental Consultant

Sarasota, Florida

Dr. Peter Fox

National Center for Sustainable Water Supply

Arizona State University

Tempe, Arizona

Monica Gasca

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts

Whittier, California

Jason M. Gorrie, P.E.

CDM

Tampa, Florida

Brian J. Graham, P.E., DEE

United Water

Carlsbad, California

Gary K. Grinnell, P.E.

Las Vegas Valley Water District

Las Vegas, Nevada

Michael Gritzuk

Phoenix Water Services Department

Phoenix, Arizona

*Dr. Ross E. Hagan

USAID

Egypt

Raymond E. Hanson, P.E.

Orange County Utilities Water Reclamation Division

Orlando, Florida

Earle Hartling

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts

Whittier, California

Roy L. Herndon

Orange County Water District

Fountain Valley, California

*Dr. Ivanhildo Hesponhol

Polytechnic School, University of São Paolo

Brazil

Lauren Hildebrand, P.E.

Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority

Greenville, South Carolina

Dr. Helene Hilger

University of North Carolina – Charlotte

Charlotte, North Carolina

Stephen M. Hoffman

CDM

Orlando, Florida

Keith Israel

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

Monterey, California

Joe Ann Jackson

PBS&J

Orlando, Florida

Robert S. Jaques

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

Monterey, California

Laura Johnson

East Bay Municipal Utility District

Oakland, California

Leslie C. Jones, P.E.

CDM

Charlotte, North Carolina

Sara Katz

Katz & Associates

La Jolla, California

Diane Kemp

CDM

Sarasota, Florida

*Mario Kerby

Water Resources Sustainability Project

Morocco

*Dr. Valentina Lazarova

Suez Environment - CIRSEE

France

Thomas L. Lothrop, P.E., DEE

City of Orlando

Orlando, Florida

xxiii 
Peter M. MacLaggan, P.E., Esq. Paul R. Puckorius 

Poseidon Resources Corporation Puckorius & Associates, Inc. 

San Diego, California Evergreen, Colorado 

Rocco J. Maiellano William F. Quinn, Jr. 

Evesham Municipal Utilities Authority El Paso Water Utilities 

Evesham, New Jersey El Paso, Texas 

*Chris Marles Roderick D. Reardon, P.E., DEE 

SA Water CDM 

Australia Orlando, Florida 

Ted W. McKim, P.E. Craig L. Riley, P.E. 

Reedy Creek Energy Services State of Washington Department of Health 

Lake Buena Vista, Florida Spokane, Washington 

Dianne B. Mills Martha Rincón 

CDM Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts 

Charlotte, North Carolina Whittier, California 

Dr. Thomas M. Missimer, PG Dr. Joan Rose 

CDM Michigan State University 

Ft. Myers, Florida East Lansing, Michigan 

Dr. Seiichi Miyamoto Eric Rosenblum 

Texas A&M University/Agricultural Research Center City of San Jose 

El Paso, Texas San Jose, California 

*Dr. Rafael Mujeriego Steve Rossi 

Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña Phoenix Water Services Department 

Spain Phoenix, Arizona 

Richard Nagel, P.E. Dr. A. Charles Rowney, P.E. 

West and Central Basin Municipal Water Districts CDM 

Carson, California Orlando, Florida 

Margaret Nellor Robert W. Sackellares 

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts GA-Pacific Corporation 

Whittier, California Atlanta, Georgia 

David Ornelas, P.E. Richard H. Sakaji 

El Paso Water Utilities California Department of Health Services 

El Paso, Texas Berkeley, California 

Ray T. Orvin *Dr. Lluis Sala 

Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority Consorci de la Costa Brava 

Greenville, South Carolina Spain 

*Francis Pamminger *Ahmad Sawalha 

Yarra Valley Water Ltd. USAID 

Australia West Bank & Gaza 

Jeffrey F. Payne, P.E., DEE Dr. Larry N. Schwartz 

CDM CDM 

Charlotte, North Carolina Orlando, Florida 

xxiv 
*Dr. Christopher Scott, P.E.

International Water Management Institute

India

Kathy F. Scott

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Brooksville, Florida

*Naief Saad Seder

Jordan Valley Authority - Ministry of Water & Irrigation

Jordan

Dr. David L. Sedlak

University of California - Berkeley

Berkeley, California

*Manel Serra

Consorci de la Costa Brava

Spain

*Dr. Bahman Sheikh

Water Reuse Consulting

San Francisco, CA

Wayne Simpson, P.E.

Richard A. Alaimo & Associates

Mount Holly, New Jersey

Dr. Theresa R. Slifko

Orange County Government

Orlando, Florida

Michael P. Smith, P.E.

CDM

Tampa, Florida

Melissa J. Stanford

National Regulatory Research Institute

Columbus, Ohio

Keith Stoeffel

Washington Department of Ecology

Spokane, Washington

Stephen C. Stratton

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Robert D. Teegarden, P.E.

Orange County Utilities Engineering Division

Orlando, Florida

Andy Terrey

Phoenix Water Services Department

Phoenix, Arizona

Hal Thomas

City of Walla Walla Public Works

Walla Walla, Washington

Sandra Tripp, P.E.

CDM

Charlotte, North Carolina

Joseph V. Towry

City of St. Petersburg Water Systems Maintenance

Division

St. Petersburg, Florida

Jay Unwin

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Joe Upchurch

Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority

Greenville, South Carolina

*Daniel van Oosterwijck

Yarra Valley Water

Australia

Florence T. Wedington, P.E.

East Bay Municipal Utility District

Oakland, California

Nancy J. Wheatley, J.D.

Water Resources Strategies

Siasconset, Massachusetts

Lee P. Wiseman, P.E., DEE

CDM

Orlando, Florida

*Ralph Woolley

Brisbane City Council

Australia

David Young

CDM

Cambridge, Massachusetts

xxv 
The following persons attended the TRC in Phoenix, Arizona. 

Dr. Barnes Bierck, P.E. 

Environmental Engineering Consultant 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 

Dr. Herman Bouwer 

U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory

Phoenix, Arizona 

Dennis Cafaro

Resource Conservation Systems

Bonita Springs, Florida

Lori Ann Carroll

Sarasota County Environmental Services

Sarasota, Florida

Tracy A. Clinton

Carollo Engineers

Walnut Creek, California

Katharine Cupps, P.E.

Washington Department of Ecology

Olympia, Washington

Gary K. Grinnell, P.E.

Las Vegas Valley Water District

Las Vegas, Nevada

Dr. Helene Hilger

University of North Carolina - Charlotte

Charlotte, North Carolina

Robert S. Jaques

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

Monterey, California

Heather Kunz

CH2M Hill

Atlanta, Georgia

Keith Lewinger

Fallbrook Public Utility District

Fallbrook, California

Craig Lichty, P.E.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

San Francisco, California

Jeff Mosher

WateReuse Association

Alexandria, Virginia

Richard Nagel, P.E.

West and Central Basin Municipal Water Districts

Carson, California

Joan Oppenheimer

MWH

Pasadena, California

Jerry D. Phillips, P.E.

Jacobs Civil, Inc.

Orlando, Florida

Alan H. Plummer, P.E., DEE

Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.

Fort Worth, Texas

Fred Rapach, R.E.P.

Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department

West Palm Beach, Florida

Roderick D. Reardon, P.E., DEE

CDM

Orlando, Florida

Alan E. Rimer, P.E., DEE

Black & Veatch International Company

Cary, North Carolina

Todd L. Tanberg, P.E.

Pinellas County Utilities

Clearwater, Florida

Dr. Donald M. Thompson, P.E.

CDM

Jacksonville, Florida

Don Vandertulip, P.E.

Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc.

San Antonio, Texas

Michael P. Wehner, MPA, REHS

Orange County Water District

Fountain Valley, California

Nancy J. Wheatley, J.D.

Water Resource Strategies

Siasconset, Massachusetts

xxvi 
Robert Whitley

Whitley, Burchett and Associates

Walnut Creek, California

Ronald E. Young, P.E., DEE

Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District

Lake Elsinore, California

The following contributors reviewed portions or all of the

text.

Earnest Earn

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Atlanta, Georgia

Christianne Ferraro, P.E.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Orlando, Florida

Patrick Gallagher

CDM

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Robert H. Hultquist

State of California Department of Health Services

Sacramento, California

Frank J. Johns II, P.E.

Arcadis G&M Inc.

Highlands Ranch, Colorado

C. Robert Mangrum, P.E.

CH2M Hill

Deerfield Beach, Florida

Kate Martin 

Narasimhan Consulting Services 

Irvine, California 

David MacIntyre 

PB Water 

Orlando, Florida 

Dr. Choon Nam Ong 

National University of Singapore 

Singapore 

Henry Ongerth 

Consulting Engineer 

Berkeley, California 

David R. Refling, P.E., DEE 

Boyle Engineering Corporation 

Orlando, Florida 

The following individuals also provided review comments 

on behalf of the U.S. EPA: 

Howard Beard 

EPA Office of Water/Office of Groundwater and Drinking 

Water 

Dr. Phillip Berger 

EPA Office of Water/Office of Groundwater and Drinking 

Water 

Bob Brobst 

EPA Region 8 

Denver, Colorado 

Glendon D. Deal 

USDA/RUS 

David Del Porto 

Ecological Engineering Group, Inc. 

Dr. Jorg Drewes 

Colorado School of Mines 

Alan Godfree 

United Utilities Water PLC 

Jim Goodrich 

EPA ORD/NRMRL 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

Dr. Hend Gorchev 

EPA Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology 

Dr. Fred Hauchman 

EPA ORD/NHEERL 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

Mark Kellet 

Northbridge Environmental 

Dr. Robert A. Rubin 

UDSDA Extension Service 

NCSU on detail to EPA OWM 

Ben Shuman 

USDA/RUS 

Carrie Wehling 

EPA Office of General Counsel/Water Law Office 

Nancy Yoshikawa 

EPA Region 9 

San Francisco, California 

xxvii 
xxviii
1.1 

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The world’s population is expected to increase dramatically between now and the year 2020 - and with this 

growth will come an increased need for water to meet 

various needs, as well as an increased production of 

wastewater. Many communities throughout the world are 

approaching, or have already reached, the limits of their 

available water supplies; water reclamation and reuse 

have almost become necessary for conserving and extending available water supplies. Water reuse may also 

present communities with an alternate wastewater disposal method as well as provide pollution abatement by 

diverting effluent discharge away from sensitive surface 

waters. Already accepted and endorsed by the public in 

many urban and agricultural areas, properly implemented nonpotable reuse projects can help communities meet water demand and supply challenges without 

any known significant health risks. 

Objectives of the Guidelines 

Water reclamation for nonpotable reuse has been adopted 

in the U.S. and elsewhere without the benefit of national 

or international guidelines or standards. Twenty-five states 

currently have regulations regarding water reuse. The 

World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for agricultural irrigation reuse (dated 1989) are under revision 

(World Health Organization Website, 2003). 

The primary purpose of the 2004 EPA Guidelines for Water 

Reuse is to present and summarize water reuse guidelines, with supporting information, for the benefit of utilities and regulatory agencies, particularly in the U.S. The 

Guidelines cover water reclamation for nonpotable urban, 

industrial, and agricultural reuse, as well as augmentation of potable water supplies through indirect reuse. Direct potable reuse is also covered, although only briefly 

since it is not practiced in the U.S. Please note that the 

statutes and regulations described in this document may 

contain legally binding requirements. The summaries of 

those laws provided here, as well as the approaches suggested in this document, do not substitute for those statutes or regulations, nor are these guidelines themselves 

any kind of regulation. In addition, neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nor the U.S. Agency 

for International Development (USAID) proposes standards for water reuse in this publication or any other. 

This document is intended to be solely informational and 

does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, 

states, local or tribal governments, or members of the 

public. Any EPA decisions regarding a particular water 

reuse project will be made based on the applicable statutes and regulations. EPA will continue to review and 

update these guidelines as necessary and appropriate. 

In states where standards do not exist or are being revised or expanded, the Guidelines can assist in developing reuse programs and appropriate regulations. The 

Guidelines will also be useful to consulting engineers 

and others involved in the evaluation, planning, design, 

operation, or management of water reclamation and reuse facilities. In addition, an extensive chapter on international reuse is included to provide background information and discussion of relevant water reuse issues 

for authorities in other countries where reuse is being 

planned, developed, and implemented. In the U.S., water reclamation and reuse standards are the responsibility of state agencies. 

1.2 Water Demands and Reuse 

Growing urbanization in water-scarce areas of the world 

exacerbates the situation of increasing water demands 

for domestic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural 

purposes. Figure 1-1 demonstrates the rapid growth rate 

of the urban population worldwide. In the year 2000, 2.85 

billion people (out of a worldwide population of 6.06 billion) were living in urban regions (United Nations Secretariat, 2001). This increasing urban population results in 

a growing water demand to meet domestic, commercial, 

industrial, and agricultural needs. Coupled with depleting fresh water sources, utility directors and managers 

are faced with the challenge to supply water to a growing 

customer base. 

1
Figure 1-1 Estimated and Projected Urban 

Population in the World 

Adapted from: United Nations Secretariat, 2001. 

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is developing a program, Water 2025, to focus attention on the emerging 

need for water. Explosive population growth in urban areas of the western U.S., along with a growing demand 

for available water supplies for environmental and recreational uses, is conflicting with the national dependence 

on water for the production of food and fiber from western 

farms and ranches (Department of the Interior/Bureau of 

Reclamation, 2003). The goals of Water 2025 are to: 

 Facilitate a more forward-looking focus on waterstarved areas of the country 

 Help stretch or increase water supplies, satisfy the 

demands of growing populations, protect environmental needs, and strengthen regional, tribal, and 

local economies 

 Provide added environmental benefits to many watersheds, rivers, and streams 

 Minimize water crises in critical watersheds by improving the environment and addressing the effects 

of drought on important economies 

 Provide a balanced, practical approach to water 

management for the next century 

Meanwhile, water reuse in the U.S. is a large and growing practice. An estimated 1.7 billion gallons (6.4 million 

m3

) per day of wastewater is reused, and reclaimed 

water use on a volume basis is growing at an estimated 

15 percent per year. In 2002, Florida reclaimed 584 mgd 

(2.2 x 106

 m3) of its wastewater while California ranked 

a close second, with an estimated total of 525 mgd (2.0 

x 106 m3) of reclaimed water used each day. Florida has 

an official goal of reclaiming 1 billion gallons per day by 

the year 2010. Likewise, California has a statutory goal 

of doubling its current use by 2010. Texas currently reuses approximately 230 mgd (8.7 x 105

 m3) and Arizona 

reuses an estimated 200 mgd (7.6 x 105 m3). While these 

4 states account for the majority of the water reuse in 

the U.S., several other states have growing water reuse 

programs including Nevada, Colorado, Georgia, North 

Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. At least 27 states 

now have water reclamation facilities, and the majority 

of states have regulations dealing with water reuse 

(Gritzuk, 2003). 

1.3 Source Substitution 

Under the broad definition of water reclamation and reuse, sources of reclaimed water may range from industrial process waters to the tail waters of agricultural irrigation systems. For the purposes of these Guidelines, 

however, the sources of reclaimed water are limited to 

the effluent generated by domestic wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs). 

The use of reclaimed water for nonpotable purposes 

offers the potential for exploiting a “new” resource that 

can be substituted for existing potable sources. This 

idea, known as “source substitution” is not new. In fact, 

the United Nations Economic and Social Council enunciated a policy in 1958 that, “No higher quality water, 

unless there is a surplus of it, should be used for a purpose that can tolerate a lower grade.” Many urban, commercial, and industrial uses can be met with water of 

less than potable water quality. With respect to potable 

water sources, EPA policy states, “Because of human 

frailties associated with protection, priority should be 

given to selection of the purest source” (EPA, 1976). 

Therefore, when the demand exceeds the capacity of 

the purest source, and additional sources are unavailable or available only at a high cost, lower quality water 

can be substituted to serve the nonpotable purposes. 

Since few areas enjoy a surplus of high quality water, 

and demand often exceeds capacity, many urban residential, commercial, and industrial uses can be satisfied with water of less than potable water quality. In many 

instances, treated wastewater may provide the most 

economical and/or available substitute source for such 

uses as irrigation of lawns, parks, roadway borders, and 

medians; air conditioning and industrial cooling towers; 

stack gas scrubbing; industrial processing; toilet flushing; dust control and construction; cleaning and maintenance, including vehicle washing; scenic waters and fountains; and environmental and recreational purposes. 

The economics of source substitution with reclaimed water 

are site-specific and dependent on the marginal costs of 

new sources of high-quality water and the costs of waste2
1.4 

water treatment and disposal. Understandably, the construction of reclaimed water transmission and distribution lines to existing users in large cities is expensive 

and disruptive. As a result, wastewater reclamation and 

reuse will continue to be most attractive in serving new 

residential, commercial, and industrial areas of a city, 

where the installation of dual distribution systems would 

be far more economical than in already developed areas. 

Use of reclaimed water for agricultural purposes near urban areas can also be economically attractive. Agricultural users are usually willing to make long-term commitments, often for as long as 20 years, to use large quantities of reclaimed water instead of fresh water sources. 

One potential scenario is to develop a new reclaimed water system to serve agricultural needs outside the city 

with the expectation that when urban development replaces agricultural lands in time, reclaimed water use 

can be shifted from agricultural to new urban development. 

Pollution Abatement 

While the need for additional water supply in arid and 

semi-arid areas has been the impetus for numerous 

water reclamation and reuse programs, many programs 

in the U.S. were initiated in response to rigorous and 

costly requirements to remove nitrogen and phosphorus for effluent discharge to surface waters. By eliminating effluent discharges for all or even a portion of the 

year through water reuse, a municipality may be able to 

avoid or reduce the need for the costly nutrient removal 

treatment processes. For example, the South Bay Water Recycling Project in San Jose, California, provides 

reclaimed water to 1.3 million area residents. By reusing 

this water instead of releasing it to the San Francisco 

Bay, San Jose has avoided a sewer moratorium that would 

have had a devastating impact on the Silicon Valley 

economy (Gritzuk, 2003). 

The purposes and practices may differ between water 

reuse programs developed strictly for pollution abatement and those developed for water resources or conservation benefits. When systems are developed chiefly 

for the purpose of land treatment or disposal, the objective is to treat and/or dispose of as much effluent on as 

little land as possible; thus, application rates are often 

greater than irrigation demands. On the other hand, 

when the reclaimed water is considered a valuable resource (i.e., an alternative water supply), the objective 

is to apply the water according to irrigation needs. 

Differences are also apparent in the distribution of reclaimed water for these different purposes. Where disposal is the objective, meters are difficult to justify, and 

reclaimed water is often distributed at a flat rate or at 

minimal cost to the users. However, where reclaimed 

water is intended to be used as a water resource, metering is appropriate to provide an equitable method for 

distributing the resource, limiting overuse, and recovering costs. In St. Petersburg, Florida, disposal was the 

original objective; however, over time the reclaimed 

water became an important resource. Meters, which were 

not provided initially, are being considered to prevent 

wasting of the reclaimed water. 

1.5 Treatment and Water Quality 

Considerations 

Water reclamation and nonpotable reuse typically require conventional water and wastewater treatment technologies that are already widely practiced and readily 

available in many countries throughout the world. When 

discussing treatment for a reuse system, the overriding 

concern continues to be whether the quality of the reclaimed water is appropriate for the intended use. Higher 

level uses, such as irrigation of public-access lands or 

vegetables to be consumed without processing, require 

a higher level of wastewater treatment and reliability prior 

to reuse than will lower level uses, such as irrigation of 

forage crops and pasture. For example, in urban settings, where there is a high potential for human exposure to reclaimed water used for landscape irrigation, 

industrial purposes, and toilet flushing, the reclaimed water must be clear, colorless, and odorless to ensure that 

it is aesthetically acceptable to the users and the public 

at large, as well as to assure minimum health risk. Experience has shown that facilities producing secondary effluent can become water reclamation plants with the 

addition of filtration and enhanced disinfection processes. 

A majority of the states have published treatment standards or guidelines for one or more types of water reuse. 

Some of these states require specific treatment processes; others impose effluent quality criteria, and some 

require both. Many states also include requirements for 

treatment reliability to prevent the distribution of any reclaimed water that may not be adequately treated because of a process upset, power outage, or equipment 

failure. Dual distribution systems (i.e., reclaimed water 

distribution systems that parallel a potable water system) must also incorporate safeguards to prevent crossconnections of reclaimed water and potable water lines 

and the misuse of reclaimed water. For example, piping, 

valves, and hydrants are marked or color-coded (e.g. 

purple pipe) to differentiate reclaimed water from potable 

water. Backflow prevention devices are installed, and 

hose bibs on reclaimed water lines may be prohibited to 

preclude the likelihood of incidental human misuse. A strict 

3
1.6 

industrial pretreatment program is also necessary to ensure the reliability of the biological treatment process by 

excluding the discharge of potentially toxic levels of pollutants to the sanitary sewer system. Wastewater treatment facilities receiving substantial amounts of highstrength industrial wastes may be limited in the number 

and type of suitable reuse applications. 

Overview of the Guidelines 

This document, the Guidelines for Water Reuse, is an 

update of the Guidelines for Water Reuse developed 

for EPA by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) and 

published by EPA in 1992 (and initially in 1980). In May 

2002, EPA contracted with CDM through a Cooperative 

Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to 

update the EPA/USAID Guidelines for Water Reuse 

(EPA/625/R-92/004: Sept 1992). As with the 1992 Guidelines, a committee, made up of national and international 

experts in the field of water reclamation and related subjects, was established to develop new text, update case 

studies, and review interim drafts of the document. However, unlike the 1992 version, the author and reviewer 

base was greatly expanded to include approximately 75 

contributing authors and an additional 50 reviewers. Major efforts associated with the revisions to this edition of 

the Guidelines include: 

 Updating the state reuse regulations matrix and adding a list of state contacts 

 Updating U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) information on national water use and reuse practices 

 Expanding coverage of indirect potable reuse issues, emphasizing the results of recent studies and 

practices associated with using reclaimed water to 

augment potable supplies 

 Expanding coverage of industrial reuse issues 

 Expanding coverage of reuse projects and practices 

outside of the U.S 

 Adding more case studies to illustrate experience in 

all areas of water reclamation 

 Expanding the discussion of health issues to include 

emerging chemicals and pathogens 

 Updating the discussion of treatment technologies 

applicable to water reclamation 

 Updating information on economics, user rates, and 

project funding mechanisms 

The document has been arranged by topic, devoting separate chapters to each of the key technical, financial, legal and institutional, and public involvement issues that 

a reuse planner might face. A separate chapter has also 

been provided to discuss reuse applications outside of 

the U.S. These chapters are: 

 Chapter 2, Types of Reuse Applications – A discussion of reuse for urban, industrial, agricultural, 

recreational and habitat restoration/enhancement, 

groundwater recharge, and augmentation of potable 

supplies. Direct potable reuse is also briefly discussed. 

 Chapter 3, Technical Issues in Planning Water 

Reuse Systems – An overview of the potential uses 

of reclaimed water, the sources of reclaimed water, 

treatment requirements, seasonal storage requirements, supplemental system facilities (including 

conveyance and distribution), operational storage, 

and alternative disposal systems. 

 Chapter 4, Water Reuse Regulations and Guidelines in the U.S. – A summary of existing state standards and regulations as well as recommended 

guidelines. 

 Chapter 5, Legal and Institutional Issues – An 

overview of reuse ordinances, user agreements, 

water rights, franchise law, and case law. 

 Chapter 6, Funding Water Reuse Systems – A 

discussion of funding and cost recovery options for 

reuse system construction and operation, as well as 

management issues for utilities. 

 Chapter 7, Public Involvement Programs – An 

outline of strategies for educating and involving the 

public in water reuse system planning and reclaimed 

water use. 

 Chapter 8, Water Reuse Outside the U.S. – A 

summary of the issues facing reuse planners outside of the U.S., as well as a comprehensive review 

of the variety of reuse projects and systems around 

the world. 

4
1.7 References 

Department of the Interior/Bureau of Reclamation. Water 

2025: Preventing Conflict and Crisis in the West. [Updated 6 June 2003; cited 30 July 2003]. Available from 

www.doi.gov/water2025/. 

Gritzuk, M. 2003. Testimony-The Importance of Water 

Reuse in the 21st Century, presented by Michael Gritzuk 

to the Subcommittee on Water & Power Committee on 

Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, March 27, 

2003. 

United Nations Secretariat – Population Division – Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2001. World 

Urbanization Prospects: The 1999 Revision. ST/ESA/ 

SER.A/194, USA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. National 

Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 570/ 

9-76-003, Washington, D.C. 

World Heath Organization (WHO). Water Sanitation and 

Health (WSH). [Updated 2003; cited 31 July 2003]. Available from www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater. 

5 
6
2.1 

CHAPTER 2

Types of Reuse Applications

Chapter 2 provides detailed explanations of major reuse application types. These include: 

 Urban 

 Industrial 

 Agricultural 

 Environmental and recreational 

 Groundwater recharge 

 Augmentation of potable supplies 

Quantity and quality requirements are considered for each 

reuse application, as well as any special considerations 

necessary when reclaimed water is substituted for more 

traditional sources of water. Case studies of reuse applications are provided in Section 2.7. Key elements of water 

reuse that are common to most projects (i.e., supply and 

demand, treatment requirements, storage, and distribution) are discussed in Chapter 3. 

Urban Reuse 

Urban reuse systems provide reclaimed water for various 

nonpotable purposes including: 

 Irrigation of public parks and recreation centers, athletic fields, school yards and playing fields, highway medians and shoulders, and landscaped areas surrounding public buildings and facilities 

 Irrigation of landscaped areas surrounding single-family 

and multi-family residences, general wash down, and 

other maintenance activities 

 Irrigation of landscaped areas surrounding commercial, office, and industrial developments 

 Irrigation of golf courses 

 Commercial uses such as vehicle washing facilities, 

laundry facilities, window washing, and mixing water 

for pesticides, herbicides, and liquid fertilizers 

 Ornamental landscape uses and decorative water features, such as fountains, reflecting pools, and waterfalls 

 Dust control and concrete production for construction projects 

 Fire protection through reclaimed water fire hydrants 

 Toilet and urinal flushing in commercial and industrial 

buildings 

Urban reuse can include systems serving large users. 

Examples include parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, 

highway medians, golf courses, and recreational facilities. In addition, reuse systems can supply major water-using industries or industrial complexes as well as a 

combination of residential, industrial, and commercial 

properties through “dual distribution systems.” A 2-year 

field demonstration/research garden compared the impacts of irrigation with reclaimed versus potable water 

for landscape plants, soils, and irrigation components. 

The comparison showed few significant differences; 

however, landscape plants grew faster with reclaimed 

water (Lindsey et al., 1996). But such results are not a 

given. Elevated chlorides in the reclaimed water provided by the City of St. Petersburg have limited the foliage that can be irrigated (Johnson, 1998). 

In dual distribution systems, the reclaimed water is delivered to customers through a parallel network of distribution mains separate from the community’s potable water 

distribution system. The reclaimed water distribution system becomes a third water utility, in addition to wastewater and potable water. Reclaimed water systems are operated, maintained, and managed in a manner similar to 

the potable water system. One of the oldest municipal 

dual distribution systems in the U.S., in St. Petersburg, 

7
Florida, has been in operation since 1977. The system 

provides reclaimed water for a mix of residential properties, commercial developments, industrial parks, a resource recovery power plant, a baseball stadium, and 

schools. The City of Pomona, California, first began distributing reclaimed water in 1973 to California Polytechnic University and has since added 2 paper mills, roadway landscaping, a regional park and a landfill with an 

energy recovery facility. 

During the planning of an urban reuse system, a community must decide whether or not the reclaimed water system will be interruptible. Generally, unless reclaimed water 

is used as the only source of fire protection in a community, an interruptible source of reclaimed water is acceptable. For example, the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, 

decided that an interruptible source of reclaimed water 

would be acceptable, and that reclaimed water would provide backup only for fire protection. 

If a community determines that a non-interruptible source 

of reclaimed water is needed, then reliability, equal to 

that of a potable water system, must be provided to ensure a continuous flow of reclaimed water. This reliability 

could be ensured through a municipality having more than 

one water reclamation plant to supply the reclaimed water system, as well as additional storage to provide reclaimed water in the case of a plant upset. However, 

providing the reliability to produce a non-interruptible supply of reclaimed water will have an associated cost increase. In some cases, such as the City of Burbank, 

California, reclaimed water storage tanks are the only 

source of water serving an isolated fire system that is 

kept separate from the potable fire service. 

Retrofitting a developed urban area with a reclaimed water distribution system can be expensive. In some cases, 

however, the benefits of conserving potable water may 

justify the cost. For example, a water reuse system may 

be cost-effective if the reclaimed water system eliminates 

or forestalls the need to: 

 Obtain additional water supplies from considerable 

distances 

 Treat a raw water supply source of poor quality (e.g., 

seawater desalination) 

 Treat wastewater to stricter surface water discharge 

requirements 

In developing urban areas, substantial cost savings may 

be realized by installing a dual distribution system as 

developments are constructed. A successful way to accomplish this is to stipulate that connecting to the system is a requirement of the community’s land development code. In 1984, the City of Altamonte Springs, Florida, 

enacted the requirement for developers to install reclaimed 

water lines so that all properties within a development 

are provided service. This section of the City’s land development code also stated, “The intent of the reclaimed 

water system is not to duplicate the potable water system, but rather to complement each other and thereby 

provide the opportunity to reduce line sizes and looping 

requirements of the potable water system” (Howard, 

Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff, 1986a). 

The Irvine Ranch Water District in California studied the 

economic feasibility of expanding its urban dual distribution system to provide reclaimed water to high-rise 

buildings for toilet and urinal flushing. The study concluded 

that the use of reclaimed water was feasible for flushing 

toilets and urinals and priming floor drain traps for buildings of 6 stories and higher (Young and Holliman, 1990). 

Following this study, an ordinance was enacted requiring 

all new buildings over 55 feet (17 meters) high to install a 

dual distribution system for flushing in areas where reclaimed water is available (Irvine Ranch Water District, 

1990). 

The City of Avalon, California, conducted a feasibility 

study to assess the replacement of seawater with reclaimed water in the City’s nonpotable toilet flushing/fire 

protection distribution system. The study determined that 

the City would save several thousand dollars per year in 

amortized capital and operation and maintenance costs 

by switching to reclaimed water (Richardson, 1998). 

2.1.1 Reclaimed Water Demand 

The daily irrigation demand for reclaimed water generated by a particular urban system can be estimated from 

an inventory of the total irrigable acreage to be served 

by the reclaimed water system and the estimated weekly 

irrigation rates. These rates are determined by such 

factors as local soil characteristics, climatic conditions, 

and type of landscaping. In some states, recommended 

weekly irrigation rates may be available from water 

management agencies, county or state agricultural 

agents, or irrigation specialists. Reclaimed water demand 

estimates must also take into account any other permitted uses for reclaimed water within the system. 

An estimate of the daily irrigation demand for reclaimed 

water can also be made by evaluating local water billing records. For example, in many locations, second 

water meters measure the volume of potable water used 

outside the home, primarily for irrigation. An evaluation 

of the water billing records in Orlando, Florida, showed 

the average irrigation demand measured on the resi8
dential second meter was approximately 506 gpd 

(1.9 m3/d), compared to 350 gpd (1.3 m3/d) on the first 

meter, which measured the amount of water for in-house 

use (CDM, 2001). This data indicates that a 59 percent 

reduction in residential potable water demand could be 

accomplished if a dual distribution system were to provide irrigation service. 

Water use records can also be used to estimate the seasonal variation in reclaimed water demand. Figure 2-1 

and Figure 2-2 show the historic monthly variation in the 

potable and nonpotable water demand for the Irvine Ranch 

Water District in California and St. Petersburg, Florida, 

respectively. Although the seasonal variation in demand 

is different between the 2 communities, both show a similar trend in the seasonal variation between potable and 

nonpotable demand. Even though St. Petersburg and 

Irvine Ranch meet much of the demand for irrigation with 

reclaimed water, the influence of these uses can still be 

seen in the potable water demands. 

For potential reclaimed water users, such as golf courses, 

that draw irrigation water from onsite wells, an evaluation 

of the permitted withdrawal rates or pumping records can 

be used to estimate their reclaimed water needs. 

Figure 2-1. Potable and Nonpotable Water 

Use - Monthly Historic Demand 

Variation, Irvine Ranch Water 

District, California 

In assessing the reuse needs of an urban system, demands for uses other than irrigation must also be considered. These demands are likely to include industrial, 

commercial, and recreational uses. Demands for industrial users, as well as commercial users, such as car 

washes, can be estimated from water use or billing 

records. Demands for recreational impoundments can be 

Figure 2-2. Potable and Nonpotable Water 

Use - Monthly Historic Demand 

Variation, St. Petersburg, Florida 

estimated by determining the volume of water required 

to maintain a desired water elevation in the impoundment. 

For those systems using reclaimed water for toilet flushing as part of their urban reuse system, water use 

records can again be used to estimate demand. According to Grisham and Fleming (1989), toilet flushing can 

account for up to 45 percent of indoor residential water 

demand. In 1991, the Irvine Ranch Water District began using reclaimed water for toilet flushing in high-rise 

office buildings. Potable water demands in these buildings have decreased by as much as 75 percent due to 

the reclaimed water use (IRWD, 2003). 

2.1.2 Reliability and Public Health

Protection 

In the design of an urban reclaimed water distribution 

system, the most important considerations are the reliability of service and protection of public health. Treatment to meet appropriate water quality and quantity requirements and system reliability are addressed in Section 3.4. The following safeguards must be considered 

during the design of any dual distribution system: 

 Assurance that the reclaimed water delivered to the 

customer meets the water quality requirements for 

the intended uses 

9
 Prevention of improper operation of the system 

 Prevention of cross-connections with potable water 

lines 

 Prevention of improper use of nonpotable water 

To avoid cross connections, all above-ground appurtenances and equipment associated with reclaimed water systems must be clearly marked. National color standards have not been established, but most manufacturers, counties, and cities have adopted the color purple 

for reclaimed water lines. The State of Florida has accepted Pantone 522C as the color of choice for reclaimed 

water material designation. Florida also requires signs 

to be posted with specific language in both English and 

Spanish identifying the resource as nonpotable. Additional designations include using the international symbol for “Do Not Drink” on all materials, both surface and 

subsurface, to minimize potential cross connections. A 

more detailed discussion of distribution safeguards and 

cross connection control measures is presented in Section 3.6.1, Conveyance and Distribution Facilities. 

2.1.3 Design Considerations 

Urban water reuse systems have 2 major components: 

1. Water reclamation facilities

2. Reclaimed water distribution system, including storage and pumping facilities 

2.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities 

Water reclamation facilities must provide the required 

treatment to meet appropriate water quality standards 

for the intended use. In addition to secondary treatment, 

filtration, and disinfection are generally required for reuse 

in an urban setting. Because urban reuse usually involves 

irrigation of properties with unrestricted public access or 

other types of reuse where human exposure to the reclaimed water is likely, reclaimed water must be of a higher 

quality than may be necessary for other reuse applications. In cases where a single large customer needs a 

higher quality reclaimed water, the customer may have 

to provide additional treatment onsite, as is commonly 

done with potable water. Treatment requirements are presented in Section 3.4.2. 

2.1.3.2 Distribution System 

Reclaimed water operational storage and high-service 

pumping facilities are usually located onsite at the water 

reclamation facility. However, in some cases, particularly for large cities, operational storage facilities may be 

located at appropriate locations in the system and/or near 

the reuse sites. When located near the pumping facilities, ground or elevated tanks may be used; when located within the system, operational storage is generally 

elevated. 

Sufficient storage to accommodate diurnal flow variation 

is essential to the operation of a reclaimed water system. The volume of storage required can be determined 

from the daily reclaimed water demand and supply curves. 

Reclaimed water is normally produced 24 hours per day 

in accordance with the diurnal flow at the water reclamation plant and may flow to ground storage to be pumped 

into the system or into a clear well for high-lift pumping to 

elevated storage facilities. In order to maintain suitable 

water quality, covered storage is preferred to preclude 

biological growth and maintain chlorine residual. Refer to 

Section 3.5.2 for a discussion of operational storage. 

Since variations in the demand for reclaimed water occur 

seasonally, large volumes of seasonal storage may be 

needed if all available reclaimed water is to be used, although this may not be economically practical. The selected location of a seasonal storage facility will also have 

an effect on the design of the distribution system. In areas where surface storage may be limited due to space 

limitations, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) could prove 

to be a viable enhancement to the system. Hillsborough 

County, Florida has recovered ASR water, placed it into 

the reuse distribution system, and is working to achieve 

a target storage volume of 90 million gallons (340,700 

m3

) (McNeal, 2002). A detailed discussion of seasonal 

storage requirements is provided in Section 3.5. 

The design of an urban distribution system is similar in 

many respects to a municipal potable water distribution 

system. Materials of equal quality for construction are 

recommended. System integrity should be assured; 

however, the reliability of the system need not be as 

stringent as a potable water system unless reclaimed 

water is being used as the only source of fire protection. No special measures are required to pump, deliver, and use the water. No modifications are required 

because reclaimed water is being used, with the exception that equipment and materials must be clearly identified. For service lines in urban settings, different materials may be desirable for more certain identification. 

The design of distribution facilities is based on topographical conditions as well as reclaimed water demand 

requirements. If topography has wide variations, multilevel systems may have to be used. Distribution mains 

must be sized to provide the peak hourly demands at a 

pressure adequate for the user being served. Pressure 

10
requirements for a dual distribution system vary depending on the type of user being served. Pressures for irrigation systems can be as low as 10 psi (70 kPa) if additional booster pumps are provided at the point of delivery, 

and maximum pressures can be as high as 100 to 150 

psi (700 to 1,000 kPa). 

The peak hourly rate of use, which is a critical consideration in sizing the delivery pumps and distribution mains, 

may best be determined by observing and studying local urban practices and considering time of day and rates 

of use by large users to be served by the system. The 

following design peak factors have been used in designing urban reuse systems: 

System Peaking 

Factor 

Altamonte Springs, Florida (HNTB, 1986a) 2.90 

Apopka, Florida (Godlewski et al., 1990) 4.00 

Aurora, Colorado (Johns et al., 1987) 2.50 

Boca Raton, Florida (CDM, 1990a) 2.00 

Irvine Ranch Water District, California 

(IRWD, 1991) 

- Landscape Irrigation 6.80 

- Golf Course and Agricultural Irrigation 2.00 

San Antonio Water System (SAWS), Texas 

(SAWS Website, 2004) 1.92 

Sea Pines, South Carolina 2.00 

(Hirsekorn and Ellison, 1987) 

St. Petersburg, Florida (CDM, 1987) 2.25 

The wide range of peaking factors reflects the nature of 

the demands being served, the location of the reuse 

system (particularly where irrigation is the end use), and 

the experience of the design engineers. San Antonio’s 

low peaking factor was achieved by requiring onsite storage for customer demands greater than 100 acre-feet 

per year (62 gpm). These large customers were allowed 

to receive a peak flow rate based on a 24-hour delivery 

of their peak month demand in July. This flat rate delivery and number of large irrigation customers resulted in 

a low system peaking factor. 

For reclaimed water systems that include fire protection 

as part of their service, fire flow plus the maximum daily 

demand should be considered when sizing the distribution system. This scenario is not as critical in sizing the 

delivery pumps since it will likely result in less pumping 

capacity, but is critical in sizing the distribution mains 

because fire flow could be required at any point in the 

system, resulting in high localized flows. 

The Irvine Ranch Water District Water Resources Master Plan recommends a peak hourly use factor of 6.8 

when reclaimed water is used for landscape irrigation 

and a peak factor of 2.0 for agricultural and golf course 

irrigation systems (IRWD, 1991). The peak factor for 

landscape irrigation is higher because reclaimed water 

use is restricted to between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. This restriction may not apply to agricultural or golf course use. 

Generally, there will be “high-pressure” and “low-pressure” 

users on an urban reuse system. The high-pressure users receive water directly from the system at pressures 

suitable for the particular type of reuse. Examples include residential and landscape irrigation, industrial processes and cooling water, car washes, fire protection, 

and toilet flushing in commercial and industrial buildings. 

The low-pressure users receive reclaimed water into an 

onsite storage pond to be repumped into their reuse system. Typical low-pressure users are golf courses, parks, 

and condominium developments that use reclaimed water for irrigation. Other low-pressure uses include the 

delivery of reclaimed water to landscape or recreational 

impoundments, or industrial or cooling tower sites that 

have onsite tanks for blending and/or storing water. 

Typically, urban dual distribution systems operate at a 

minimum pressure of 50 psi (350 kPa), which will satisfy the pressure requirements for irrigation of larger 

landscaped areas such as multi-family complexes, and 

offices, commercial, and industrial parks. A minimum 

pressure of 50 psi (350 kPa) should also satisfy the requirements of car washes, toilet flushing, construction 

dust control, and some industrial uses. Based on requirements of typical residential irrigation equipment, a minimum delivery pressure of 30 psi (210 kPa) is used for 

the satisfactory operation of in-ground residential irrigation systems. 

For users who operate at higher pressures than other 

users on the system, additional onsite pumping will be 

required to satisfy the pressure requirements. For example, golf course irrigation systems typically operate 

at higher pressures (100 to 200 psi or 700 kPa to 1,400 

kPa), and if directly connected to the reclaimed water 

system, will likely require a booster pump station. 

Repumping may be required in high-rise office buildings using reclaimed water for toilet flushing. Additionally, some industrial users may operate at higher pressures. 

The design of a reuse transmission system is usually 

accomplished through the use of computer modeling, with 

portions of each of the sub-area distribution systems representing demand nodes in the model. The demand of 

each node is determined from the irrigable acreage tributary to the node, the irrigation rate, and the daily irrigation time period. Additional demands for uses other than 

irrigation, such as fire flow protection, toilet flushing, and 

11
industrial uses must also be added to the appropriate 

node. 

The 2 most common methods of maintaining system pressure under widely varying flow rates are: (1) constantspeed supply pumps and system elevated storage tanks, 

which maintain essentially consistent system pressures, 

or (2) constant-pressure, variable-speed, high-service 

supply pumps, which maintain a constant system pressure while meeting the varying demand for reclaimed water 

by varying the pump speed. While each of these systems has advantages and disadvantages, either system 

will perform well and remains a matter of local choice. 

The dual distribution system of the City of Altamonte 

Springs, Florida operates with constant-speed supply 

pumps and 2 elevated storage tanks, and pressures range 

between 55 and 60 psi (380 kPa and 410 kPa). The urban system of the Marin Municipal Water District, in 

California, operates at a system pressure of 50 to 130 

psi (350 kPa and 900 kPa), depending upon elevation 

and distance from the point of supply, while Apopka, 

Florida operates its reuse system at a pressure of 60 psi 

(410 kPa). 

The system should be designed with the flexibility to institute some form of usage control when necessary and 

provide for the potential resulting increase in the peak 

hourly demand. One such form of usage control would be 

to vary the days per week that schools, parks, golf 

courses, and residential areas are irrigated. In addition, 

large users, such as golf courses, will have a major impact on the shape of the reclaimed water daily demand 

curve, and hence on the peak hourly demand, depending 

upon how the water is delivered to them. The reclaimed 

water daily demand curve may be “flattened” and the peak 

hourly demand reduced if the reclaimed water is discharged to golf course ponds over a 24-hour period or 

during the daytime hours when demand for residential 

landscape irrigation is low. These methods of operation 

can reduce peak demands, thereby reducing storage requirements, pumping capacities, and pipe diameters. This 

in turn, can reduce construction cost. 

2.1.4 Using Reclaimed Water for Fire 

Protection 

Reclaimed water may be used for fire protection, but 

this application requires additional design efforts (Snyder 

et al., 2002). Urban potable water distribution systems 

are typically sized based on fire flow requirements. In 

residential areas, this can result in 6-inch diameter pipes 

to support fire demands where 2-inch diameter pipes may 

be sufficient to meet potable needs. Fire flow requirements also increase the volume of water required to be 

in storage at any given time. While this results in a very 

robust distribution system, the increased pipe size and 

storage required for fire flows results in increased residence time within the distribution system, and a corresponding potential reduction in reclaimed water quality. 

In Rouse Hill, an independent community near Sydney, 

Australia, reclaimed water lines are being sized to handle 

fire flows, allowing potable line sizes to be reduced. Due 

to a shortage of potable water supplies, the City of Cape 

Coral, Florida, designed a dual distribution system supplied by reclaimed water and surface water that provides 

for fire protection and urban irrigation. This practice was 

possible due to the fact that nonpotable service, including the use of reclaimed water for fire protection, was part 

of the planning of the development before construction. 

However, these benefits come at the cost of elevating the 

reclaimed water system to an essential service with reliability equal to that of the potable water system. This in 

turn, requires redundancy and emergency power with an 

associated increase in cost. For these reasons, the City 

has decided to not include fire protection in its future 

reclaimed water distribution systems. This decision was 

largely based on the fact that the inclusion of fire protection limited operations of the reclaimed water distribution 

system. Specifically, the limited operations included the 

lack of ability to reduce the operating pressure and to 

close valves in the distribution system. 

In some cases, municipalities may be faced with replacing existing potable water distribution systems, because 

the pipe material is contributing to water quality problems. In such instances, consideration could be given 

to converting the existing network into a nonpotable distribution system capable of providing fire protection and 

installing a new, smaller network to handle potable demands. Such an approach would require a comprehensive cross connection control process to ensure all connections between the potable and nonpotable system 

were severed. Color-coding of below-ground piping also 

poses a challenge. To date, no community has attempted such a conversion. More often, the primary 

means of fire protection is the potable water system, 

with reclaimed water systems providing an additional 

source of water for fire flows. In the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, fire protection is shared between potable 

and reclaimed water. In San Francisco, California, reclaimed water is part of a dual system for fire protection 

that includes high-rise buildings. Reclaimed water is also 

available for fire protection in the Irvine Ranch Water 

District, California. In some cases, site-specific investigations may determine that reclaimed water is the most 

cost-effective means of providing fire protection. The City 

of Livermore, California, determined that using reclaimed 

water for fire protection at airport hangers and a wholesale warehouse store would be less expensive than up12
grading the potable water system (Johnson and Crook, 

1998). 

2.2 Industrial Reuse 

Industrial reuse has increased substantially since the 

early 1990s for many of the same reasons urban reuse 

has gained popularity, including water shortages and increased populations, particularly in drought areas, and 

legislation regarding water conservation and environmental compliance. To meet this increased demand, many 

states have increased the availability of reclaimed water 

to industries and have installed the necessary reclaimed 

water distribution lines. As a result, California, Arizona, 

Texas, Florida, and Nevada have major industrial facilities using reclaimed water for cooling water and process/ 

boiler-feed requirements. Utility power plants are ideal 

facilities for reuse due to their large water requirements 

for cooling, ash sluicing, rad-waste dilution, and flue gas 

scrubber requirements. Petroleum refineries, chemical 

plants, and metal working facilities are among other industrial facilities benefiting from reclaimed water not only 

for cooling, but for process needs as well. 

2.2.1 Cooling Water 

For the majority of industries, cooling water is the largest 

use of reclaimed water because advancements in water 

treatment technologies have allowed industries to successfully use lesser quality waters. These advancements 

have enabled better control of deposits, corrosion, and 

biological problems often associated with the use of reclaimed water in a concentrated cooling water system. 

There are 2 basic types of cooling water systems that 

use reclaimed water: (1) once-through and (2) recirculating evaporative. The recirculating evaporative cooling 

water system is the most common reclaimed water system due to its large water use and consumption by 

evaporation. 

2.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling Water Systems 

As implied by the name, once-through cooling water systems involve a simple pass of cooling water through heat 

exchangers. There is no evaporation, and therefore, no 

consumption or concentration of the cooling water. Very 

few once-through cooling systems use reclaimed water 

and, in most instances, are confined to locations where 

reuse is convenient, such as where industries are located near an outfall. For example, Bethlehem Steel 

Company in Baltimore, Maryland, has used 100 mgd 

(4,380 l/s) of treated wastewater effluent from Baltimore’s 

Back River Wastewater Treatment Facility for processes 

and once-through cooling water system since the early 

1970s. The Rawhide Energy Station utility power plant in 

Fort Collins, Colorado, has used about 245 mgd (10,753 

l/s) of reclaimed water for once through cooling of condensers since the 1980s. The reclaimed water is added 

to a body of water and the combined water is used in the 

once-through cooling system. After one-time use, the 

water is returned to the original water source (lake or 

river). 

2.2.1.2 Recirculating Evaporative Cooling 

Water Systems 

Recirculating evaporative cooling water systems use water to absorb process heat, and then transfer the heat by 

evaporation. As the cooling water is recirculated, makeup 

water is required to replace water lost through evaporation. Water must also be periodically removed from the 

cooling water system to prevent a buildup of dissolved 

solids in the cooling water. There are 2 common types of 

evaporative cooling systems that use reclaimed water: 

(1) cooling towers and (2) spray ponds.

2.2.1.2a Cooling Tower Systems 

Like all recirculating evaporative systems, cooling water 

towers are designed to take advantage of the absorption 

and transfer of heat through evaporation. Over the past 

10 years, cooling towers have increased in efficiency so 

that only 1.75 percent of the recirculated water is evaporated for every 10 °F (6 o

C) drop in process water heat, 

decreasing the need to supplement with makeup water. 

Because water is evaporated, the dissolved solids and 

minerals will remain in the recirculated water. These solids must be removed or treated to prevent accumulation 

on the cooling equipment as well as the cooling tower. 

This removal is accomplished by discharging a portion of 

the cooling water, referred to as blow-down water. The 

blow-down water is usually treated by a chemical process and/or a filtration/softening/clarification process before disposal. Buildup of total dissolved solids can occur 

within the reclamation/industrial cooling system if the blowdown waste stream, with increased dissolved solids, is 

recirculated between the water reclamation plant and the 

cooling system. 

The Curtis Stanton Energy Facility in Orlando, Florida, 

receives reclaimed water from an Orange County wastewater facility for cooling water. Initially, the blow-down 

water was planned to be returned to the wastewater facility. However, this process would eventually increase the 

concentration of dissolved solids in the reclaimed water 

to a degree that it could not be used as cooling water in 

the future. So, as an alternative, the blow-down water is 

crystallized at the Curtis Stanton facility and disposed of 

at a landfill. The City of San Marcos, Texas, identified the 

13
following indirect impacts associated with receiving the 

blow-down water back at their wastewater treatment plant: 

reduced treatment capacity, impact to the biological process, and impact to the plant effluent receiving stream 

(Longoria et al., 2000). To avoid the impacts to the wastewater treatment plant, the City installed a dedicated line 

to return the blow-down water directly to the UV disinfection chamber. Therefore, there was no loss of plant capacity or impact to the biological process. The City has 

provided increased monitoring of the effluent-receiving 

stream to identify any potential stream impacts. 

Cooling tower designs vary widely. Large hyperbolic concrete structures, as shown in Figure 2-3, range from 

250 to 400 feet (76 to 122 meters) tall and 150 to 200 

feet (46 to 61 meters) in diameter, and are common at 

utility power plants. These cooling towers can recirculate approximately 200,000 to 500,000 gpm (12,600 to 

31,500 l/s) of water and evaporate approximately 6,000 

to 15,000 gpm (380 to 950 l/s) of water. 

Smaller cooling towers can be rectangular boxes constructed of wood, concrete, plastic, and/or fiberglass reinforced plastic with circular fan housings for each cell. 

Each cell can recirculate (cool) approximately 3,000 to 

5,000 gpm (190 to 315 l/s). Petroleum refineries, chemical plants, steel mills, smaller utility plants, and other 

processing industries can have as many as 15 cells in a 

single cooling tower, recirculating approximately 75,000 

gpm (4,700 l/s). Commercial air conditioning cooling tower 

systems can recirculate as little as 100 gpm (6 l/s) to as 

much as 40,000 gpm (2,500 l/s). 

Figure 2-3. Cooling Tower 

The cycles of concentration (COC) are defined as the 

ratio of a given ion or compound in the cooling tower 

water compared to the identical ion or compound in the 

makeup water. For example, if the sodium chloride level 

in the cooling tower water is 200 mg/l, and the same 

compound in the makeup water is 50 mg/l, then the COC 

is 200 divided by 50, or 4, often referred to as 4 cycles. 

Industries often operate their cooling towers at widely 

different cycles of concentration as shown in Table 2-1. 

The reason for such variations is that the cooling water is 

used for different applications such as wash water, ash 

sluicing, process water, etc. 

2.2.1.2b Spray Ponds 

Spray ponds are usually small lakes or bodies of water 

where warmed cooling water is directed to nozzles that 

Table 2-1. Typical Cycles of Concentration 

(COC) 

Industry Typica l COC 

Utilities

 Fossil 5-8

 Nuclear 6-10 

Petroleum Refineries 6-8 

Chemical Plants 8-10 

Steel Mills 3-5 

HVAC 3-5 

Paper Mills 5-8 

14
spray upward to mix with air. This spraying causes evapo­ o ration, but usually only produces a 3 to 8 F drop in 

temperature. Spray ponds are often used by facilities, 

such as utility power plants, where minimal cooling is 

needed and where the pond can also be incorporated 

into either decorative fountains or the air conditioning 

system. Reclaimed water has some application related 

to spray ponds, usually as makeup water, since there 

are often restrictions on discharging reclaimed water into 

lakes or ponds. In addition, there is a potential for foaming within the spray pond if only reclaimed water is used. 

For example, the City of Ft. Collins, Colorado, supplies 

reclaimed water to the Platte River Power Authority for 

cooling its 250 megawatt (MW) Rawhide Energy Station. 

The recirculation cooling system is a 5.2-billion-gallon 

(20-million-m3

) lake used to supply 170,000 gpm (107,000 

l/s) to the condenser and auxiliary heat exchangers. Reclaimed water is treated to reduce phosphate and other 

contaminants, and then added to the freshwater lake. 

2.2.1.3 Cooling Water Quality Requirements 

The most frequent water quality problems in cooling water systems are corrosion, biological growth, and scaling. These problems arise from contaminants in potable 

water as well as in reclaimed water, but the concentrations of some contaminants in reclaimed water may be 

higher than in potable water. Table 2-2 provides some 

reclaimed water quality data from Florida and California. 

In Burbank, California, about 5 mgd (219 l/s) of municipal secondary effluent has been successfully utilized for 

cooling water makeup in the City’s power generating plant 

since 1967. The reclaimed water is of such good quality 

that with the addition of chlorine, acid, and corrosion inhibitors, the reclaimed water quality is nearly equal to 

that of freshwater. There are also numerous petroleum 

refineries in the Los Angeles area in California that have 

used reclaimed water since 1998 as 100 percent of the 

makeup water for their cooling systems. 

The City of Las Vegas and Clark County Sanitation District uses 90 mgd (3,940 l/s) of secondary effluent to 

supply 35 percent of the water demand in power generating stations operated by the Nevada Power Company. 

The power company provides additional treatment consisting of 2-stage lime softening, filtration, and chlorination prior to use as cooling tower makeup. A reclaimed 

water reservoir provides backup for the water supply. The 

Arizona Public Service 1,270-MW Palo Verde nuclear 

power plant is located 55 miles from Phoenix, Arizona, 

and uses almost all of the City of Phoenix and area cities’ reclaimed water at an average rate of 38,000 gpm 

(2,400 l/s). 

In a partnership between the King County Department of 

Metropolitan Services (Seattle, Washington), the Boeing 

Company, and Puget Sound Power and Light Company, 

a new 600,000-square-foot (55,740-m2

) Customer Service Training Center is cooled using chlorinated secondary effluent (Lundt, 1996). 

In Texas, The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) has a 

provision in its service agreement that allows for adjustment in the reclaimed water rates for cooling tower use if 

the use of reclaimed water results in fewer cycles of concentration. 

2.2.1.3a Corrosion Concerns 

The use of any water, including reclaimed water, as 

makeup in recirculating cooling tower systems will result 

in the concentration of dissolved solids in the heat exchange system. This concentration may or may not cause 

serious corrosion of components. Three requirements 

should be considered to identify the cooling system corrosion potential: 

1. Calculation of the concentrated cooling

water quality – most often “worst” case but

also “average expected” water quality

Table 2-2. Florida and California Reclaimed Water Quality 

Water Constituents Orlando Tampa Los Angeles San Francisco 

Conductivity 1200 – 1800 600 – 1500 2000 – 2700 800 – 1200 

Calcium Hardness 180 – 200 100 – 120 260 – 450 50 – 180 

Total Alkalinity 150 – 200 60 – 100 140 – 280 30 – 120 

Chlorides 20 – 40 30 – 80 250 – 350 40 – 200 

Phosphate 18 – 25 10 – 20 300 – 400 20 – 70 

Ammonia 10 – 15 5 – 15 4 – 20 2 – 8 

Suspended Solids 3 – 5 3 – 5 10 – 45 2 – 10 

15 
2. Identification of metal alloys in the process

equipment that will contact cooling water–

primarily heat exchanger/cooler/condenser

tubing but also all other metals in the system, including lines, water box, tube sheet,

and cooling tower

3. Operating conditions (temperatures and

water flow) of the cooling tower – primarily

related to the heat exchanger tubing but also

the other metals in the system

Depending upon its level of treatment, the quality of reclaimed water can vary substantially. The amount of 

concentration in the cooling system will also vary substantially, depending on the cycles of concentration 

within the system. Certainly, any contamination of the 

cooling water through process in-leakage, atmospheric 

conditions, or treatment chemicals will impact the water 

quality. 

2.2.1.3b Biological Concerns 

Biological concerns associated with the use of reclaimed 

water in cooling systems include: 

 Microbiological organisms that contribute to the potential for deposits and microbiologically induced 

corrosion (MIC) 

 Nutrients that contribute to microbiological growth 

Microbiological organisms (bacteria, fungus, or algae) that 

contribute to deposits and corrosion are most often those 

adhering to surfaces and identified as “sessile” microorganisms. The deposits usually occur in low flow areas (2 

feet per second [0.6 m/s] or less) but can stick to surfaces even at much greater flow rates (5 to 8 feet per 

second [1.5 to 2 m/s]). The deposits can create a variety 

of concerns and problems. Deposits can interfere with 

heat transfer and can cause corrosion directly due to 

acid or corrosive by-products. Indirectly, deposits may 

shield metal surfaces from water treatment corrosion inhibitors and establish under-deposit corrosion. Deposits 

can grow rapidly and plug heat exchangers, cooling tower 

film fill, or cooling tower water distribution nozzles/sprays. 

Reclaimed water generally has a very low level of microbiological organisms due to the treatment requirements 

prior to discharge. Chlorine levels of 2.0 mg/l (as free 

chlorine) will kill most sessile microorganisms that cause 

corrosion or deposits in cooling systems. 

Nutrients that contribute to microbiological growth are 

present in varying concentrations in reclaimed water. 

However, even when freshwater is used in cooling towers, chemicals added during the treatment process can 

contribute a considerable concentration of nutrients. It 

is also important to have a good biological control program in place before reclaimed water is used. Ammonia and organics are typical nutrients found in reclaimed 

water that can reduce or negate some commonly used 

biocides (particularly cationic charged polymers). 

2.2.1.3cScaling Concerns 

The primary constituents for scale potential from reclaimed 

water are calcium, magnesium, sulfate, alkalinity, phosphate, silica, and fluoride. 

Combinations of these minerals that can produce scale 

in the concentrated cooling water generally include calcium phosphate (most common), silica (fairly common), 

calcium sulfate (fairly common), calcium carbonate (seldom found), calcium fluoride (seldom found), and magnesium silicate (seldom found). 

All constituents with the potential to form scale must be 

evaluated and controlled by chemical treatment and/or 

by adjusting the cycles of concentration. Reclaimed water quality must be evaluated, along with the scaling potential to establish the use of specific scale inhibitors. 

Guidelines for selection and use of scale inhibitors are 

available as are scale predictive tools. 

2.2.2 Boiler Make-up Water 

The use of reclaimed water for boiler make-up water differs little from the use of conventional public water supply; both require extensive additional treatment. Quality 

requirements for boiler make-up water depend on the pressure at which the boiler is operated. Generally, the higher 

the pressure, the higher the quality of water required. 

Very high pressure (1500 psi [10,340 kPa] and above) 

boilers require make-up water of very high quality. 

In general, both potable water and reclaimed water used 

for boiler water make-up must be treated to reduce the 

hardness of the boiler feed water to close to zero. Removal or control of insoluble scales of calcium and magnesium, and control of silica and alumina, are required 

since these are the principal causes of scale buildup in 

boilers. Depending on the characteristics of the reclaimed 

water, lime treatment (including flocculation, sedimentation, and recarbonation) might be followed by multi-media filtration, carbon adsorption, and nitrogen removal. 

High-purity boiler feed water for high-pressure boilers might 

also require treatment by reverse osmosis or ion exchange. High alkalinity may contribute to foaming, resulting in deposits in the superheater, reheater, or tur16
bines. Bicarbonate alkalinity, under the influence of boiler 

heat, may lead to the release of carbon dioxide, which is 

a source of corrosion in steam-using equipment. The considerable treatment and relatively small amounts of makeup water required normally make boiler make-up water a 

poor candidate for reclaimed water. 

Since mid-2000, several refineries located in southern 

Los Angeles, California, have used reclaimed water as 

their primary source of boiler make-up water. Through 

the use of clarification, filtration, and reverse osmosis, 

high-quality boiler make-up water is produced that provides freshwater, chemical, and energy savings. The 

East Bay Municipal Utility District in California provides 

reclaimed water to the Chevron Refinery for use as boiler 

feed water. Table 2-3 shows the sampling requirements 

and expected water quality for the reclaimed water. 

2.2.3 Industrial Process Water 

The suitability of reclaimed water for use in industrial 

processes depends on the particular use. For example, 

the electronics industry requires water of almost distilled 

quality for washing circuit boards and other electronic 

components. On the other hand, the tanning industry can 

use relatively low-quality water. Requirements for textiles, 

pulp and paper, and metal fabricating are intermediate. 

Thus, in investigating the feasibility of industrial reuse 

with reclaimed water, potential users must be contacted 

to determine the specific requirements for their process 

water. 

A full-scale demonstration plant, operated at Toppan 

Electronics, in San Diego, California, has shown that reclaimed water can be used for the production of circuit 

boards (Gagliardo et al., 2002). The reclaimed water used 

for the demonstration plant was pretreated with 

microfiltration. Table 2-4 presents industrial process water 

quality requirements for a variety of industries. 

2.2.3.1 Pulp and Paper Industry 

The historical approach of the pulp and paper industry 

has been to internally recycle water to a very high degree. The pulp and paper industry has long recognized 

the potential benefits associated with water reuse. At the 

turn of the century, when the paper machine was being 

developed, water use was approximately 150,000 gallons per ton (625 liters per kilogram). By the 1950s, the 

water usage rate was down to 35,000 gallons per ton 

(145 liters per kilogram) (Wyvill et al., 1984). An industry 

survey conducted in 1966 showed the total water use for 

a bleached Kraft mill to be 179,000 gallons per ton (750 

liters per kilogram) (Haynes, 1974). Modern mills approach 

a recycle ratio of 100 percent, using only 16,000 to 17,000 

gallons of freshwater per ton (67 to 71 liters per kilogram) 

(NCASI, 2003). 

About a dozen pulp and paper mills use reclaimed water. 

Less than half of these mills use treated municipal wastewater. Tertiary treatment is generally required. The driver 

is usually an insufficient source of freshwater. SAPPI’s 

Enstra mill in South Africa has been using treated municipal wastewater since the early 1940s. In Lake Tahoe, 

California, the opportunities for using treated wastewater 

in pulping and papermaking arose with the construction 

of tertiary wastewater facilities (Dorica et al.,1998). 

Some of the reasons that mills choose not to use treated 

municipal wastewater include: 

 Concerns about pathogens 

 Product quality requirements that specifically preclude its use 

 Possibly prohibitive conveyance costs 

 Concerns about potentially increased corrosion, scaling, and biofouling problems due to the high degree 

of internal recycling involved 

Table 2-5 shows the water quality requirements for several pulp and paper processes in New York City. 

2.2.3.2 Chemical Industry 

The water quality requirements for the chemical industry 

vary greatly according to production requirements. Generally, waters in the neutral pH range (6.2 to 8.3) that are 

also moderately soft with low turbidity, suspended solids 

(SS), and silica are required; dissolved solids and chloride content are generally not critical (Water Pollution 

Control Federation, 1989). 

2.2.3.3 Textile Industry 

Waters used in textile manufacturing must be non-staining; hence, they must be low in turbidity, color, iron, and 

manganese. Hardness may cause curds to deposit on 

the textiles and may cause problems in some of the 

processes that use soap. Nitrates and nitrites may cause 

problems in dyeing. 

In 1997, a local carpet manufacturer in Irvine, California, 

retrofitted carpet-dyeing facilities to use reclaimed water 

year-round (IRWD, 2003). The new process is as effective as earlier methods and is saving up to 500,000 gallons of potable water per day (22 l/s). 

17
Table 2-3. North Richmond Water Reclamation Plant Sampling Requirements 

Location1 Sample Type Parameter Frequency Target Value2 

Samples Required for Compliance with RWQCB Order 90-137 

Chevron Tie-In Grab Turbidity, Total Chlorine 

Residual1

, Total Coliform 2 Daily 

Max. 2 NTU, 

Min. 300 CT, 

2.2 MPN/100 ml 

Reclaimed Water 

Effluent 24-hour composite 3 Flow Continuous NA 

Samples Required for Compliance with EBMUD-Chevron Agreement; Chevron’s NPDES Permit 

Filter Influent, Filter 

Effluent, Chlorine 

Contact Basin Effluent 

Online Analyzers 3 pH, Turbidity, Free Chlorine 

Residual Continuous 6.5-7.5, 2 NTU, 

<4.0 mg/l 

Reclaimed Water 

Effluent 

24-hour 

composite Orthophosphate (PO4) Daily <1.4 mg/l 

Reclaimed Water 

Effluent 

24-hour 

composite 

Calcium, Total Iron, 

Magnesium, Silica, TSS 

Ammonia (NH3-N), Chloride 

Daily 

50 mg/l, 0.1 mg/l, 

20 mg/l, 10 mg/l, 

<1.0 mg/l, 

<175 mg/l 

Reclaimed Water 

Effluent 96-hour flow through Rainbow trout acute bioassay Weekly >90% Survival 

Reclaimed Water 

Effluent 

24-hour 

composite 

COD, TOC (Grab), Selenium, 

Surfactants Weekly <50 mg/l, Report Only <1.0 mg/l 

Reclaimed Water 

Effluent 

24-hour 

composite 

Total Chromium, Hexavalent 

Cr, Ag, As, TOC, Cd, 

Cyanide, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn – 

mg/� 

Monthly Report Only4 

Reclaimed Water 

Effluent 

24-hour 

composite Total Phenolics, PAHs Quarterly Report Only4 

Reclaimed Water 

Effluent Grab Oil and Grease, Total 

Sulfides Quarterly Report Only4 

Reclaimed Water 

Effluent Grab 

Volatile Organics, 

Halogenated Volatile 

Organics 

Twice/Year Report Only4 

Reclaimed Water 

Effluent Grab 

TCDD Equivalents, 

Tributyltin, Halogenated 

Volatile Organics, 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls, 

Pesticides 

Once/Year Report Only4 

NOTES: 

1. Chlorine residual may vary based on CT calculation (contact time x residual = 300 CT); 90 minute minimum 

contact time. 

2. Sample must be collected at reclaimed water metering station at pipeline tie-in to Chevron Refinery cooling 

towers; 90 minute chlorine contact time requirement. 

3. Readouts for online analyzers are on graphic panel in Operations Center. 

4. “Report Only” parameters are used for pass-through credit for reclaimed water constituents as provided for in 

Chevron’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 

Source: Yologe, 1996 

18 
Table 2-4. Industrial Process Water Quality Requirements 

Parameter* 

Pulp & Paper 

Chemical Petrochem & 

Coal 

Textiles 

Cement Mechanical 

Piping 

Chemical, 

Unbleached 

Pulp & 

Paper 

Bleached 

Sizing 

Suspension 

Scouring, 

Bleach & Dye 

Cu - - - - 0.05 0.01 - -

Fe 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.1 2.5 

Mn 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.1 - 0.05 0.01 0.5 

Ca - 20 20 68 75 - - -

Mg - 12 12 19 30 - - -

Cl 1,000 200 200 500 300 - - 250 

HCO3 - - - 128 - - - -

NO3 - - - 5 - - - -

SO4 - - - 100 - - - 250 

SiO2 - 50 50 50 - - - 35 

Hardness - 100 100 250 350 25 25 -

Alkalinity - - - 125 - - - 400 

TDS - - - 1,000 1,000 100 100 600 

TSS - 10 10 5 10 5 5 500 

Color 30 30 10 20 - 5 5 -

pH 6-10 6-10 6-10 6.2-8.3 6-9 - - 6.5-8.5 

CCE - - - - - - - -

*All values in mg/l except color and pH.

Source: Water Pollution Control Federation, 1989.

Table 2-5. Pulp and Paper Process Water Quality Requirements 

Parameter (a) Mechanical Pulping Chemical, 

Unbleached 

Pulp and Paper, 

Bleached 

Iron 0.3 1 0.1 

Manganese 0.1 0.5 0.05 

Calcium - 20 20 

Magnesium - 12 12 

Chlorine 1,000 200 200 

Silicon Dioxide - 50 50 

Hardness - 100 100 

TSS - 10 10 

Color 30 30 10 

pH 6 - 10 6 - 10 6 - 10 

(a) All values in mg/l except color and pH. 

Source: Adamski et al., 2000 

19 
2.2.3.4 Petroleum and Coal 

Processes for the manufacture of petroleum and coal 

products can usually tolerate water of relatively low quality. Waters generally must be in the 6 to 9 pH range and 

have moderate SS of no greater than 10 mg/l. 

2.3 Agricultural Reuse 

This section focuses on the following specific considerations for implementing a water reuse program for agricultural irrigation: 

 Agricultural irrigation demands 

 Reclaimed water quality 

 Other system considerations 

Technical issues common to all reuse programs are discussed in Chapter 3, and the reader is referred to the 

following subsections for this information: 3.4 – Treatment Requirements, 3.5 – Seasonal Storage Requirements, 3.6 – Supplemental Facilities (conveyance and 

distribution, operational storage, and alternative disposal). 

Agricultural irrigation represents a significant percentage of the total demand for freshwater. As discussed in 

Chapter 3, agricultural irrigation is estimated to represent 40 percent of the total water demand nationwide 

(Solley et al., 1998). In western states with significant 

agricultural production, the percentage of freshwater used 

for irrigation is markedly greater. For example, Figure 2-

4 illustrates the total daily freshwater withdrawals, public 

water supply, and agricultural irrigation usage for Montana, Colorado, Idaho, and California. These states are 

the top 4 consumers of water for agricultural irrigation, 

which accounts for more than 80 percent of their total 

water demand. 

The total cropland area in the U.S. and Puerto Rico is 

estimated to be approximately 431 million acres (174 

million hectares), of which approximately 55 million acres 

(22 million hectares) are irrigated. Worldwide, it is estimated that irrigation water demands exceed all other 

categories of water use and make up 75 percent of the 

total water usage (Solley et al., 1998). 

A significant portion of existing water reuse systems supply reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation. In Florida, 

agricultural irrigation accounts for approximately 19 percent of the total volume of reclaimed water used within 

the state (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2002b). In California, agricultural irrigation accounts 

Figure 2-4. Comparison of Agricultural 

Irrigation, Public/Domestic, and 

Total Freshwater Withdrawals 

for approximately 48 percent of the total volume of reclaimed water used within the state (California State Water 

Resources Control Board, 2002). Figure 2-5 shows the 

percentages of the types of crops irrigated with reclaimed 

water in California. 

Agricultural reuse is often included as a component in 

water reuse programs for the following reasons: 

 Extremely high water demands for agricultural irrigation 

Figure 2-5. Agricultural Reuse Categories by 

Percent in California 

20
 Significant water conservation benefits associated 

with reuse in agriculture 

 Ability to integrate agricultural reuse with other reuse 

applications 

Due to saltwater intrusion to its agricultural wells, the 

City of Watsonville, California, is looking to develop 4,000 

acre-feet per year (2,480 gpm) of reuse for the irrigation 

of strawberries, artichokes, and potentially certified organic crops (Raines et al., 2002). Reclaimed water will 

make up 25 percent of the estimated new water required 

for irrigation. 

2.3.1 Estimating Agricultural Irrigation 

Demands 

Because crop water requirements vary with climatic conditions, the need for supplemental irrigation will vary from 

month to month throughout the year. This seasonal variation is a function of rainfall, temperature, crop type, stage 

of plant growth, and other factors, depending on the 

method of irrigation being used. 

The supplier of reclaimed water must be able to quantify 

these seasonal demands, as well as any fluctuation in 

the reclaimed water supply, to assure that the demand 

for irrigation water can be met. Unfortunately, many agricultural users are unable to provide sufficient detail about 

irrigation demands for design purposes. This is because 

the user’s seasonal or annual water use is seldom measured and recorded, even on land surfaces where water 

has been used for irrigation for a number of years. However, expert guidance is usually available through state 

colleges and universities and the local soil conservation 

service office. 

To assess the feasibility of reuse, the reclaimed water 

supplier must be able to reasonably estimate irrigation 

demands and reclaimed water supplies. To make this 

assessment in the absence of actual water use data, 

evapotranspiration, percolation and runoff losses, and net 

irrigation must be estimated, often through the use of 

predictive equations. 

2.3.1.1 Evapotranspiration 

Evapotranspiration is defined as water either evaporated 

from the soil surface or actively transpired from the crop. 

While the concept of evapotranspiration is easily described, quantifying the term mathematically is difficult. 

Evaporation from the soil surface is a function of the 

soil moisture content at or near the surface. As the top 

layer of soil dries, evaporation decreases. Transpiration, the water vapor released through the plants’ surface membranes, is a function of available soil moisture, 

season, and stage of growth. The rate of transpiration 

may be further impacted by soil structure and the salt 

concentration in the soil water. Primary factors affecting 

evaporation and transpiration are relative humidity, wind, 

and solar radiation. 

Practically every state in the U.S. and Canada now has 

access to weather information from the Internet. California has developed the California Irrigation Management 

Information System (CIMIS), which allows growers to 

obtain daily reference evapotranspiration information. Data 

are made available for numerous locations within the state 

according to regions of similar climatic conditions. State 

publications provide coefficients for converting these reference data for use on specific crops, location, and stages 

of growth. This allows users to refine irrigation scheduling and conserve water. Other examples of weather networks are the Michigan State University Agricultural 

Weather Station, the Florida Automated Weather Network, and the Agri-Food Canada Lethbridge Research 

Centre Weather Station Network. 

Numerous equations and methods have been developed 

to define the evapotranspiration term. The Thornthwaite 

and Blaney-Criddle methods of estimating evapotranspiration are 2 of the most cited methods. The Blaney-Criddle 

equation uses percent of daylight hours per month and 

average monthly temperature. The Thornthwaite method 

relies on mean monthly temperature and daytime hours. 

In addition to specific empirical equations, it is quite common to encounter modifications to empirical equations 

for use under specific regional conditions. In selecting 

an empirical method of estimating evapotranspiration, the 

potential user is encouraged to solicit input from local 

agencies familiar with this subject. 

2.3.1.2 Effective Precipitation, Percolation, and 

Surface Water Runoff Losses 

The approach for the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water 

will, in most cases, vary significantly from land application. In the case of beneficial reuse, the reclaimed water 

is a resource to be used judiciously. The prudent allocation of this resource becomes even more critical in locations where reclaimed water is assigned a dollar value, 

thereby becoming a commodity. Where there is a cost 

associated with using reclaimed water, the recipient of 

reclaimed water will seek to balance the cost of supplemental irrigation against the expected increase in crop 

yields to derive the maximum economic benefit. Thus, 

percolation losses will be minimized because they represent the loss of water available to the crop and wash 

fertilizers out of the root zone. An exception to this occurs when the reclaimed water has a high salt concen21
tration and excess application is required to prevent the 

accumulation of salts in the root zone. 

Irrigation demand is the amount of water required to meet 

the needs of the crop and also overcome system losses. 

System losses will consist of percolation, surface water 

runoff, and transmission and distribution losses. In addition to the above losses, the application of water to crops 

will include evaporative losses or losses due to wind drift. 

These losses may be difficult to quantify individually and 

are often estimated as single system efficiency. The actual efficiency of a given system will be site specific and 

vary widely depending on management practices followed. 

Irrigation efficiencies typically range from 40 to 98 percent (Vickers, 2001). A general range of efficiencies by 

type of irrigation system is shown in Table 2-6. 

Since there are no hard and fast rules for selecting the 

most appropriate method for projecting irrigation demands 

and establishing parameters for system reliability, it may 

be prudent to undertake several of the techniques and to 

verify calculated values with available records. In the interest of developing the most useful models, local irrigation specialists should be consulted. 

2.3.2 Reclaimed Water Quality 

The chemical constituents in reclaimed water of concern 

for agricultural irrigation are salinity, sodium, trace elements, excessive chlorine residual, and nutrients. Sensitivity is generally a function of a given plant’s tolerance to 

constituents encountered in the root zone or deposited 

on the foliage. Reclaimed water tends to have higher concentrations of these constituents than the groundwater 

or surface water sources from which the water supply is 

drawn. 

The types and concentrations of constituents in reclaimed 

wastewater depend upon the municipal water supply, the 

influent waste streams (i.e., domestic and industrial contributions), amount and composition of infiltration in the 

wastewater collection system, the wastewater treatment 

processes, and type of storage facilities. Conditions that 

can have an adverse impact on reclaimed water quality 

may include: 

 Elevated TDS levels 

 Industrial discharges of potentially toxic compounds 

into the municipal sewer system 

 Saltwater (chlorides) infiltration into the sewer system in coastal areas 

Table 2-6. Efficiencies for Different Irrigation Systems 

Irrigation System Potential On-Farm Efficiency1 

(Percent) 

Gravity (Surface)

 Improved gravity2 75-85

 Furrow 55-70

 Flood 40-50 

Sprinklers

 Low energy precision application (LEPA) 80-90

 Center pivot3 70-85

 Sideroll 60-80

 Solid set 65-80

 Hand-move 60-65

 Big gun 60-65 

Microirrigation

 Drip 80-95 

1

Efficiencies shown assume appropriate irrigation system selection, correct irrigation design, 

and proper management. 

2

Includes tailwater recovery, precision land leveling, and surge flow systems. 

3

Includes high- and low-pressure center pivot. 

Source: Vickers, 2001. 

22 
For example, reclaimed water is used mostly for ridge 

and furrow irrigation at the High Hat Ranch in Sarasota, 

Florida, although a portion of the reclaimed water is used 

for citrus irrigation via microjet irrigation. To achieve 

successful operation of the microjet irrigation system, 

filters were installed to provide additional solids removal 

treatment to the reclaimed water used for citrus irrigation. 

2.3.2.1 Salinity 

Salinity is the single most important parameter in determining the suitability of the water to be used for irrigation. Salinity is determined by measuring the electrical 

conductivity (EC) and/or the total dissolved solids (TDS) 

in the water. Estimates indicate that 23 percent of irrigated farmland has been damaged by salt (Postel, 

1999). The salinity tolerance of plants varies widely. Crops 

must be chosen carefully to ensure that they can tolerate 

the salinity of the irrigation water, and even then the soil 

must be properly drained and adequately leached to prevent salt build-up. Leaching is the deliberate over-application of irrigation water in excess of crop needs to establish a downward movement of water and salt away 

from the root zone. 

The extent of salt accumulation in the soil depends on 

the concentration of salts in the irrigation water and the 

rate at which salts are removed by leaching. Salt accumulation can be especially detrimental during germination and when plants are young (seedlings). At this stage, 

damage can occur even with relatively low salt concentrations. Concerns with salinity relate to possible impacts 

to the following: the soil’s osmotic potential, specific ion 

toxicity, and degradation of soil physical conditions. 

These conditions may result in reduced plant growth 

rates, reduced yields, and, in severe cases, total crop 

failure. 

The concentration of specific ions may cause one or more 

of these trace elements to accumulate in the soil and in 

the plant. Long-term build-up may result in animal and 

human health hazards or phytotoxicity in plants. When 

irrigating with municipal reclaimed water, the ions of most 

concern are sodium, chloride, and boron. Household detergents are usually the source of boron and water softeners contribute sodium and chloride. Plants vary greatly 

in their sensitivity to specific ion toxicity. Toxicity is particularly detrimental when crops are irrigated with overhead sprinklers during periods of high temperature and 

low humidity. Highly saline water applied to the leaves 

results in direct absorption of sodium and/or chloride and 

can cause leaf injury. 

Salinity reduces the water uptake in plants by lowering 

the osmotic potential of the soil. This, in turn, causes 

the plant to use a large portion of its available energy to 

adjust the salt concentration within its tissue in order to 

obtain adequate water. This results in less energy available for plants to grow. The problem is more severe in 

hot and dry climatic conditions because of increased 

water demands by plants and is even more severe when 

irrigation is inadequate. 

One location where subsurface drainage is being evaluated is in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The drainage 

management process is called “integrated on-farm drainage management” and involves reusing the drainage 

water and using it to irrigate more salt-tolerant crops. 

The final discharge water goes into solar evaporators 

that collect the dry agricultural salt. 

Further complications of salinity problems can occur in 

geographic locations where the water table is high. A 

high water table can cause a possible upward flow of 

high salinity water into the root zone. Subsurface drainage offers a viable solution in these locations. Older clay 

tiles are often replaced with fabric-covered plastic pipe to 

prevent clogging. This subsurface drainage technique is 

one salinity-controlling process that requires significant 

changes in irrigation management. There are other techniques that require relatively minor changes including 

more frequent irrigation schedules, selection of more salttolerant crops, seed placement, additional leaching, bed 

forming, and pre-plant irrigation. 

2.3.2.2 Sodium 

The potential influence sodium may have on soil properties is indicated by the sodium-adsorption-ratio (SAR), 

which is based on the effect of exchangeable sodium 

on the physical condition of the soil. SAR expresses the 

concentration of sodium in water relative to calcium and 

magnesium. Excessive sodium in irrigation water (when 

sodium exceeds calcium by more than a 3:1 ratio) contributes to soil dispersion and structural breakdown, where 

the finer soil particles fill many of the smaller pore spaces, 

sealing the surface and greatly reducing water infiltration 

rates (AWWA, 1997). For reclaimed water, it is recommended that the calcium ion concentration in the SAR 

equation be adjusted for alkalinity to include a more correct estimate of calcium in the soil water following irrigation, specifically adj RNa. Note that the calculated adj 

RNa is to be substituted for the SAR value. 

Sodium salts influence the exchangeable cation composition of the soil, which lowers the permeability and affects the tilth of the soil. This usually occurs within the 

first few inches of the soil and is related to high sodium 

23
or very low calcium content in the soil or irrigation water. 

Sodium hazard does not impair the uptake of water by 

plants but does impair the infiltration of water into the 

soil. The growth of plants is thus affected by an unavailability of soil water (Tanji, 1990). Calcium and magnesium act as stabilizing ions in contrast to the destabilizing ion, sodium, in regard to the soil structure. They offset the phenomena related to the distance of charge neutralization for soil particles caused by excess sodium. 

Sometimes the irrigation water may dissolve sufficient 

calcium from calcareous soils to decrease the sodium 

hazard appreciably. Leaching and dissolving the calcium 

from the soil is of little concern when irrigating with reclaimed water because it is usually high enough in salt 

and calcium. Reclaimed water, however, may be high in 

sodium relative to calcium and may cause soil permeability problems if not properly managed. 

2.3.2.3 Trace Elements 

The elements of greatest concern at elevated levels are 

cadmium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc. Nickel 

and zinc have visible adverse effects in plants at lower 

concentrations than the levels harmful to animals and 

humans. Zinc and nickel toxicity is reduced as pH increases. Cadmium, copper, and molybdenum, however, 

can be harmful to animals at concentrations too low to 

impact plants. 

Copper is not toxic to monogastric animals, but may be 

toxic to ruminants. However, their tolerance to copper 

increases as available molybdenum increases. Molybdenum can also be toxic when available in the absence 

of copper. Cadmium is of particular concern as it can 

accumulate in the food chain. It does not adversely affect ruminants due to the small amounts they ingest. 

Most milk and beef products are also unaffected by livestock ingestion of cadmium because the cadmium is 

stored in the liver and kidneys of the animal, rather than 

the fat or muscle tissues. 

In addition, it was found that the input of heavy metals 

from commercial chemical fertilizer impurities was far 

greater than that contributed by the reclaimed water (Engineering Science, 1987). 

Table 2-7 shows EPA’s recommended limits for constituents in irrigation water. 

The recommended maximum concentrations for “longterm continuous use on all soils” are set conservatively 

to include sandy soils that have low capacity to leach 

(and so to sequester or remove) the element in question. These maxima are below the concentrations that 

produce toxicity when the most sensitive plants are grown 

in nutrient solutions or sand cultures to which the pollutant has been added. This does not mean that if the suggested limit is exceeded that phytotoxicity will occur. 

Most of the elements are readily fixed or tied up in soil 

and accumulate with time. Repeated applications in excess of suggested levels might induce phytotoxicity. The 

criteria for short-term use (up to 20 years) are recommended for fine-textured neutral and alkaline soils with 

high capacities to remove the different pollutant elements. 

2.3.2.4 Chlorine Residual 

Free chlorine residual at concentrations less than 1 mg/ 

l usually poses no problem to plants. However, some 

sensitive crops may be damaged at levels as low as 

0.05 mg/l. Some woody crops, however, may accumulate chlorine in the tissue to toxic levels. Excessive chlorine has a similar leaf-burning effect as sodium and chloride when sprayed directly on foliage. Chlorine at concentrations greater than 5 mg/l causes severe damage 

to most plants. 

2.3.2.5 Nutrients 

The nutrients most important to a crop’s needs are nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, boron, and sulfur. 

Reclaimed water usually contains enough of these nutrients to supply a large portion of a crop’s needs. 

The most beneficial nutrient is nitrogen. Both the concentration and form of nitrogen need to be considered 

in irrigation water. While excessive amounts of nitrogen 

stimulate vegetative growth in most crops, it may also 

delay maturity and reduce crop quality and quantity. The 

nitrogen in reclaimed water may not be present in concentrations great enough to produce satisfactory crop 

yields, and some supplemental fertilizer may be necessary. In addition, excessive nitrate in forages can cause 

an imbalance of nitrogen, potassium, and magnesium in 

grazing animals. This is a concern if the forage is used 

as a primary feed source for livestock; however, such 

high concentrations are usually not expected with municipal reclaimed water. 

Soils in the western U.S. may contain enough potassium, while many sandy soils of the southern U.S. do 

not. In either case, the addition of potassium with reclaimed water has little effect on crops. Phosphorus contained in reclaimed water is usually at too low a level to 

meet a crop’s needs. Yet, over time, it can build up in 

the soil and reduce the need for phosphorus supplementation. Excessive phosphorus levels do not appear to 

pose any problems to crops, but can be a problem in 

runoff to surface waters. 

24
Table 2-7. Recommended Limits for Constituents in Reclaimed Water for Irrigation 

Constituent Long-Term Use 

(mg/l) 

Short-Term Use 

(mg/l) Remarks 

Aluminum 5.0 20 Can cause nonproductiveness in acid soils, but soils at pH 5.5 to 8.0 will 

precipitate the ion and eliminate toxicity. 

Arsenic 0.10 2.0 Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 12 mg/L for Sudan grass to less 

than 0.05 mg/L for rice. 

Beryllium 0.10 0.5 Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 5 mg/L for kale to 0.5 mg/L for 

bush beans. 

Boron 0.75 2.0 

Essential to plant growth, with optimum yields for many obtained at a fewtenths mg/L in nutrient solutions. Toxic to many sensitive plants (e.g., citrus) at 

1 mg/L. Usually sufficient quantities in reclaimed water to correct soil 

deficiencies. Most grasses are relatively tolerant at 2.0 to 10 mg/L. 

Cadmium 0.01 0.05 Toxic to beans, beets, and turnips at concentrations as low as 0.1 mg/L in 

nutrient solution. Conservative limits recommended. 

Chromium 0.1 1.0 Not generally recognized as an essential growth element. Conservative limits 

recommended due to lack of knowledge on toxicity to plants. 

Cobalt 0.05 5.0 Toxic to tomato plants at 0.1 mg/L in nutrient solution. Tends to be inactivated 

by neutral and alkaline soils. 

Copper 0.2 5.0 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L in nutrient solution. 

Fluoride 1.0 15.0 Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils. 

Iron 5.0 20.0 Not toxic to plants in aerated soils, but can contribute to soil acidification and 

loss of essential phosphorus and molybdenum. 

Lead 5.0 10.0 Can inhibit plant cell growth at very high concentrations. 

Lithium 2.5 2.5 Tolerated by most crops at concentrations up to 5 mg/L; mobile in soil. Toxic to 

citrus at low doses - recommended limit is 0.075 mg/L. 

Manganese 0.2 10.0 Toxic to a number of crops at a few-tenths to a few mg/L in acidic soils. 

Molybdenum 0.01 0.05 Nontoxic to plants at normal concentrations in soil and water. Can be toxic to 

livestock if forage is grown in soils with high levels of available molybdenum. 

Nickel 0.2 2.0 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L; reduced toxicity at neutral or 

alkaline pH. 

Selenium 0.02 0.02 Toxic to plants at low concentrations and to livestock if forage is grown in soils 

with low levels of selenium. 

Tin, Tungsten, & Titanium - - Effectively excluded by plants; specific tolerance levels unknown 

Vanadium 0.1 1.0 Toxic to many plants at relatively low concentrations. 

Zinc 2.0 10.0 Toxic to many plants at widely varying concentrations; reduced toxicity at 

increased pH (6 or above) and in fine-textured or organic soils. 

Constituent Recommended Limit Remarks 

pH 6.0 Most effects of pH on plant growth are indirect (e.g., pH effects on heavy 

metals’ toxicity described above). 

TDS 500 - 2,000 mg/l 

Below 500 mg/L, no detrimental effects are usually noticed. Between 500 and 

1,000 mg/L, TDS in irrigation water can affect sensitive plants. At 1,000 to 

2,000 mg/L, TDS levels can affect many crops and careful management 

practices should be followed. Above 2,000 mg/L, water can be used regularly 

only for tolerant plants on permeable soils. 

Free Chlorine Residual <1 mg/l Concentrations greater than 5 mg/l causes severe damage to most plants. 

Some sensitive plants may be damaged at levels as low as 0.05 mg/l. 

Source: Adapted from Rowe and Abdel-Magid, 1995. 

Numerous site-specific studies have been conducted regarding the potential water quality concerns associated 

with reuse irrigation. The overall conclusions from the 

Monterey (California) Wastewater Reclamation Study for 

Agriculture (Jaques, 1997) are as follows: 

 Irrigation with filtered effluent (FE) or Title-22 effluent (T-22) appears to be as safe as well water. 

 Few statistically significant differences were found 

in soil or plant parameters, and none were found to 

25
be attributable to different types of water. None of 

the differences had important implications for public 

health. 

 Yields of annual crops were often significantly higher 

with reclaimed water. 

 No viruses were detected in any of the reclaimed 

waters, although viruses were often detected in the 

secondary effluent prior to the reclamation process. 

 The T-22 process was somewhat more efficient than 

the FE process in removing viruses when the influent was seeded at high levels of virus concentration. However, both processes demonstrated the 

ability to remove more than 5 logs of viruses during 

the seeding experiments. (Jaques, 1997) 

This and other investigations suggest that reclaimed 

water is suitable for most agricultural irrigation needs. 

2.3.3 Other System Considerations 

In addition to irrigation supply and demand and reclaimed 

water quality requirements, there are other considerations 

specific to agricultural water reuse that must be addressed. Both the user and supplier of reclaimed water 

may have to consider modifications in current practice 

that may be required to use reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation. The extent to which current irrigation practices must be modified to make beneficial use of reclaimed 

water will vary on a case-by-case basis. Important considerations include: 

 System reliability 

 Site use control 

 Monitoring requirements 

 Runoff controls 

 Marketing incentives 

 Irrigation equipment 

2.3.3.1 System Reliability 

System reliability involves 2 basic issues. First, as in 

any reuse project that is implemented to reduce or eliminate surface water discharge, the treatment and distribution facilities must operate reliably to meet permit conditions. Second, the supply of reclaimed water to the agricultural user must be reliable in quality and quantity for 

successful use in a farming operation. 

Reliability in quality involves providing the appropriate 

treatment for the intended use, with special consideration of crop sensitivities and potential toxicity effects 

of reclaimed water constituents (See Sections 3.4 and 

2.3.2). Reliability in quantity involves balancing irrigation 

supply with demand. This is largely accomplished by providing sufficient operational and seasonal storage facilities (See Sections 3.5 and 3.5.2.) It is also necessary to 

ensure that the irrigation system itself can reliably accept the intended supply to minimize the need for discharge or alternate disposal. 

2.3.3.2 Site Use Control 

Many states require a buffer zone around areas irrigated 

with reclaimed water. The size of this buffer zone is often associated with the level of treatment the reclaimed 

water has received and the means of application. Additional controls may include restrictions on the times that 

irrigation can take place and restrictions on the access 

to the irrigated site. Such use area controls may require 

modification to existing farm practices and limit the use 

of reclaimed water to areas where required buffer zones 

cannot be provided. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of 

the different buffer zones and use controls specified in 

state regulations. Signs specifying that reclaimed water 

is being used may be required to prevent accidental contact or ingestion. 

2.3.3.3 Monitoring Requirements 

Monitoring requirements for reclaimed water use in agriculture differ by state (See Chapter 4). In most cases, 

the supplier will be required to sample the reclaimed 

water quality at specific intervals for specific constituents. Sampling may be required at the water reclamation 

plant and, in some cases, in the distribution system. 

Groundwater monitoring is often required at the agricultural site, with the extent depending on the reclaimed 

water quality and the hydrogeology of the site. Groundwater monitoring programs may be as simple as a series of surficial wells to a complex arrangement of wells 

sampling at various depths. Monitoring must be considered in estimating the capital and operating costs of the 

reuse system, and a complete understanding of monitoring requirements is needed as part of any cost/benefit 

analysis. 

2.3.3.4 Runoff Controls 

Some irrigation practices, such as flood irrigation, result 

in a discharge of irrigation water from the site (tail water). 

Regulatory restrictions of this discharge may be few or 

none when using surface water or groundwater sources; 

26
however, when reclaimed water is used, runoff controls 

may be required to prevent discharge or a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit may 

be required for a surface water discharge. 

2.3.3.5 Marketing Incentives 

In many cases, an existing agricultural site will have an 

established source of irrigation water, which has been 

developed by the user at some expense (e.g., engineering, permitting, and construction). In some instances, 

the user may be reluctant to abandon these facilities for 

the opportunity to use reclaimed water. Reclaimed water use must then be economically competitive with existing irrigation practices or must provide some other 

benefits. For example, in arid climates or drought conditions where potable irrigation is restricted for water conservation purposes, reclaimed water could be offered as 

a dependable source of irrigation. Reclaimed water may 

also be of better quality than that water currently available to the farmer, and the nutrients may provide some 

fertilizer benefit. In some instances, the supplier of reclaimed water may find it cost effective to subsidize reclaimed water rates to agricultural users if reuse is allowing the supplier to avoid higher treatment costs associated with alternative means of disposal. 

2.3.3.6 Irrigation Equipment 

By and large, few changes in equipment are required to 

use reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation. However, 

some irrigation systems do require special considerations. 

Surface irrigation systems (ridge and furrow, graded borders) normally result in the discharge of a portion of the 

irrigation water from the site. Where reclaimed water discharge is not permitted, some method of tail water return 

or pump-back may be required. 

In sprinkler systems, dissolved salts and particulate 

matter may cause clogging, depending on the concentration of these constituents as well as the nozzle size. 

Because water droplets or aerosols from sprinkler systems are subject to wind drift, the use of reclaimed water may necessitate the establishment of buffer zones 

around the irrigated area. In some types of systems (i.e., 

center pivots), the sprinkler nozzles may be dropped 

closer to the ground to reduce aerosol drift and thus minimize the buffer requirements. In addition, some regulatory agencies restrict the use of sprinkler irrigation for 

crops to be eaten raw, because it results in the direct 

contact of reclaimed water with the fruit. 

When reclaimed water is used in a micro-irrigation system, a good filtration system is required to prevent complete or partial clogging of emitters. Close, regular inspections of emitters are required to detect emitter clogging. In-line filters of an 80 to 200 mesh are typically 

used to minimize clogging. In addition to clogging, biological growth within the transmission lines and at the 

emitter discharge may be increased by nutrients in the 

reclaimed water. Due to low volume application rates 

with micro-irrigation, salts may accumulate at the wetted perimeter of the plants and then be released at toxic 

levels to the crop when leached via rainfall. 

2.4 Environmental and Recreational 

Reuse 

Environmental reuse includes wetland enhancement and 

restoration, creation of wetlands to serve as wildlife habitat and refuges, and stream augmentation. Uses of reclaimed water for recreational purposes range from landscape impoundments, water hazards on golf courses, 

to full-scale development of water-based recreational 

impoundments, incidental contact (fishing and boating) 

and full body contact (swimming and wading). As with 

any form of reuse, the development of recreational and 

environmental water reuse projects will be a function of 

a water demand coupled with a cost-effective source of 

suitable quality reclaimed water. 

As discussed in Chapter 4, many states have regulations that specifically address recreational and environmental uses of reclaimed water. For example, 

California’s recommended treatment train for each type 

of recreational water reuse is linked to the degree of 

body contact in that use (that is, to what degree swimming and wading are likely). Secondary treatment and 

disinfection to 2.2 total coliforms/100 ml average is required for recreational water bodies where fishing, boating, and other non-body contact activities are permitted. 

For nonrestricted recreational use that includes wading 

and swimming, treatment of secondary effluent is to be 

followed by coagulation, filtration, and disinfection to 

achieve 2.2 total coliforms/100 ml and a maximum of 23 

total coliforms/100 ml in any one sample taken during a 

30-day period. 

In California, approximately 10 percent (47.6 mgd) (2080 

l/s) of the total reclaimed water use within the state was 

associated with recreational and environmental reuse in 

2000 (California State Water Resources Control Board, 

2002). In Florida, approximately 6 percent (35 mgd or 

1530 l/s) of the reclaimed water currently produced is 

being used for environmental enhancements, all for wetland enhancement and restoration (Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection, 2002). In Florida, from 1986 

to 2001, there was a 53 percent increase (18.5 mgd to 35 

mgd or 810 l/s to 1530 l/s) in the reuse flow used for 

27
environmental enhancements (wetland enhancement and 

restoration). 

Two examples of large-scale environmental and recreational reuse projects are the City of West Palm Beach, 

Florida, wetlands-based water reclamation project (see 

case study 2.7.17) and the Eastern Municipal Water 

District multipurpose constructed wetlands in Riverside 

County, California. 

The remainder of this section provides an overview of 

the following environmental and recreational uses: 

 Natural and man-made wetlands 

 Recreational and aesthetic impoundments 

 Stream augmentation 

The objectives of these reuse projects are typically to 

create an environment in which wildlife can thrive and/ 

or develop an area of enhanced recreational or aesthetic value to the community through the use of reclaimed water. 

2.4.1 Natural and Man-made Wetlands 

Over the past 200 years, approximately 50 percent of 

the wetlands in the continental United States have been 

destroyed for such diverse uses as agriculture, mining, 

forestry, and urbanization. Wetlands provide many worthwhile functions, including flood attenuation, wildlife and 

waterfowl habitat, productivity to support food chains, 

aquifer recharge, and water quality enhancement. In addition, the maintenance of wetlands in the landscape 

mosaic is important for the regional hydrologic balance. 

Wetlands naturally provide water conservation by regulating the rate of evapotranspiration and, in some cases, 

by providing aquifer recharge. The deliberate application 

of reclaimed water to wetlands can provide a beneficial 

use, and therefore reuse, by fulfilling any of the following 

objectives: 

1. To create, restore, and/or enhance wetlands

systems

2. To provide additional treatment of reclaimed

water prior to discharge to a receiving water

body

3. To provide a wet weather disposal alternative

for a water reuse system (See Section

3.6.4.)

For wetlands that have been altered hydrologically, application of reclaimed water serves to restore and enhance the wetlands. New wetlands can be created through 

application of reclaimed water, resulting in a net gain in 

wetland acreage and functions. In addition, man-made 

and restored wetlands can be designed and managed to 

maximize habitat diversity within the landscape. 

The application of reclaimed water to wetlands provides 

compatible uses. Wetlands are often able to enhance 

the water quality of the reclaimed water without creating undesirable impacts to the wetlands system. This, 

in turn, enhances downstream natural water systems 

and provides aquifer recharge. 

A great deal of research has been performed documenting the ability of wetlands, both natural and constructed, 

to provide consistent and reliable water quality improvement. With proper execution of design and construction 

elements, constructed wetlands exhibit characteristics 

that are similar to natural wetlands, in that they support 

similar vegetation and microbes to assimilate pollutants. 

In addition, constructed wetlands provide wildlife habitat and environmental benefits that are similar to natural wetlands. Constructed wetlands are effective in the 

treatment of BOD, TSS, nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, metals, sulfates, organics, and other toxic substances. 

Water quality enhancement is provided by transformation and/or storage of specific constituents within the 

wetland. The maximum contact of reclaimed water within 

the wetland will ensure maximum treatment assimilation 

and storage. This is due to the nature of these processes. 

If optimum conditions are maintained, nitrogen and BOD 

assimilation in wetlands will occur indefinitely, as they 

are primarily controlled by microbial processes and generate gaseous end products. In contrast, phosphorus 

assimilation in wetlands is finite and is related to the 

adsorption capacity of the soil and long-term storage within 

the system. The wetland can provide additional water 

quality enhancement (polishing) to the reclaimed water 

product. 

In most reclaimed water wetland projects, the primary 

intent is to provide additional treatment of effluent prior to 

discharge from the wetland. However, this focus does not 

negate the need for design considerations that will maximize wildlife habitats, and thereby provide important ancillary benefits. For constructed wetlands, appropriate 

plant species should be selected based on the type of 

wetland to be constructed as well as the habitat goals. 

Treatment performance information is available regarding 

certain wetland species as well as recommendations regarding species selection (Cronk and Fennessy, 2001). 

28
Wetlands do not provide treatment of total suspended 

solids. In addition, a salinity evaluation may be necessary because effluent with a high salt content may cause 

impacts to wetland vegetation. In some cases, salt tolerant vegetation may be appropriate. Design considerations will need to balance the hydraulic and constituent 

loadings with impacts to the wetland. Impacts to groundwater quality should also be evaluated. 

The benefits of a wetland treatment system include: 

 Improve water quality through the use of natural 

systems 

 Protect downstream receiving waters 

 Provide wetland creation, restoration, or enhancement 

 Provide wildlife and waterfowl habitat 

 Offer relatively low operating and maintenance

costs

 A reasonable development cost 

 Maintain “green space” 

 Attenuate peak flows 

 One component of a “treatment train”; can be

used in areas with high water table and/or low

permeable soils

 Aesthetic and educational opportunities 

Potential limitations of a wetland treatment systems 

include: 

 Significant land area requirements 

 May have limited application in urban settings 

 Potential for short-circuiting, which will lead to

poor performance

 Potential for nuisance vegetation and algae 

 May need to be lined to maintain wetland

hydroperiod

A number of cities have developed wetlands enhancement systems to provide wildlife habitats as well as treatment. In Arcata, California, one of the main goals of a 

city wetland project was to enhance the beneficial use of 

downstream surface waters. A wetlands application system was selected because the wetlands: (1) serve as 

nutrient sinks and buffer zones, (2) have aesthetic and 

environmental benefits, and (3) can provide cost-effective treatment through natural systems. The Arcata wetlands system was also designed to function as a wildlife 

habitat. The Arcata wetlands system, consisting of three 

10-acre (4-hectare) marshes, has attracted more than 

200 species of birds, provided a fish hatchery for salmon, 

and contributed directly to the development of the Arcata 

Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary (Gearheart, 1988). 

Due to a 20-mgd (877-L/s) expansion of the City of Orlando, Florida, Iron Bridge Regional Water Pollution 

Control Facility in 1981, a wetland system was created 

to handle the additional flow. Since 1981, reclaimed water from the Iron Bridge plant has been pumped 16 miles 

(20 kilometers) to a wetland that was created by berming 

approximately 1,200 acres (480 hectares) of improved 

pasture. The system is further divided into smaller cells 

for flow and depth management. The wetland consists of 

3 major vegetative areas. The first area, approximately 

410 acres (166 hectares), is a deep marsh consisting 

primarily of cattails and bulrush with nutrient removal as 

the primary function. The second area consists of 380 

acres (154 hectares) of a mixed marsh composed of over 

60 submergent and emergent herbaceous species used 

for nutrient removal and wildlife habitat. The final area, 

400 acres (162 hectares) of hardwood swamp, consists 

of a variety of tree species providing nutrient removal 

and wildlife habitat. The reclaimed water then flows 

through approximately 600 acres (240 hectares) of natural wetland prior to discharge to the St. Johns River (Jackson, 1989). 

EPA (1999a) indicated that little effort had been made to 

collect or organize information concerning the habitat functions of treatment wetlands. Therefore, the Treatment 

Wetland Habitat and Wildlife Use Assessment document 

(U.S. EPA, 1999a) was prepared. The document was the

first comprehensive effort to assemble wide-ranging information concerning the habitat and wildlife use data 

from surface flow treatment wetlands. The data have 

been gathered into an electronic format built upon the 

previous existing North American Treatment Wetland 

Database funded by the EPA. The report indicates that 

both natural and constructed treatment wetlands have 

substantial plant communities and wildlife populations. 

There are potentially harmful substances in the water, 

sediments, and biological tissues of treatment wetlands. 

However, contaminant concentration levels are generally below published action levels. There is apparently 

no documentation indicating that harm has occurred in 

any wetland intentionally designed to improve water 

quality. 

29
The Yelm, Washington, project in Cochrane Memorial 

Park, is an aesthetically pleasing 8-acre (3-hectare) city 

park featuring constructed surface and submerged wetlands designed to polish the reclaimed water prior to recharging groundwater. In the center of the park, a fish 

pond uses the water to raise and maintain rainbow trout 

for catch and release (City of Yelm, 2003). 

A number of states including Florida, South Dakota, and 

Washington, provide regulations to specifically address 

the use of reclaimed water in wetlands systems. Where 

specific regulations are absent, wetlands have been constructed on a case-by-case basis. In addition to state 

requirements, natural wetlands, which are considered 

waters of the U.S., are protected under EPA’s NPDES 

Permit and Water Quality Standards programs. The quality 

of reclaimed water entering natural wetlands is regulated 

by federal, state and local agencies and must be treated 

to at least secondary treatment levels or greater to meet 

water quality standards. Constructed wetlands, on the 

other hand, which are built and operated for the purpose 

of treatment only, are not considered waters of the U.S. 

Wetland treatment technology, using free water surface 

wetlands, has been under development, with varying success, for nearly 30 years in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 1999b). 

Several key documents that summarize the available information and should be used to assist in the design of 

wetland treatment systems are: Treatment Wetlands 

(Kadlec and Kngith, 1996), Free Water Surface Wetlands 

for Wastewater Treatment (U.S. EPA, 1999b), Constructed Wetlands for Pollution Control: Process, Performance, Design and Operation (IWA, 2000), and the Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice FD-16 

Second Edition. Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment, Chapter 9; Wetland Systems, (WEF, 2001). 

2.4.2 Recreational and Aesthetic 

Impoundments 

For the purposes of this discussion, an impoundment is 

defined as a man-made water body. The use of reclaimed water to augment natural water bodies is discussed in Section 3.4.3. Impoundments may serve a 

variety of functions from aesthetic, non-contact uses, to 

boating and fishing, as well as swimming. As with other 

uses of reclaimed water, the required level of treatment 

will vary with the intended use of the water. As the potential for human contact increases, the required treatment levels increase. The appearance of the reclaimed 

water must also be considered when used for impoundments, and treatment for nutrient removal may be required as a means of controlling algae. Without nutrient 

control, there is a high potential for algae blooms, resulting in odors, an unsightly appearance, and eutrophic conditions. 

Reclaimed water impoundments can be easily incorporated into urban developments. For example, landscaping plans for golf courses and residential developments 

commonly integrate water traps or ponds. These same 

water bodies may also serve as storage facilities for irrigation water within the site. 

In Lubbock, Texas, approximately 4 mgd (175 l/s) of 

reclaimed water is used for recreational lakes in the 

Yellowhouse Canyon Lakes Park (Water Pollution Control Federation, 1989). The canyon, which was formerly 

used as a dump, was restored through the use of reclaimed water to provide water-oriented recreational 

activities. Four lakes, which include man-made waterfalls, are used for fishing, boating, and water skiing; however, swimming is restricted. 

Lakeside Lake is a 14-acre (6-hectare) urban impoundment in Tucson, Arizona. The lake was constructed in 

the 1970s in the Atterbury Wash to provide fishing, boating, and other recreational opportunities. The lake is lined 

with soil/cement layers and has a concrete shelf extending 6 feet (2 meters) from the shore around the perimeter. A berm crosses the lake from east to west, creating 

a north and south bay. The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) stock the lake with channel catfish, 

rainbow trout, bluegill, redear and hybrid sunfish, crappie, and large mouth bass on a seasonal basis. The lake 

was initially supplied by groundwater and surface runoff 

but began receiving reclaimed water from the Roger Road 

Treatment Plant in 1990 (up to 45,000 gpd) (170 m3

/d). A 

mechanical diffuser was installed on the lake bottom in 

1992 to improve dissolved oxygen concentrations 

(PBS&J, 1992). 

2.4.3 Stream Augmentation 

Stream augmentation is differentiated from a surface 

water discharge in that augmentation seeks to accomplish a beneficial end, whereas discharge is primarily 

for disposal. Stream augmentation may be desirable to 

maintain stream flows and to enhance the aquatic and 

wildlife habitat as well as to maintain the aesthetic value 

of the water courses. This may be necessary in locations where a significant volume of water is drawn for 

potable or other uses, largely reducing the downstream 

volume of water in the river. 

As with impoundments, water quality requirements for 

stream augmentation will be based on the designated 

use of the stream as well as the aim to maintain an acceptable appearance. In addition, there may be an em30
2.5 

phasis on creating a product that can sustain aquatic 

life. 

The San Antonio Water System in Texas releases its 

high quality (Type 1) reclaimed water to the San Antonio 

River. Reclaimed water is used instead of pumped 

groundwater to sustain the river flow through a city park, 

zoo, and downtown river walk. A second stream augmentation flows to Salado Creek, where reclaimed water replaces the flow from an abandoned artesian well. 

Also, reclaimed water is used in a decorative fountain 

at the City Convention Center with the fountain discharging into a dead-end channel of the downtown river walk 

waterway. 

Several agencies in southern California are evaluating 

the process in which reclaimed water would be delivered 

to streams in order to maintain a constant flow of highquality water for the enhancement of aquatic and wildlife 

habitat as well as to maintain the aesthetic value of the 

streams. 

Groundwater Recharge 

This section addresses planned groundwater recharge 

using reclaimed water with the specific intent to replenish groundwater. Although practices such as irrigation 

may contribute to groundwater augmentation, the replenishment is an incidental byproduct of the primary activity 

and is not discussed in this section. 

The purposes of groundwater recharge using reclaimed 

water may be: (1) to establish saltwater intrusion barriers 

in coastal aquifers, (2) to provide further treatment for 

future reuse, (3) to augment potable or nonpotable aquifers, (4) to provide storage of reclaimed water for subsequent retrieval and reuse, or (5) to control or prevent ground 

subsidence. 

Pumping of aquifers in coastal areas may result in saltwater intrusion, making them unsuitable as sources for 

potable supply or for other uses where high salt levels 

are intolerable. A battery of injection wells can be used 

to create a hydraulic barrier to maintain intrusion control. Reclaimed water can be injected directly into an 

aquifer to maintain a seaward gradient and thus prevent inland subsurface saltwater intrusion. This may allow for the additional development of inland withdrawals 

or simply the protection of existing withdrawals. 

Infiltration and percolation of reclaimed water takes advantage of the natural removal mechanisms within soils, 

including biodegradation and filtration, thus providing additional in situ treatment of reclaimed water and additional treatment reliability to the overall wastewater management system. The treatment achieved in the subsurface environment may eliminate the need for costly advanced wastewater treatment processes. The ability to 

implement such treatment systems will depend on the 

method of recharge, hydrogeological conditions, requirements of the downgradient users, as well as other factors. 

Aquifers provide a natural mechanism for storage and 

subsurface transmission of reclaimed water. Irrigation 

demands for reclaimed water are often seasonal, requiring either large storage facilities or alternative means 

of disposal when demands are low. In addition, suitable 

sites for surface storage facilities may not be available, 

economically feasible, or environmentally acceptable. 

Groundwater recharge eliminates the need for surface 

storage facilities and the attendant problems associated 

with uncovered surface reservoirs, such as evaporation losses, algae blooms resulting in deterioration of 

water quality, and creation of odors. Aquifer storage and 

recovery (ASR) systems are being used in a number of 

states to overcome seasonal imbalances in both potable 

and reclaimed water projects. The tremendous volumes 

of storage potentially available in ASR systems means 

that a greater percentage of the resource, be it raw water 

or reclaimed water, can be captured for beneficial use. 

While there are obvious advantages associated with 

groundwater recharge, possible limitations include 

(Oaksford, 1985): 

 Extensive land areas may be needed for spreading 

basins. 

 Costs for treatment, water quality monitoring, and 

injection/infiltration facilities operations may be prohibitive. 

 Recharge may increase the danger of aquifer contamination due to inadequate or inconsistent pretreatment. 

 Not all recharged water may be recoverable due to 

movement beyond the extraction well capture zone 

or mixing with poor-quality groundwater. 

 The area required for operation and maintenance of a 

groundwater supply system (including the groundwater reservoir itself) is generally larger than that 

required for a surface water supply system. The fact 

that the aquifer does not compete with overlying land 

uses provides a significant advantage. However, this 

reservoir cannot adversely impact existing uses of 

the aquifer. 

31
Figure 2-6. Three Engineered Methods for Groundwater Recharge 

 Hydrogeologic uncertainties, such as transmissivity, faulting, and aquifer geometry, may reduce the 

effectiveness of the recharge project in meeting water supply demand. 

 Inadequate institutional arrangements or groundwater laws may not protect water rights and may present 

liability and other legal problems. 

The degree to which these factors might limit implementation of a groundwater recharge system is a function of 

the severity of the site specific impediments balanced 

against the need to protect existing water sources or 

expand raw water supplies. 

2.5.1 Methods of Groundwater Recharge 

Groundwater recharge can be accomplished by surface 

spreading, vadose zone injection wells, or direct injection. These methods of groundwater recharge use more 

advanced engineered systems as illustrated in Figure 

2-6 (Fox, 1999). With the exception of direct injection, 

all engineered methods require the existence of an unsaturated aquifer. 

Table 2-8 provides a comparison of major engineering 

factors that should be considered when installing a 

groundwater recharge system, including the availability 

and cost of land for recharge basins (Fox, 1999). If such 

costs are excessive, the ability to implement injection 

wells adjacent to the reclaimed water source tends to 

decrease the cost of conveyance systems for injection 

wells. Surface spreading basins require the lowest degree of pretreatment while direct injection systems require water quality comparable to drinking water, if potable aquifers are affected. Low-technology treatment 

options for surface spreading basins include primary and 

secondary wastewater treatment with the possible use 

of lagoons and natural systems. Reverse osmosis is 

commonly used for direct injection systems to prevent 

clogging, however, some ASR systems have been operating successfully without membrane treatment when water was stored for irrigation. The cost of direct injection 

systems can be greatly reduced from the numbers presented in Table 2-8 if the aquifer is shallow and 

nonpotable. Vadose zone injection wells are a relatively 

new technology, and there is uncertainty over maintenance methods and requirements; however, it is clear 

that the removal of solids and disinfection is necessary 

to prevent clogging. 

2.5.1.1 Surface Spreading 

Surface spreading is a direct method of recharge whereby 

the water moves from the land surface to the aquifer by 

infiltration and percolation through the soil matrix. 

An ideal soil for recharge by surface spreading would have 

the following characteristics: 

 Rapid infiltration rates and transmission of water 

 No layers that restrict the movement of water to the 

desired unconfined aquifer 

 No expanding-contracting clays that create cracks 

when dried that would allow the reclaimed water to 

32
Table 2-8. Comparison of Major Engineering Factors for Engineered Groundwater Recharge 

Recharge Basins Vadose Zone 

Injection Wells 

Direct Injection 

Wells 

Aquifer Type Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined or Confined 

Pretreatment Requirements Low Technology Removal of Solids High Technology 

Estimated Major Capital Costs (US$) Land and Distribution System $25,000-75,000 

per well 

$500,000-1,500,000 

per well 

Capacity 100-20,000 m3

/hectare-day 1,000-3,000 m3

/d 

per well 

2,000-6,000 m3/d 

per well 

Maintenance Requirements Drying and Scraping Drying and 

Disinfection 

Disinfection and 

Flow Reversal 

Estimated Life Cycle >100 Years 5-20 Years 25-50 Years 

Soil AquiferTreatment Vadose Zone and Saturated Zone Vadose Zone and 

Saturated Zone Saturated Zone 

bypass the soil during the initial stages of the flooding period 

 Sufficient clay and/or organic-rich sediment contents 

to provide large capacities to adsorb trace elements 

and heavy metals, as well as provide surfaces on 

which microorganisms can decompose organic constituents. The cation exchange capacity of clays also 

provides the capacity to remove ammonium ions and 

allow for subsequent nitrogen transformations 

 A supply of available carbon that would favor rapid 

denitrification during flooding periods, support an active microbial population to compete with pathogens, 

and favor rapid decomposition of introduced organics 

(Fox, 2002; Medema and Stuyfsand, 2002; Skjemstad 

et al., 2002). BOD and TOC in the reclaimed water 

will also be a carbon source 

Unfortunately, some of these characteristics are mutually exclusive, and the importance of each soil characteristic is dependent on the purpose of the recharge. For 

example, adsorption properties may be unimportant if 

recharge is primarily for storage. 

After the applied recharge water has passed through the 

soil zone, the geologic and subsurface hydrologic conditions control the sustained infiltration rates. The following geologic and hydrologic characteristics should be investigated to determine the total usable storage capacity and the rate of movement of water from the spreading 

grounds to the area of groundwater withdrawal: 

 Physical character and permeability of subsurface 

deposits 

 Depth to groundwater 

 Specific yield, thickness of deposits, and position 

and allowable fluctuation of the water table 

 Transmissivity, hydraulic gradients, and pattern of 

pumping 

 Structural and lithologic barriers to both vertical and 

lateral movement of groundwater 

 Oxidation state of groundwater throughout the receiving aquifer 

Although reclaimed water typically receives secondary 

treatment including disinfection and filtration prior to surface spreading, other treatment processes are sometimes 

provided. Depending on the ultimate use of the water 

and other factors (dilution, thickness of the unsaturated 

zone, etc.), additional treatment may be required. Nitrogen is often removed prior to surface spreading to eliminate concerns over nitrate contamination of groundwater 

and to simplify the permitting of storage systems as part 

of an overall reuse scheme. When extract water is used 

for potable purposes, post-treatment by disinfection is 

commonly practiced. In soil-aquifer treatment systems 

where the extracted water is to be used for nonpotable 

purposes, satisfactory water quality has been obtained 

at some sites using primary effluent for spreading providing that the hydraulic loading rates are low to prevent 

33
the development of anaerobic conditions (Carlson et al., 

1982 and Lance et al., 1980). 

For surface spreading of reclaimed water to be effective, 

the wetted surfaces of the soil must remain unclogged, 

the surface area should maximize infiltration, and the 

quality of the reclaimed water should not inhibit infiltration. 

Operational procedures should maximize the amount of 

water being recharged while optimizing reclaimed water 

quality by maintaining long contact times with the soil 

matrix. If nitrogen removal is desired and the major form 

of applied nitrogen is total kjehldal nitrogen, then maintenance of the vadose zone is necessary to allow for partial nitrification of ammonium ions adsorbed in the vadose zone. The depth to the groundwater table should be 

deep enough to prevent breakthrough of adsorbed ammonium to the saturated zone to ensure continuous 

and effective removal of nitrogen (Fox, 2002). 

Techniques for surface spreading include surface flooding, ridge and furrow systems, stream channel modifications, and infiltration basins. The system used is dependent on many factors such as soil type and porosity, 

depth to groundwater, topography, and the quality and 

quantity of the reclaimed water (Kopehynski et al., 1996). 

a. Surface Flooding 

Reclaimed water is spread over a large, gently 

sloped area (1 to 3 percent grade). Ditches and 

berms may enclose the flooding area. Advantages 

are low capital and operations and maintenance 

(O&M) costs. Disadvantages are large area requirements, evaporation losses, and clogging. 

b. Ridge and Furrow 

Water is placed in narrow, flat-bottomed ditches. 

Ridge and furrow is especially adaptable to sloping land, but only a small percentage of the land 

surface is available for infiltration. 

c. Stream Channel Modifications 

Berms are constructed in stream channels to 

retard the downstream movement of the surface water and, thus, increase infiltration into the 

underground. This method is used mainly in 

ephemeral or shallow rivers and streams where 

machinery can enter the streambeds when there 

is little or no flow to construct the berms and 

prepare the ground surface for recharge. Disadvantages may include a frequent need for replacement due to wash outs and possible legal 

restrictions related to such construction practices. 

d. Riverbank or Dune Filtration 

Riverbank and dune filtration generally rely on 

the use of existing waterways that have natural 

connections to groundwater systems. Recharge 

via riverbank or sand dune filtration is practiced 

in Europe as a means of indirect potable reuse. 

It is incorporated as an element in water supply 

systems where the source is untreated surface 

water, usually a river. The surface water is infiltrated into the groundwater zone through the 

riverbank, percolation from spreading basins, 

canals, lakes, or percolation from drain fields of 

porous pipe. In the latter 2 cases, the river water 

is diverted by gravity or pumped to the recharge 

site. The water then travels through an aquifer to 

extraction wells at some distance from the 

riverbank. In some cases, the residence time 

underground is only 20 to 30 days, and there is 

almost no dilution by natural groundwater 

(Sontheimer, 1980). In Germany, systems that 

do not meet a minimum residence time of 50 

days are required to have post-treatment of the 

recovered water and similar guidelines are applied in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, dune 

infiltration of treated Rhine River water has been 

used to restore the equilibrium between fresh and 

saltwater in the dunes (Piet and Zoeteman, 1980; 

Olsthoorn and Mosch, 2002), while serving to 

improve water quality and provide storage for 

potable water systems. Dune infiltration also provides protection from accidental spills of toxic 

contaminants into the Rhine River. Some systems have been in place for over 100 years, and 

there is no evidence that the performance of the 

system has deteriorated or that contaminants 

have accumulated. The City of Berlin has 

greater than 25 percent reclaimed water in its 

drinking water supply, and no disinfection is practiced after bank filtration. 

e. Infiltration Basins 

Infiltration basins are the most widely used 

method of groundwater recharge. Basins afford 

high loading rates with relatively low maintenance 

and land requirements. Basins consist of bermed, 

flat-bottomed areas of varying sizes. Long, narrow basins built on land contours have been effectively used. Basins constructed on highly 

permeable soils to achieve high hydraulic rates 

34
are called rapid infiltration basins. Basin infiltration rates may sometimes be enhanced or maintained by creation of ridges within the basin 

(Peyton, 2002). The advantage of ridges within 

the basin is that materials that cause basin clogging accumulate in the bottom of the ridges while 

the remainder of the ridge maintains high infiltration rates. 

Rapid infiltration basins require permeable soil 

for high hydraulic loading rates, yet the soil must 

be fine enough to provide sufficient soil surfaces 

for biochemical and microbiological reactions, 

which provide additional treatment to the reclaimed water. Some of the best soils are in the 

sandy loam, loamy sand, and fine sand range. 

When the reclaimed water is applied to the 

spreading basin, the water percolates through 

the unsaturated zone to the saturated zone of 

the groundwater table. The hydraulic loading 

rate is preliminarily estimated by soil studies, 

but final evaluation is completed through operating in situ test pits or ponds. Hydraulic loading rates for rapid infiltration basins vary from 

65 to 500 feet per year (20 to 150 meters per 

year), but are usually less than 300 feet per year 

(90 meters per year) (Bouwer, 1988). 

Though management techniques are site-specific and vary accordingly, some common principles are practiced in most infiltration basins. A 

wetting and drying cycle with periodic cleaning 

of the bottom is used to prevent clogging. Drying cycles allow for desiccation of clogging layers and re-aeration of the soil. This practice helps 

to maintain high infiltration rates, and microbial 

populations to consume organic matter, and 

helps reduce levels of microbiological constituents. Re-aeration of the soil also promotes nitrification, which is a prerequisite for nitrogen removal by denitrification. Periodic maintenance 

by cleaning of the bottom may be done by deep 

ripping of the soils or by scraping the top layer of 

soil. Deep ripping sometimes causes fines to 

migrate to deeper levels where a deep clogging 

layer may develop. The Orange County Water 

District (California) has developed a device to 

continuously remove clogging materials during 

a flooding cycle. 

Spreading grounds can be managed to avoid nuisance conditions such as algae growth and insect breeding in the percolation ponds. Generally, a number of basins are rotated through filling, draining, and drying cycles. Cycle length is 

dependent on both soil conditions and the distance to the groundwater table. This is determined 

through field-testing on a case-by-case basis. 

Algae can clog the bottom of basins and reduce 

infiltration rates. Algae further aggravate soil clogging by removing carbon dioxide, which raises 

the pH, causing precipitation of calcium carbonate. Reducing the detention time of the reclaimed 

water within the basins minimizes algal growth, 

particularly during summer periods where solar 

intensity and temperature increase algal growth 

rates. The levels of nutrients necessary to stimulate algal growth are too low for practical consideration of nutrient removal as a method to control algae. Also, scarifying, rototilling, or discing 

the soil following the drying cycle can help alleviate clogging potential, although scraping or “shaving” the bottom to remove the clogging layer is 

more effective than discing it. Removing the hard 

precipitant using an underwater machine has also 

been accomplished (Mills, 2002). 

2.5.1.2 Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems 

Soil-Aquifer Treatment (SAT) systems usually are designed and operated such that all of the infiltrated water 

is recovered via wells, drains, or seepage into surface 

water. Typical SAT recharge and recovery systems are 

shown in Figure 2-7. SAT systems with infiltration basins require unconfined aquifers, vadose zones free of 

restricting layers, and soils that are coarse enough to 

allow high infiltration rates, but fine enough to provide 

adequate filtration. Sandy loams and loamy or fine sands 

are the preferred surface soils in SAT systems. Recent 

work on SAT removal of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), 

trace organics, and organic halides has shown positive 

results (Fox et al., 2001; Drewes et al., 2001). The majority of trace organic compounds are removed by biodegradation and organic chlorine and organic bromine are 

removed to ambient levels. Short-term DOC removal is 

enhanced by maintaining aerobic conditions in the unsaturated zone (Fox, 2002). 

In the U.S., municipal wastewater usually receives conventional primary and secondary treatment prior to SAT. 

However, since SAT systems are capable of removing 

more BOD than is in secondary effluent, efficient secondary treatment may not be necessary in cases where 

the wastewater is subjected to SAT and subsequently 

reused for nonpotable purposes. Higher organic content may enhance nitrogen removal by denitrification in 

the SAT system and may enhance removal of synthetic 

organic compounds by stimulating greater microbiological activity in the soil. However low hydraulic loading 

35
Figure 2-7. Schematic of Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems 

rates must be used to prevent anaerobic conditions from 

developing which can prevent complete biodegradation 

in the sub-surface. More frequent cleaning of the basins 

would increase the cost of the SAT, but would not necessarily increase the total system cost. 

Where hydrogeologic conditions permit groundwater recharge with surface infiltration facilities, considerable 

improvement in water quality may be achieved through 

the movement of wastewater through the soil, unsaturated zone, and saturated zone. Table 2-9 provides an 

example of overall improvement in the quality of secondary effluent in a groundwater recharge SAT system. These 

water quality improvements are not limited to soil aquifer 

treatment systems and are applicable to most groundwater recharge systems where aerobic and/or anoxic 

conditions exist and there is sufficient storage time. 

These data are the result of a demonstration project in 

the Salt River bed, west of Phoenix, Arizona (Bouwer 

and Rice, 1989). The cost of SAT has been shown to be 

less than 40 percent of the cost of equivalent aboveground treatment (Bouwer, 1991). It should also be noted 

that the SAT product water was recovered from a monitoring well located adjacent to the recharge basin. Most 

SAT systems allow for considerable travel time in the 

aquifer and provide the opportunity for improvement in 

water quality. 

An intensive study, entitled, “An Investigation of Soil 

Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse,” was 

conducted to assess the sustainability of several different SAT systems with different site characteristics and 

effluent pretreatments (AWWARF, 2001). (See case study 

2.7.16). In all of the systems studied, water quality improvements were similar to the results presented by 

Bouwer (1984). When significant travel times in the 

vadose or saturated zone existed, water quality improvements exceeded the improvements actually observed 

by Bouwer (1984). 

The 3 main engineering factors that can affect the performance of soil aquifer treatment systems are: effluent 

pretreatment, site characteristics, and operating conditions (Fox, 2002). 

Effluent Pretreatment – Effluent pretreatment directly 

impacts the concentrations of biodegradable matter that 

are applied to a percolation basin. Therefore, it is a key 

factor that can be controlled as part of a SAT system. 

One of the greatest impacts of effluent pretreatment during SAT is near the soil/water interface where high biological activity is observed. This condition occurs because both the highest concentrations of biodegradable 

matter and oxygen are present. Both organic carbon and 

ammonia may be biologically oxidized. They are the water quality parameters that control the amount of oxygen 

demand in applied effluents. One of the greatest impacts 

of effluent pretreatment is to the total oxygen demand of 

applied water. Near the soil/water surface, biological activity with an effluent that has high total oxygen demand 

will result in the use of all the dissolved oxygen. Aerobic 

36
Table 2-9. Water Quality at Phoenix, Arizona, SAT System 

Secondary Effluent 

(mg/l) 

Recovery W ell Samples 

(mg/l) 

Total dissolved solids 750 790 

Suspended solids 11 1 

Ammonium nitrogen 16 0.1 

Nitrate nitrogen 0.5 5.3 

Organic nitrogen 1.5 0.1 

Phosphate phosphorus 5.5 0.4 

Fluoride 1.2 0.7 

Boron 0.6 0.6 

Biochemical oxygen demand 12 <1 

Total organic carbon 12 1.9 

Zinc 0.19 0.03 

Copper 0.12 0.016 

Cadmium 0.008 0.007 

Lead 0.082 0.066 

Fecal coliforms/100 mLa 3500 0.3 

Viruses, pfu/100 mLb 2118 <1 

a Chlorinated effluent 

b Undisinfected effluent 

Source: Adapted from Bouwer and Rice, 1989. 

conditions can be maintained with effluents that have 

low total oxygen demand. It should also be noted that 

the majority of oxygen demand exerted during wetting is 

from the oxidation of organic carbon while ammonia is 

removed by adsorption (Kopchynski et al., 1996). 

Site Characteristics – Site characteristics are a function 

of local geology and hydrogeology. Site selection is often dependent on a number of practical factors including 

suitability for percolation, proximity to conveyance channels and/or water reclamation facilities, and the availability of land. The design of SAT systems must accommodate the site characteristics. The design options are 

primarily limited to the size and depth of percolation basins and the location of recovery wells. Increasing the 

depth of percolation basins can be done to access high 

permeability soils. The location of recovery wells affects 

the travel time for subsurface flow and mounding below 

the percolation basins. 

Operating Conditions – The operation of SAT systems 

with wet/dry cycles is a common operating strategy. The 

primary purpose of wet/dry cycle operation is to control 

the development of clogging layers and maintain high 

infiltration rates, and in some cases, to disrupt insect life 

cycles. As a clogging layer develops during a wetting 

cycle, infiltration rates can decrease to unacceptable 

rates. The drying cycle allows for the desiccation of the 

clogging layer and the recovery of infiltration rates during 

the next wetting cycle. Operating conditions are dependent on a number of environmental factors including temperature, precipitation and solar incidence. Therefore, 

operating conditions must be adjusted to both local site 

characteristics and weather patterns. 

2.5.1.3 Vadose Zone Injection 

Vadose zone injection wells for groundwater recharge with 

reclaimed water were developed in the 1990s and have 

been used in several different cities in the Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan area. Typical vadose zone injection 

wells are 6 feet (2 meters) in diameter and 100 to 150 

feet (30 to 46 meters) deep. They are backfilled with porous media and a riser pipe is used to allow for water to 

enter at the bottom of the injection well to prevent air 

entrainment. An advantage of vadose zone injection wells 

is the significant cost savings as compared to direct injection wells. The infiltration rates per well are often similar to direct injection wells. A significant disadvantage is 

that they cannot be backwashed and a severely clogged 

well can be permanently destroyed. Therefore, reliable 

pretreatment is considered essential to maintaining the 

performance of a vadose zone injection well. Because of 

the considerable cost savings associated with vadose 

37
zone injection wells as compared to direct injection wells, 

a life cycle of 5 years for a vadose injection well can still 

make the vadose zone injection well the economical 

choice. Since vadose zone injection wells allow for percolation of water through the vadose zone and flow in the 

saturated zone, one would expect water quality improvements commonly associated with soil aquifer treatment 

to be possible. 

2.5.1.4 Direct Injection 

Direct injection involves pumping reclaimed water directly 

into the groundwater zone, which is usually a well-confined aquifer. Direct injection is used where groundwater 

is deep or where hydrogeological conditions are not conducive to surface spreading. Such conditions might include unsuitable soils of low permeability, unfavorable 

topography for construction of basins, the desire to recharge confined aquifers, or scarcity of land. Direct injection into a saline aquifer can create a freshwater “plume” 

from which water can be extracted for reuse, particularly 

in ASR systems (Pyne, 1995). Direct injection is also an 

effective method for creating barriers against saltwater 

intrusion in coastal areas. 

Direct injection requires water of higher quality than for 

surface spreading because of the absence of vadose 

zone and/or shallow soil matrix treatment afforded by 

surface spreading and the need to maintain the hydraulic capacity of the injection wells, which are prone to physical, biological, and chemical clogging. Treatment processes beyond secondary treatment that are used prior 

to injection include disinfection, filtration, air stripping, 

ion exchange, granular activated carbon, and reverse 

osmosis or other membrane separation processes. By 

using these processes or various subsets in appropriate 

combinations, it is possible to satisfy present water quality 

requirements for reuse. In many cases, the wells used 

for injection and recovery are classified by the EPA as 

Class V injection wells. Some states require that the injected water must meet drinking water standards prior to 

injection into a Class V well. 

For both surface spreading and direct injection, locating 

the extraction wells as great a distance as possible from 

the recharge site increases the flow path length and residence time in the underground, as well as the mixing of 

the recharged water with the natural groundwater. Treatment of organic parameters does occur in the groundwater system with time, especially in aerobic or anoxic conditions (Gordon et al., 2002; Toze and Hanna, 2002). 

There have been several cases where direct injection 

systems with wells providing significant travel time have 

allowed for the passage of emerging pollutants of concern, such as NDMA and 1,4-dioxane into recovery 

wells. In these cases, the final pretreatment step was 

reverse osmosis. Since reverse osmosis effectively removes almost all nutrients, improvements in water quality by microbial activity might be limited in aquifers that 

receive reverse osmosis treated water. These emerging pollutants of concern have not been observed in soil 

aquifer treatment systems using spreading basins where 

microbial activity in the subsurface is stimulated. 

Ideally, an injection well will recharge water at the same 

rate as it can yield water by pumping. However, conditions are rarely ideal. Injection/withdrawal rates tend to 

decrease over time. Although clogging can easily be remedied in a surface spreading system by scraping, discing, 

drying and other methods, remediation in a direct injection system can be costly and time consuming. The most 

frequent causes of clogging are accumulation of organic 

and inorganic solids, biological and chemical contaminants, and dissolved air and gases from turbulence. Very 

low concentrations of suspended solids, on the order of 1 

mg/l, can clog an injection well. Even low concentrations 

of organic contaminants can cause clogging due to bacteriological growth near the point of injection. 

Many criteria specific to the quality of the reclaimed water, groundwater, and aquifer material have to be taken 

into consideration prior to construction and operation. 

These include possible chemical reactions between the 

reclaimed water and groundwater, iron precipitation, ionic 

reactions, biochemical changes, temperature differences, 

and viscosity changes. Most clogging problems are 

avoided by proper pretreatment, well construction, and 

proper operation (Stuyzand, 2002). Injection well design 

and operations should consider the need to occasionally 

reverse the flow or backflush the well much like a conventional filter or membrane. In California and Arizona, injection wells are being constructed or retrofitted with dedicated pumping or backflushing equipment to maintain 

injection capacity and reduce the frequency of major well 

redevelopment events. 

2.5.2 Fate of Contaminants in Recharge

Systems 

The fate of contaminants is an important consideration 

for groundwater recharge systems using reclaimed water. Contaminants in the subsurface environment are 

subject to processes such as biodegradation by microorganisms, adsorption and subsequent biodegradation, 

filtration, ion exchange, volatilization, dilution, chemical 

oxidation and reduction, chemical precipitation and complex formation, and photochemical reactions (in spreading basins) (Fox, 2002; Medema and Stuyzand, 2002). 

For surface spreading operations, chemical and micro38
biological constituents are removed in the top 6 feet (2 

meters) of the vadose zone at the spreading site. 

2.5.2.1 Particulate Matter 

Particles larger than the soil pores are strained off at the 

soil-water interface. Particulate matter, including some 

bacteria, is removed by sedimentation in the pore spaces 

of the media during filtration. Viruses are mainly removed 

by adsorption and interaction with anaerobic bacteria 

(Gordon et al., 2002). The accumulated particles gradually form a layer restricting further infiltration. Suspended 

solids that are not retained at the soil/water interface 

may be effectively removed by infiltration and adsorption in the soil profile. As water flows through passages 

formed by the soil particles, suspended and colloidal solids 

far too small to be retained by straining are thrown off the 

streamline through hydrodynamic actions, diffusion, impingement, and sedimentation. The particles are then 

intercepted and adsorbed onto the surface of the stationary soil matrix. The degree of trapping and adsorption of 

suspended particles by soils is a function of the suspended solids concentration, soil characteristics, and 

hydraulic loading. Suspended solids removal is enhanced 

by longer travel distances underground. 

For dissolved inorganic constituents to be removed or 

retained in the soil, physical, chemical, or microbiological reactions are required to precipitate and/or immobilize the dissolved constituents. Chemical reactions that 

are important to a soil’s capability to react with dissolved 

inorganics include cation exchange reactions, precipitation, surface adsorption, chelation, complexation, and 

weathering (dissolution) of clay minerals. 

While inorganic constituents such as chloride, sodium, 

and sulfate are unaffected by ground passage, many 

other inorganic constituents exhibit substantial removal. 

For example, iron and phosphorus removal in excess of 

90 percent has been achieved by precipitation and adsorption in the underground, although the ability of the 

soil to remove these and other constituents may decrease 

over time. Heavy metal removal varies widely for different elements, ranging from 0 to more than 90 percent, 

depending on the speciation of the influent metals. 

2.5.2.2 Dissolved Organic Constituents 

Dissolved organic constituents are subject to biodegradation and adsorption during recharge. Biodegradation 

mainly occurs by microorganisms attached to the media surface (Skjemstad et al., 2002). The rate and extent 

of biodegradation is strongly influenced by the nature of 

the organic substances and by the presence of electron 

acceptors such as dissolved oxygen and nitrate. There 

are indications that biodegradation is enhanced if the 

aquifer material is finely divided and has a high specific 

surface area, such as fine sand or silt. However, such 

conditions can lead to clogging by bacterial growths. 

Coarser aquifer materials such as gravel and some sands 

have greater permeability and, thus, less clogging. However, biodegradation may be less rapid and perhaps less 

extensive. The biodegradation of easily degradable organics occurs a short distance (few meters) from the 

point of recharge. A large body of literature shows that 

biodegradable compounds do not survive long in anoxic 

or aerobic groundwater and only chemical compounds 

that have high solubility and extensive half-lives are of 

great concern (i.e. chlorinated solvents). Specific groups 

of compounds also require longer times due to their complex biodegradation pathways; however, the product water from SAT may be compared to membrane processed 

water since select groups of compounds may persist in 

both cases (Drewes et al., 2003). 

The end products of complete degradation under aerobic 

conditions include carbon dioxide, sulfate, nitrate, phosphate, and water. The end products under anaerobic conditions include carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfide, and 

methane. The mechanisms operating on refractory organic constituents over long time periods typical of groundwater environments are not well understood. However, 

sustainable removal has been observed over significant 

time periods demonstrating that biodegradation is the 

major removal mechanism since accumulation of organic 

carbon in the sub-surface is not observed (AWWARF, 

2001). The degradation of organic contaminants may be 

partial and result in a residual organic product that cannot be further degraded at an appreciable rate (Khan and 

Rorije, 2002), and such metabolites are often difficult to 

identify and detect (Drewes et al., 2001). 

Results were presented in a 2001 AWWARF study entitled, “An Investigation of Soil Aquifer Treatment for 

Sustainable Water Reuse.” This investigation demonstrated the potential removal ability of an entire SAT 

system where travel times are expected to be on the 

order of 6 months or greater before water is recovered. 

Since most trace organic compounds are present at concentrations that cannot directly support microbial growth, 

the sustainable removal mechanism for these compounds 

is co-metabolic. The microbes catalyze the mineralization of the organic compounds, but the microorganisms 

do not get enough energy from the trace organic compounds to support growth. In the study, the majority of 

compounds analyzed were below detection limits after 6 

months of travel time in the sub-surface. Therefore, it 

appears that significant time in the sub-surface is required in a microbially active aquifer to efficiently remove 

trace organics that are potentially biodegradable by co39
metabolism. One would expect similar results for aerobic or anoxic (nitrate-reducing) aquifers. But results are 

not conclusive for anaerobic aquifers. Several pharmaceutical compounds do appear to be recalcitrant in a 

microbially active aquifer at concentrations in the part 

per trillion range. A bench scale study of an unconfined 

aquifer irrigated with reclaimed water found antipyrine 

moved rapidly through the soil, while caffeine was subject to adsorption and microbial degradation (Babcock et 

al., 2002). 

Endocrine-disrupting activity has also been evaluated 

during soil aquifer treatment and results consistently 

suggest that soil aquifer treatment rapidly reduces endocrine-disrupting activity to ambient levels (Turney et al., 

In Press). Since the majority of compounds that are suspected to cause endocrine disruption are either strongly 

adsorbed or biodegradable, the results are consistent with 

microbial activity providing sustainable removal of organics during soil aquifer treatment. 

2.5.2.3 Nitrogen 

The 2 major forms of nitrogen in reclaimed water are typically ammonia and nitrate. As reported by AWWARF 

(2001), the concentrations and forms of nitrogen in applied effluents are a strong function of effluent pretreatment. Secondary effluents contained ammonia nitrogen 

at concentrations up to 20 mg-N/l while denitrified effluents contained primarily nitrate nitrogen at concentrations less than 10 mg-N/l. Ammonia nitrogen is the major form of oxygen demand in secondary effluents that 

are not nitrified. 

Nitrogen can be efficiently removed during effluent pretreatment; however, appropriately operated SAT systems have the capacity to remove nitrogen in secondary effluents. The removal of nitrogen appears to be a 

sustainable, biologically mediated process. When ammonia is present in reclaimed water, the ammonia is 

removed by adsorption during wetting when insufficient 

oxygen is available to support nitrification. Nitrification 

of adsorbed ammonia occurs during subsequent drying 

cycles as re-aeration of vadose zone soils occurs. Nitrate is weakly adsorbed and is transported with bulk water 

flow during SAT. Removal of nitrate was consistently 

observed at all sites where anoxic or anaerobic conditions were present (AWWARF, 2001). The biological removal mechanism for denitrification was found to be site 

specific. 

The 2001 AWWARF study entitled, “An Investigation of 

Soil Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse.” 

investigated the mechanism of anaerobic ammonia oxidation (ANAMMOX) as a sustainable mechanism for nitrogen removal. During SAT, it is possible for adsorbed 

ammonia to serve as an electron donor to convert nitrate to nitrogen gas by ANAMMOX. Evidence for 

ANAMMOX activity was obtained in soils obtained from 

the Tucson site. Since adsorbed ammonia is available 

for nitrification when oxygen reaches soils containing 

adsorbed ammonia, ANAMMOX activity could occur as 

nitrate percolates through soils containing adsorbed ammonia under anoxic conditions. This implies that there is 

a sustainable mechanism for nitrogen removal during SAT 

when effluent pretreatment does not include nitrogen removal and the majority of applied nitrogen is ammonia. 

Appropriate wetting/drying cycles are necessary to promote nitrification in the upper vadose zone during drying 

cycles. The more mobile nitrate passes over soils with 

adsorbed ammonia under anoxic conditions deeper in the 

vadose zone. Extended wetting cycles with short dry 

cycles will result in ammonia adsorbed at increasing 

depths as adsorption sites become exhausted. Extended 

drying cycles will result in reaeration of soils at greater 

depths resulting in nitrification of adsorbed ammonia at 

greater depths. A mechanistic model was developed to 

provide guidelines for the operation of soil aquifer treatment systems to sustain nitrogen removal (Fox, 2003). 

2.5.2.4 Microorganisms 

The survival or retention of pathogenic microorganisms 

in the subsurface depends on several factors including 

climate, soil composition, antagonism by soil microflora, 

flow rate, and type of microorganism. At low temperatures (below 4 °C or 39 °F) some microorganisms can 

survive for months or years. The die-off rate is approximately doubled with each 10 °C (18 oF) rise in temperature between 5 and 30 °C (41 and 86 °F) (Gerba and 

Goyal, 1985). Rainfall may mobilize bacteria and viruses 

that had been filtered or adsorbed, and thus, enhance 

their transport. 

The nature of the soil affects survival and retention. For 

example, rapid infiltration sites where viruses have been 

detected in groundwater were located on coarse sand 

and gravel types. Infiltration rates at these sites were 

high and the ability of the soil to adsorb the viruses was 

low. Generally, coarse soil does not inhibit virus migration. Other soil properties, such as pH, cation concentration, moisture holding capacity, and organic matter do 

have an affect on the survival of bacteria and viruses in 

the soil. Resistance of microorganisms to environmental 

factors depends on the species and strains present. 

Drying the soil will kill both bacteria and viruses. Bacteria survive longer in alkaline soils than in acid soils (pH 3 

to 5) and when large amounts of organic matter are 

present. In general, increasing cation concentration and 

40
decreasing pH and soluble organics tend to promote virus adsorption. Bacteria and larger organisms associated with wastewater are effectively removed after percolation through a short distance of the soil mantle. Lysimeter studies showed a greater than 99 percent removal 

of bacteria and 95 to 99 percent removal of viruses (Cuyk 

et al., 1999). Factors that may influence virus movement 

in groundwater are given in Table 2-10. Proper treatment 

(including disinfection) prior to recharge, site selection, 

and management of the surface spreading recharge system can minimize or eliminate the presence of microorganisms in the groundwater. Once the microorganisms 

reach the groundwater system, the oxidation state of the 

water significantly affects the rate of removal (Medema 

and Stuyfzand, 2002; Gordon et al., 2002). 

2.5.3 Health and Regulatory

Considerations 

Constraints on groundwater recharge are conditioned by 

the use of the extracted water and include health concerns, economic feasibility, physical limitations, legal 

restrictions, water quality constraints, and reclaimed water 

availability. Of these constraints, health concerns are 

the most important as they pervade almost all recharge 

projects (Tsuchihashi et al., 2002). Where reclaimed water will be ingested, health effects due to prolonged exposure to low levels of contaminants must be considered as well as the acute health effects from pathogens 

or toxic substances. [See Section 3.4.1 Health Assessment of Water Reuse and Section 2.6 Augmentation of 

Potable Supplies.] 

One problem with recharge is that boundaries between 

potable and nonpotable aquifers are rarely well defined. 

Some risk of contaminating high quality potable groundwater supplies is often incurred by recharging “nonpotable” 

aquifers. The recognized lack of knowledge about the 

fate and long-term health effects of contaminants found 

in reclaimed water obliges a conservative approach in 

setting water quality standards and monitoring requirements for groundwater recharge. Because of these uncertainties, some states have set stringent water quality 

requirements and require high levels of treatment – in 

some cases, organic removal processes – where groundwater recharge impacts potable aquifers. 

2.6 Augmentation of Potable Supplies 

This section discusses indirect potable reuse via surface water augmentation, groundwater recharge, and direct potable reuse. For the purpose of this document, 

indirect potable reuse is defined as the augmentation of 

a community’s raw water supply with treated wastewater 

followed by an environmental buffer (Crook, 2001). The 

treated wastewater is mixed with surface and/or groundwater, and the mix typically receives additional treatment 

before entering the water distribution system. Direct potable reuse is defined as the introduction of treated wastewater directly into a water distribution system without 

intervening storage (pipe-to-pipe) (Crook, 2001). Both such 

sources of potable water are, at face value, less desirable than using a higher quality source for drinking. 

Table 2-10. Factors that May Influence Virus Movement to Groundwater 

Factor Comments 

Soil Type Fine-textured soils retain viruses more effectively than light-textured soils. Iron oxides increase the 

adsorptive capacity of soils. Muck soils are generally poor adsorbents. 

pH Generally, adsorption increases when pH decreases. However, the reported trends are not clearcut due to complicating factors. 

Cations Adsorption increases in the presence of cations. Cations help reduce repulsive forces on both virus 

and soil particles. Rainwater may desorb viruses from soil due to its low conductivity. 

Generally compete with viruses for adsorption sites. No significant competition at concentrations 

Soluble Organics found in wastewater effluents. Humic and fulvic acids reduce virus 

adsorption to soils. 

Virus Type Adsorption to soils varies with virus type and strain. Viruses may have different isoelectric points. 

Flow Rate The higher the flow rate, the lower virus adsorption to soils. 

Saturated vs. Unsaturated Flow Virus movement is less under unsaturated flow conditions. 

Source: Gerba and Goyal, 1985. 

41 
A guiding principle in the development of potable water 

supplies for almost 150 years was stated in the 1962 

Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards: 

“. . . water supply should be taken from the most desirable source which is feasible, and efforts should be made 

to prevent or control pollution of the source.” This was 

affirmed by the EPA (1976) in its Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations: “ . . priority should be given to selection of 

the purest source. Polluted sources should not be used 

unless other sources are economically unavailable. . . “ 

2.6.1 Water Quality Objectives for Potable 

Reuse 

Development of water quality requirements for either direct or indirect potable reuse is difficult. The task involves a risk management process that entails evaluating, enumerating, and defining the risks and potential 

adverse health impacts that are avoided by the practice 

of physically separating wastewater disposal and domestic water supply. By physically separating wastewater disposal and domestic water supply by environmental storage, the life cycle of waterborne diseases 

can be broken, thereby preventing or reducing disease 

in the human population. As the physical proximity and 

perceived distance between reclaimed water and domestic water supply decreases, human contact with and 

consumption of reclaimed water become more certain, 

and the potential impacts to human health become 

harder to define. 

From a regulatory standpoint, there is a tendency to use 

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) as a starting point 

for defining potable water quality objectives. For years, 

water reuse advocates have argued that reclaimed water 

from municipal wastewater meets the requirements of 

the NPDWR. However, the original purpose of the NPDWR 

was not intended to define potable water quality when 

the source is municipal wastewater. 

There has been a dramatic increase in the ability to detect chemicals in recent years. Considering the hundreds 

of thousands of chemicals manufactured or used in the 

manufacturing of products, the number of chemicals regulated by the SDWA represent a small fraction of these 

compounds. The 1986 SDWA amendments required EPA 

to promulgate 25 new maximum contaminant levels 

(MCLs), or drinking water treatment requirements, for 

specific contaminants every 3 years (Calabrese et al. 

1989). However, the 1996 SDWA amendments reduced 

that number by requiring the agency to “consider” regulating up to 5 contaminants every 5 years. Figure 2-8 

shows the potential impact to the number of regulated 

compounds under the NPDWR as outlined by the 1986 

and 1996 SDWA amendments. 

MCLs are thought of as standards for individual chemicals. However, contaminants can be regulated by specifying treatment processes and performance standards 

without directly measuring the contaminant. Because of 

the sheer numbers of potential chemicals, traditional 

wastewater treatment processes are not the panacea 

for all potable water quality concerns, particularly since 

current analytical methods are insufficient to identify all 

potential contaminants at concentrations of health significance. If the analytical method does not have sufficient sensitivity, then the presence of contaminants may 

go unobserved. Water reuse agencies in California observed problems with specific chemicals and trace organics being discharged to wastewater treatment plants. 

These elements were detected in the final effluents, only 

after analytical detection limits were lowered. 

Additional concerns have been raised regarding the fate 

and transport of trace organic compounds (Daughton and 

Temes 1999 and Sedlak et al., 2000). These include endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals, hormones, antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, and personal care products 

(antibacterial soaps, sunscreen, bath gels, etc.) that are 

present in municipal wastewaters. None of these individual compounds are regulated or monitored by maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in the SDWA. 

Some indirect water reuse projects (San Diego and Denver) have started using toxicological assays to compare 

the drinking water source to the reclaimed water. While 

these studies have generally shown that the assay results show no difference between the reclaimed water 

and the source water used for domestic supply, there are 

concerns that current toxicological methods are not sensitive enough to characterize the impact of reclaimed water 

on human health in the 10-4 and 10-6 risk range. As part of 

the 1996 SDWA amendments, EPA is charged with developing an evaluation that considers the health impact 

of an identified contaminant to sensitive subpopulations. 

In 1996 and 1999, the Rand Corporation conducted epidemiological studies to monitor the health of those consuming reclaimed water in Los Angeles County (Sloss et 

al., 1996 and Sloss et al., 1999). The 1996 ecologic study 

design looked at selected infectious disease occurrence 

as well as cancer incidence and mortality. Investigators 

could find no link between the incidence of infectious 

disease or cancer rates and exposure to reclaimed water. The 1999 study focused on adverse birth outcomes 

(prenatal development, infant mortality, and birth defects). 

Similar results were reported for the 1999 study; there 

was no association between reclaimed water and adverse 

42
Figure 2-8. Contaminants Regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

birth outcomes. However, epidemiological studies are limited, and these studies are no exception. Researchers 

noted several weaknesses in their study design that contribute to the overall uncertainty associated with the findings. They found that it was difficult to get an accurate 

assessment of reclaimed water exposure in the different 

areas. 

In addition to the uncertainties associated with toxicological and epidemiological studies, current analytical 

systems are insensitive to the contaminants of concern. 

Surrogates are often used as performance-based standards. Microbiological water quality objectives are defined by surrogates or treatment performance standards 

that do not measure the contaminant of concern, but 

nevertheless, provide some indication the treatment train 

is operating properly, and the product is of adequate quality. It is then assumed that under similar conditions of 

operation, the microbiological contaminant of concern is 

being removed concurrently. For example, coliforms are 

an indicator of microbiological water quality. While there 

are documents discussing the criteria for an ideal surrogate (AWWARF and KIWA, 1988), no surrogate meets 

every criterion. Hence, the shortcomings of the surrogate should also be remembered. 

In 1998, the National Research Council (NRC) published, 

“Issues in Potable Reuse,” an update of its 1980 report. 

In this update, the NRC did not consider addressing direct potable reuse for the reason that, without added protection (such as storage in the environment), the NRC 

did not view direct potable reuse as a viable option. Rather 

than face the risks associated with direct, pipe-to-pipe 

potable reuse, the NRC emphasized that there are far 

more manageable, nonpotable reclaimed water applications that do not involve human consumption. The focus 

of health impacts shifts from the acute microbiologicallyinduced diseases, for nonpotable reuse, to the diseases 

resulting from long-term chronic exposure, e.g., cancer 

or reproductive effects, for potable reuse. 

While direct potable reuse may not be considered a viable option at this time, many states are moving forward with indirect potable reuse projects. For many cities or regions, the growing demand for water, lack of new 

water resources, and frequent calls for water conservation in low and consecutive low rainfall years have resulted in the need to augment potable supplies with reclaimed water. Indeed, in some situations, indirect potable reuse may be the next best alternative to make 

beneficial use of the resource. Further, the lack of infrastructure for direct nonpotable reuse may be too cumbersome to implement in a timely manner. 

With a combination of treatment barriers and added protection provided by environmental storage, the problem 

of defining water quality objectives for indirect potable 

reuse is manageable. By employing treatment beyond 

typical disinfected tertiary treatment, indirect potable 

reuse projects will provide additional organics removal 

and environmental storage (retention time) for the reclaimed water, thereby furnishing added protection 

against the unknowns and uncertainty associated with 

trace organics. However, these processes will be operated using performance standards based on surrogates 

that do not address specific contaminants. Until better 

43
source control and protection programs are in place to 

deal with the myriad of chemicals discharged into the 

wastewater collection systems, or until analytical and 

toxicological testing becomes more sensitive, the concern over low-level contaminant concentrations will remain. If and when contaminants are found, treatment 

technologies can be applied to reduce the problem. EPA 

(2001) has identified several drinking water treatment 

processes capable of removing some endocrine 

disruptors. Examples are granular activated carbon and 

membrane treatment. 

Potable reuse, whether direct or indirect, is not a riskfree practice. No human engineered endeavor is risk-free, 

but with appropriate treatment barriers (and process control) water quality objectives will be defined by an acceptable risk. Given the unknowns, limitations, and uncertainty with the current state of science and technology, it is not possible to establish the threshold at 

which no observed effect would occur, just as it is not 

reasonable to expect current scientific techniques to 

demonstrate the absence of an impact on human health. 

2.6.2 Surface Water Augmentation for

Indirect Potable Reuse 

For many years, a number of cities have elected to take 

water from large rivers that receive substantial wastewater discharges. These cities based their decisions, in 

part, on the assurance that conventional filtration and 

disinfection eliminates the pathogens responsible for 

waterborne infectious disease. These water sources were 

generally less costly and more easily developed than 

upland supplies or underground sources. Such large cities as Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and New Orleans, drawing water from the Delaware, Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, respectively, are thus practicing indirect potable water 

reuse. The many cities upstream of their intakes can be 

characterized as providing water reclamation in their 

wastewater treatment facilities, although they were not 

designed, nor are they operated, as potable water sources. 

NPDES permits for these discharges are intended to make 

the rivers “fishable and swimmable,” and generally do 

not reflect potable water requirements downstream. These 

indirect potable reuse systems originated at a time when 

the principal concern for drinking water quality was the 

prevention of enteric infectious diseases and issues relating to chemical contaminants received lesser attention. Nevertheless, most cities do provide water of acceptable quality that meets current drinking water regulations. Unplanned or incidental indirect potable reuse via 

surface water augmentation has been, and will continue 

to be, practiced widely. 

More recent indirect potable reuse projects that involve 

surface water augmentation are exemplified by the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority (UOSA) treatment facilities in northern Virginia, which discharge reclaimed 

water into Bull Run, just above Occoquan Reservoir, a 

water supply source for Fairfax County, Virginia. The 

UOSA plant, in operation since 1978, provides AWT that 

is more extensive than required treatment for nonpotable 

reuse and accordingly provides water of much higher 

quality for indirect potable reuse than is required for 

nonpotable reuse (Joint Task Force, 1998). In Clayton 

County, Georgia, wastewater receives secondary treatment, and then undergoes land treatment, with the return subsurface flow reaching a stream used as a source 

of potable water. The Clayton County project, which has 

been in operation for 20 years, is being upgraded to 

include wetlands treatment and enhancements at the 

water treatment plant (Thomas et al., 2002). 

While UOSA now provides a significant portion of the 

water in the system, varying from an average of about 7 

percent of the average annual flow to as much as 80-90 

percent during drought periods, most surface water augmentation indirect potable reuse projects have been driven 

by requirements for wastewater disposal and pollution 

control. Their contributions to increased public water supply were incidental. In a comprehensive, comparative 

study of the Occoquan and Clayton County projects, the 

water quality parameters assessed were primarily those 

germane to wastewater disposal and not to drinking water (Reed and Bastian, 1991). Most discharges that contribute to indirect potable water reuse, especially via rivers, are managed as wastewater disposal functions and 

are handled in conformity with practices common to all 

water pollution control efforts. The abstraction and use 

of reclaimed water is almost always the responsibility of 

a water supply agency that is not related politically, administratively, or even geographically to the wastewater 

disposal agency (except for being downstream). Increasing populations and a growing scarcity of new water 

sources have spurred a small but growing number of communities to consider the use of highly-treated municipal 

wastewater to augment raw water supplies. This trend 

toward planned, indirect potable reuse is motivated by 

need, but made possible through advances in treatment 

technology. These advances enable production of reclaimed water to almost any desired quality. Planned, 

indirect potable reuse via surface water augmentation 

and groundwater recharge is being practiced in the U.S. 

and elsewhere. Notwithstanding the fact that some proposed, high profile, indirect potable reuse projects have 

been defeated in recent years due to public or political 

opposition to perceived health concerns, indirect potable 

reuse will likely increase in the future. 

44
2.6.3 Groundwater Recharge for Indirect

Potable Reuse 

As mentioned in Section 2.5.1, Methods of Groundwater 

Recharge, groundwater recharge via surface spreading 

or injection has long been used to augment potable aquifers. Although both planned and unplanned recharge into 

potable aquifers has occurred for many years, few healthrelated studies have been undertaken. The most comprehensive health effects study of an existing groundwater 

recharge project was carried out in Los Angeles County, 

California, in response to uncertainties about the health 

consequences of recharge for potable use raised by a 

California Consulting Panel in 1975-76. 

In November 1978, the County Sanitation Districts of Los 

Angeles County (Districts) initiated the “Health Effects 

Study,” a $1.4-million-project designed to evaluate the 

health effects of using treated wastewater for groundwater recharge based on the recommendations of the 1976 

Consulting Panel. The focus of the study was the 

Montebello Forebay Groundwater Replenishment Project, 

located within the Central Groundwater Basin in Los Angeles County, California. Since 1962, the Districts’ reclaimed water has been blended with imported river water (Colorado River and State Project water) and local 

stormwater runoff, and used for replenishment purposes. 

The project is managed by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) and is operated by the 

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The 

Central Groundwater Basin is adjudicated; 85 groundwater agencies operate over 400 active wells. Water is percolated into the groundwater using 2 sets of spreading 

grounds: (1) the Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds consist 

of 570 acres (200 hectares) with 20 individual basins and 

(2) the San Gabriel River Spreading Grounds consist of

128 acres (52 hectares) with 3 individual basins and portions of the river. The spreading basins are operated under a wetting/drying cycle designed to optimize inflow 

and discourage the development of vectors. 

From 1962 to 1977, the water used for replenishment 

was disinfected secondary effluent. Filtration (dual-media or mono-media) was added later to enhance virus 

inactivation during final disinfection. By 1978, the amount 

of reclaimed water spread averaged about 8.6 billion gallons per year (33 x 103

 m3 per year) or 16 percent of the 

total inflow to the groundwater basin with no more than 

about 10.7 billion gallons (40 million m3) of reclaimed 

water spread in any year. The percentage of reclaimed 

water contained in the extracted potable water supply 

ranged from 0 to 11 percent on a long-term (1962-1977) 

basis (Crook et al., 1990). 

The primary goal of the Health Effects Study was to provide information for use by health and regulatory authorities to determine if the use of reclaimed water for 

the Montebello Forebay Project should be maintained 

at the present level, cut back, or expanded. Specific 

objectives were to determine if the historical level of 

reuse had adversely affected groundwater quality or 

human health, and to estimate the relative impact of the 

different replenishment sources on groundwater quality. Specific research tasks included: 

 Water quality characterizations of the replenishment 

sources and groundwater in terms of their microbiological and chemical content. 

 Toxicological and chemical studies of the replenishment sources and groundwater to isolate and 

identify organic constituents of possible health significance 

 Field studies to evaluate the efficacy of soil for attenuating chemicals in reclaimed water 

 Hydrogeologic studies to determine the movement 

of reclaimed water through groundwater and the relative contribution of reclaimed water to municipal water supplies 

 Epidemiologic studies of populations ingesting reclaimed water to determine whether their health characteristics differed significantly from a demographically similar control population 

During the course of the study, a technical advisory committee and a peer review committee reviewed findings 

and interpretations. The final project report was completed in March, 1984 as summarized by Nellor et al. in 

1985. The results of the study did not demonstrate any 

measurable adverse effects on either the area groundwater or health of the people ingesting the water. Although the study was not designed to provide data for 

evaluating the impact of an increase in the proportion of 

reclaimed water used for replenishment, the results did 

suggest that a closely monitored expansion could be 

implemented. 

In 1986, the State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Water Resources and Department of Health 

Services established a Scientific Advisory Panel on 

Groundwater Recharge to review the report and other 

pertinent information. The Panel concluded that it was 

comfortable with the safety of the product water and the 

continuation of the Montebello Forebay Project. The 

Panel felt that the risks, if any, were small and probably 

45
not dissimilar from those that could be hypothesized for 

commonly used surface waters. 

Based on the results of the Health Effects Study and 

recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Panel, the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board in 1987 authorized 

an increase in the annual quantity of reclaimed water to 

be used for replenishment from 32,700 acre-feet per year 

to 50,000 acre-feet per year (20,270 gpm to 31,000 gpm 

or 1,280 to 1,955 l/s). In 1991, water reclamation requirements for the project were revised to allow for recharge 

up to 60,000 acre-feet per year (37,200 gpm or 2,350 l/s) 

and 50 percent reclaimed water in any one year as long 

as the running 3-year total did not exceed 150,000 acrefeet per year (93,000 gpm or 5,870 l/s) or 35 percent 

reclaimed water. The average amount of reclaimed water 

spread each year is about 50,000 acre-feet per year 

(31,000 gpm or 1,955 l/s). Continued evaluation of the 

project is being provided by an extensive sampling and 

monitoring program, and by supplemental research 

projects pertaining to percolation effects, epidemiology, 

and microbiology. 

The Rand Corporation has conducted additional health 

studies for the project as part of an ongoing effort to 

monitor the health of those consuming reclaimed water 

in Los Angeles County (Sloss et al., 1996 and Sloss et. 

al., 1999). These studies looked at health outcomes for 

900,000 people in the Central Groundwater Basin who 

are receiving some reclaimed water in their household 

water supplies. These people account for more than 10 

percent of the population of Los Angeles County. To compare health characteristics, a control area of 700,000 

people that had similar demographic and socioeconomic 

characteristics was selected, but did not receive reclaimed water. The results from these studies have found 

that, after almost 30 years of groundwater recharge, there 

is no association between reclaimed water and higher 

rates of cancer, mortality, infectious disease, or adverse 

birth outcomes. 

The Districts, along with water and wastewater agencies 

and researchers in 3 western states, are currently conducting research to evaluate the biological, chemical, and 

physical treatment processes that occur naturally as the 

reclaimed water passes through the soil on the way to 

the groundwater. The SAT Project was developed to better understand the impact of SAT on water quality in terms 

of chemical and microbial pollutants (see Case Study 

2.7.16). This work will continue to address emerging issues such as the occurrence and significance of pharmaceutically active compounds (including endocrine 

disruptors and new disinfection byproducts) and standardized monitoring techniques capable of determining 

pathogen viability. The Groundwater Replenishment 

(GWR) System is an innovative approach to keeping the 

Orange County, California, groundwater basin a reliable 

source for meeting the region’s future potable water needs 

(Chalmers et al., 2003). A joint program of the Orange 

County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County 

Sanitation District (OCSD), the GWR System will protect the groundwater from further degradation due to seawater intrusion and supplement existing water supplies 

by providing a new, reliable, high-quality source of water 

to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin (see 

Case Study 2.7.15). 

2.6.4 Direct Potable Water Reuse 

Direct potable reuse is currently practiced in only one 

city in the world, Windhoek, Namibia. This city uses direct potable reuse on an intermittent basis only. In the 

U.S., the most extensive research focusing on direct 

potable reuse has been conducted in Denver, Colorado; 

Tampa, Florida; and San Diego, California. A considerable investment in potable reuse research has been made 

in Denver, Colorado, over a period of more than 20 years. 

This research included operation of a 1-mgd (44-l/s) reclamation plant in many different process modes over a 

period of about 10 years (Lauer, 1991). The product water was reported to be of better quality than many potable water sources in the region. The San Diego Total 

Resource Recovery Project was executed to demonstrate 

the feasibility of using natural systems for secondary treatment with subsequent advanced wastewater treatment 

to provide a water supply equivalent or better than the 

quality of imported water supplied to the region (WEF/ 

AWWA, 1988). Tables 2-11 and 2-12 show the advanced 

wastewater treatment effluent concentrations of minerals, metals, and trace organics for the San Diego Project. 

Microbial analysis performed over a 2.5-year period, 

showed that water quality of advanced wastewater treatment effluent was low in infectious agents. Specifically, 

research showed: 

 Spiking studies were conducted to determine the removal level of viruses. Results of 4 runs showed an 

overall virus removal rate through the primary, secondary, and advanced wastewater treatment plants 

of between 99.999 9 percent and 99.999 99 percent. 

Levels of removal were influenced by the number of 

viruses introduced. Viruses were not detected in more 

than 20.2 x 104 l of sample. 

 Enteric bacterial pathogens (that is, Salmonella, Shigella, and Campylobacter) were not detected in 51 

samples of advanced wastewater treatment effluent. 

 Protozoa and metazoa of various types were absent 

46 
in the advanced wastewater treatment effluent. Giardia lamblia were not recovered, and based on recovery rates of cysts from raw wastewater, removal 

rates were estimated to be 99.9 percent (WEF/ 

AWWA, 1998) 

The treatment train operated in San Diego, after secondary treatment, includes the following processes: 

 Coagulation with ferric chloride 

 Multimedia filtration 

 Ultraviolet disinfection 

 pH adjustment with sulfuric acid 

 Cartridge filter 

 Reverse osmosis 

Most of these unit processes are well understood. Their 

performance can be expected to be effective and reliable in large, well-managed plants. However, the heavy 

burden of sophisticated monitoring for trace contaminants 

that is required for potable reuse may be beyond the capacity of smaller enterprises. 

The implementation of direct, pipe-to-pipe, potable reuse 

is not likely to be adopted in the foreseeable future in the 

U.S. for several reasons:

 Many attitude (opinion) surveys show that the public 

will accept and endorse many types of nonpotable 

reuse while being reluctant to accept potable reuse. 

In general, public reluctance to support reuse inTable 2-11. Physical and Chemical Sampling Results from the San Diego Potable Reuse Study 

Constituents Number of 

Samples Units 

Minimum 

Detection 

Limit 

Number of 

Samples 

< MDL 

Arithmetic 

Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

90th 

Percentile 

General

 COD 611 mg/L 15 6 <15.0 44.8a 2.7

 pH 892 ⎯ na 892 8.2 0.2 ⎯

 SS 116 mg/L 1 68 1.6 3.5 5.6

 TOC 611 mg/L 1 85 <1.0 3.0a 1.1 

Anions

 Chloride 97 mg/L 4 96 33.93 31.39 81.1

 Fluoride 37 mg/L 0.13 13 <0.125 0.33a 0.241

 Ammonia 71 mg/L 0.1 69 1.26 2.04 2.92

 Nitrite 37 mg/L 0.01 13 <0.01 0.05a 0.03

 Nitrate 91 mg/L 0.05 91 1.81 1.21 5.77

 Phosphate 88 mg/L 1 28 <1.00 2.70a 2.2 

Silicate 39 mg/L 0.2 39 1.2 0.42 1.83

 Sulfate 96 mg/L 0.1 96 6.45 5.72 14.6 

Cations

 Boron 24 mg/L 0.1 24 0.24 0.085 0.368

 Calcium 21 mg/L 1 16 3.817 12.262 3.87

 Iron 21 mg/L 0.01 20 0.054 0.077 0.135

 Magnesium 21 mg/L 0.5 16 1.127 6.706 7.89

 Manganese 21 mg/L 0.008 18 0.011 0.041 0.042

 Potassium 21 mg/L 0.5 14 0.608 2.599 3.42

 Sodium 21 mg/L 1 20 16.999 15.072 54.2

 Zinc 20 mg/L 0.005 15 0.009 0.008 0.02 

a Analysis gave negative result for mean. 

Source: WEF/AWWA, 1998. 

47 
Table 2-12. San Diego Potable Reuse Study: Heavy Metals and Trace Organics Results 

Constituents Number of 

Samples Units 

Minimum 

Detection 

Limita 

Number of 

Samples 

> MDL 

Arithmetic 

Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Metals

 Arsenic 11 μg/L 1 5 <1 8b

 Cadmium 10 μg/L 1 1 1 0.3

 Chromium 19 μg/L 1 10 2 3

 Copper 20 μg/L 6 18 18 20

 Lead 18 μg/L 1 15 3 7

 Mercury 8 μg/L 1 0 1 0c

 Nickel 20 μg/L 1.2 19 6 7

 Selenium 12 μg/L 6 2 4 3c

 Silver 16 μg/L 5 2 3 4 

Organics

 Bis (2-ethyl hexyl phthalate) 33 μg/L 2.5 6 <2.50 3.27b

 Benzyl/butyl phthalate 33 μg/L 2.5 1 2.5 0.02c

 Bromodichloromethane 33 μg/L 3.1 0 3.1 0.00c

 Chloroform 33 μg/L 1.6 0 1.6 0.00c

 Dibutyl phthalate 33 μg/L 2.5 1 2.64 0.78c

 Dimethylphenol 33 μg/L 2.7 0 2.7 0.00c

 Methyl chloride 33 μg/L 2.8 6 <2.80 7.91b

 Naphthalene 33 μg/L 1.6 0 1.6 0

 1,1,1 – Trichloroethane 33 μg/L 3.8 0 3.8 0

 1,2 – Dichlorobenzene 33 μg/L 4.4 0 4.4 0

 4 - Nitrophenol 33 μg/L 2.4 0 2.4 0

 Pentachlorophenol 33 μg/L 3.6 0 3.6 0

 Phenol 33 μg/L 1.5 0 1.5 0 

a

 <MDL was taken to be equal to MDL.

b Analysis gave negative result for mean.

c

 Statistics were calculated using conventional formulas.

Source: WEF/AWWA, 1998. 

creases as the degree of human contact with reclaimed water increases. Further, public issues have 

been raised relevant to potential health impacts which 

may be present in reclaimed water. 

 Indirect potable reuse is more acceptable to the public than direct potable reuse, because the water is 

perceived to be “laundered” as it moves through a 

river, lake, or aquifer (i.e. the Montebello Forebay 

and El Paso projects). Indirect reuse, by virtue of 

the residence time in the watercourse, reservoir or 

aquifer, often provides additional treatment. Indirect 

reuse offers an opportunity for monitoring the quality 

and taking appropriate measures before the water is 

abstracted for distribution. In some instances, however, water quality may actually be degraded as it 

passes through the environment. 

 Direct potable reuse will seldom be necessary. Only 

a small portion of the water used in a community 

needs to be of potable quality. While high quality 

sources will often be inadequate to serve all urban 

needs in the future, the use of reclaimed water to 

replace potable quality water for nonpotable purposes will release more high quality potable water 

for future use. 

2.7 Case Studies 

The following case studies are organized by category 

of reuse applications: 

48
Urban Sections 2.7.1

 through 2.7.6

Industrial Sections 2.7.7

 through 2.7.8

Agricultural Sections 2.7.9

through 2.7.12

Environmental 

and Recreational Section 2.7.13 

Groundwater Recharge Section 2.7.14

through 2.7.16

Augmentation of Potable 

Supplies Section 2.7.17 

Miscellaneous Section 2.7.18

through 2.7.19

2.7.1 Water Reuse at Reedy Creek

Improvement District 

Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) provides municipal services to the Walt Disney World Resort Complex, located in Central Florida. In 1989, RCID faced a 

challenge of halting inconsistent water quality discharges 

from its wetland treatment system. The solution was a 

twofold approach: (1) land was purchased for the construction of rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) and (2) plans 

were drafted for the construction of a reuse distribution 

system. The RIBs were completed in 1990. Subsequently, all surface water discharges ceased. The RIBs 

recharge the groundwater via percolation of applied effluent to surficial sands and sandy clays. Eighty–five 1­

acre basins were built and operate on a 6 to 8 week rotational cycle. Typically, 10 or 11 basins are in active service for a 1-week period; while the remaining basins are 

inactive and undergo maintenance by discing of the bottom sands. Initially, the RIBs served as the primary 

mechanism for reuse and effluent disposal, receiving 100 

percent of the effluent. But the trend has completely reversed in recent years, and the RIBs serve primarily as 

a means of wet-weather recharge or disposal of sub-standard quality water. The majority of the effluent is used 

for public access reuse. In the past 3 years, over 60 

percent of the effluent volume was used for public access reuse. 

Initially, the reclaimed water distribution system served 

5 golf courses and provided some landscape irrigation 

within RCID. In the past 10 years, the extent and diversity of uses has grown and now includes washdown of 

impervious surfaces, construction (such as concrete 

mixing and cleanup), cooling tower make up, fire fighting 

(suppression and protection), irrigation of all types of vegetation and landscaping, and all of the nonpotable needs 

for clean water within the treatment facility. 

All product water bound for the reuse system is metered. 

There is a master meter at the master pumping station, 

and all customers are metered individually at the point of 

service. Rates are typically set at 75 to 80 percent of the 

potable water rate to encourage connection and use. 

Rates are based on volumetric consumption to discourage wasteful practices. New customers are required by 

tariff to connect to and use the reclaimed water system. 

If the system is not available, new customers are required to provide a single point of service to facilitate 

future connection. Existing customers using potable water for nonpotable purposes are included in a master plan 

for future conversion to reclaimed water. 

Demands for reclaimed water have sometimes exceeded 

supply capabilities, especially during the months of April 

and May, when rainfall is lowest and demand for irrigation 

is at its highest. RCID has a number of means at its 

disposal to counteract this shortfall. The primary means 

uses 2, formerly idle, potable water wells to supplement 

the reclaimed water systems during high demand. These 

wells can provide up to 5,000 gpm (315 l/s) of additional 

supply. A secondary means requests that major, selected 

customers return to their prior source of water. Two of 

the golf courses can return to surface waters for their 

needs and some of the cooling towers can be quickly 

converted to potable water use (and back again). 

Total water demand within RCID ranges from 18 to 25 

mgd (180 to 1,100 l/s) for potable and nonpotable uses. 

Reclaimed water utilization accounts for 25 to 30 percent 

of this demand. Over 6 mgd (260 l/s) is typically consumed on an average day and peak day demands have 

exceeded 12 mgd (525 l/s). Providing reclaimed water for 

nonpotable uses has enabled RCID to remain within its 

consumptive use permit limitations for groundwater withdrawal, despite significant growth within its boundaries. 

Reclaimed water has been a major resource in enabling 

RCID to meet water use restrictions imposed by the water management districts in alleviating recent drought 

impacts. Figure 2-9 is a stacked bar graph that shows 

the historical contribution reclaimed water has made to 

the total water resource picture at RCID. 

The continued growth of the RCID reclaimed water system is expected to play an ever-increasing and critical 

role in meeting its water resource needs. Because alternative sources of water (e.g., surface water, brackish 

water, and stormwater) are not easily and reliably available and are prohibitively costly to obtain, it makes eco49
Figure 2-9. Water Resources at RCID 

nomic sense for RCID to maximize its use of reclaimed 

water. 

2.7.2 Estimating Potable Water Conserved 

in Altamonte Springs due to Reuse 

It is taken for granted that implementing a reclaimed water 

system for urban irrigation will conserve potable water, 

but few efforts have been made to quantify the benefits. 

An analysis was performed to define the potential value 

of urban reuse for a moderately sized city, Altamonte 

Springs, Florida. Altamonte Springs began implementing 

its reclaimed water system in 1990. 

First, annual potable water-use data were analyzed to 

ascertain if a significant difference could be seen between periods before and after reuse. Figure 2-10 shows 

the historical potable water demands from 1977 to 2000, 

expressed as gallons of water used per capita per day. 

Figure 2-10 indicates a much greater potable water demand before reuse was implemented than after. In 1990, 

the demand dropped by about 20 gallons per capita-day 

(76 liters per capita-day) in just one year. 

Two differing methods were used to estimate the total 

potable water conserved through implementing a reclaimed water system. The first method, a linear extrapolation model (LEM), assumes that the rate of increasing 

water use per capita for 1990 to 2000 increases as it did 

from 1977 to 1989. Then, the amount conserved per year 

can be estimated by taking the difference in the potential 

value from the linear model and the actual potable water 

used. Figure 2-11 predicts the amount of potable water 

saved by implementing the reuse system from 1990 to 

2000. 

The other method used a more conservative, constant 

model (CCM). This model averages the gallons of potable water per capita-day from the years before reuse 

and assumes that the average is constant for the years 

after reuse. Figure 2-12 indicates this model’s estimate 

of potable water conserved. 

In the year 2000, the LEM model estimates that 102 gallons per capita-day (386 liters per capita-day) of potable 

water are saved. In the same year, the CCM method 

estimates a net savings of 69 gallons per capita-day. 

Figure 2-13 shows the comparison of the amount conserved using the 2 different methods. 

50
2.7.3 How Using Potable Supplies to

Supplement Reclaimed Water Flows 

can Increase Conservation, 

Hillsborough County, Florida 

Ensuring that an adequate source is available is one of 

the first steps in evaluating a potable water project. 

However, consideration of how many reclaimed water 

customers can be supplied by the flows from a water 

reclamation facility is seldom part of the reuse planning 

process. The problem with this approach has become 

apparent in recent years, as a number of large urban 

reuse systems have literally run out of water during peak 

reclaimed water demand times. 

In order to understand why this happens, it is important 

to understand the nature of demands for reclaimed water. 

Figure 2-14 illustrates expected seasonal reclaimed 

water demands for irrigation in southwest Florida. Every operator of a potable water system in this area expects demands to increase by 20 to 30 percent during 

April through June as customers use drinking water to 

meet peak season irrigation demands. For reclaimed 

water systems, which are dedicated to meeting urban 

irrigation demands, the peak season demands may increase by 50 to 100 percent of the average annual demand. It is, of course, the ability to meet these peak 

season demands that define the reliability of a utility system, including a reclaimed water system. 

How Augmentation Can Help 

While peak season demand is what limits the number of 

customers a utility can connect, it is also short lived, 

lasting between 60 to 90 days. Augmenting reclaimed 

water supplies during this time of peak demand can allow a municipality to increase the number of customers 

served with reclaimed water while preserving the reliability (level of service) of the system. To illustrate this point, 

consider the Hillsborough County South/Central reclaimed 

water system. Reclaimed water supplies from the 

Falkenburg, Valrico, and South County Water Reclamation Facilities (WRFs) are expected to be an annual average of 12.67 mgd (555 l/s) in 2002. However, to avoid 

shortfalls in the peak demand season, the County will 

need to limit connections to an average annual demand 

of 7.34 mgd (321 l/s) or less. The County presently has a 

waiting list of customers that would demand an annual 

average of approximately 10.69 mgd (468 l/s). What if 

augmentation water were used to allow the County to 

connect these customers instead of making these customers wait? Water balance calculations indicate that 

from July through March, there will be more than enough 

reclaimed water to meet expected demands. However, 

in April, May, and June, reclaimed water demands will 

exceed available supplies and customers will experience 

shortages. Using a temporary augmentation supply of 

water could offset these shortages during this 60 to 90 

day period. 

Figure 2-10. Altamonte Springs Annual Potable Water Demands per Capita 

51 
Figure 2-11. Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Best LEM Method 

Figure 2-12. Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using the CCM Method 

52
Figure 2-13. Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Both Method 

Figure 2-14. Estimated Raw Water Supply vs. Demand for the 2002 South/Central Service Area 

Figure 2-14 illustrates the expected seasonal supply 

curve for 2002. The bottom curve shows the expected 

demand for the limited case where the County does not 

augment its water supplies. The top curve indicates how 

the County can meet current demand by augmenting its 

reclaimed water supply during April through June. The 

limited reclaimed water system is constrained by peak 

seasonal demands (not exceeding supply) since customers expect year round service. For the system to meet 

all of the potential demands that have been identified, 

sufficient reclaimed water augmentation must be used 

to make up the differences in supply and demand. 

53
The obvious question that must be answered is, “Can 

using supplemental water actually conserve water resources?” The answer is yes, to a point. The existing, 

limited reuse system serves an average annual demand 

of 7.34 mgd (321 l/s), conserving an annual average of 

6.07 mgd (266 l/s) of potable water resources. This level

of conservation is based on the County’s experiences 

with reductions in potable water demand after reclaimed 

water becomes available. In order to provide service to 

the entire 10.69 mgd (468 l/s) reclaimed water demand, 

the County will need an average annual supply of supplemental water of 0.5 mgd (22 l/s). For the purposes of 

this analysis, it is assumed this supplemental water 

comes from the potable water system and so is subtracted from the “Annual Average Potable Water Conserved.” This 0.5 mgd potable water supplemental supply increases the total volume of water conserved from 

6.07 to 7.23 mgd (266 to 321 l/s). Therefore, 1.16 mgd

(51 l/s) more potable water is conserved by using supplemental water. Therefore, an investment of 0.5 mgd (22 l/ 

s) of supplemental water allows the County to save 1.16 

mgd (51 l/s) of potable water resources or, put another 

way, for each gallon (3.8 liters) of supplemental water 

used we realize a 2.32-gallon (8.8-liter) increase in water 

resources conserved. There are, of course, limitations 

to this practice. As more supplemental water is used, 

the amount of reclaimed water used (as a percentage of 

the total demand) decreases. Eventually, the supplemental water used will be equal to the water resources conserved. That is the break-even point. In this case potable water was used as the supplemental water, but in 

reality, other nonpotable supplies, such as raw groundwater, would likely be used. 

Short-term supplementation, such as that described 

above, is one of many tools that can be used by a reclaimed water provider to optimize its system. Utilities 

can also maximize their existing reclaimed water resources and increase efficiency by instituting Best Management Practices (BMPs). Examples of BMPs include 

individual metering, volume-based, water-conserving 

rate structures, planned interruption, peak season “interruptible service”, and time-of-day and day-of-week restrictions. When a reclaimed water provider is already 

experiencing either a long-term supply/demand imbalance 

or temporary drought effects, that provider should first 

use BMPs, before considering reclaimed water supplementation. Utilities should also investigate opportunities 

for enhanced reclaimed water storage capacity including 

innovative technological solutions, such as aquifer storage and recovery, and wet-weather discharge points that 

produce a net environmental benefit. Instituting BMPs 

and the other options mentioned can enable a reclaimed 

water utility to delay, lessen, or potentially eliminate the 

need for augmentation of their reclaimed water system 

during peak reclaimed water demand periods. 

2.7.4 Water Reclamation and Reuse Offer 

an Integrated Approach to 

Wastewater Treatment and Water 

Resources Issues in Phoenix, 

Arizona. 

The rapidly developing area of North Phoenix is placing 

ever-increasing demands on the city’s existing wastewater collection system, wastewater treatment plants, 

and potable water resources. As an integrated solution 

to these issues, water reclamation and reuse have become an important part of Phoenix Water Services 

Department’s operational strategy. 

Cave Creek Reclaimed Water Reclamation Plant 

(CCWRP), in northeast Phoenix, began operation in September 2001. The facility uses an activated sludge nitrification/denitrification process along with filtration and 

ultraviolet light disinfection to produce a tertiary-grade 

effluent that meets the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s A+ standards. CCWRP is currently able 

to treat 8 mgd (350 l/s) and has an expansion capacity of 

32 mgd (1,400 l/s). 

The Phoenix reclamation plant delivers reclaimed water 

through a nonpotable distribution system to golf courses, 

parks, schools, and cemeteries for irrigation purposes. 

The reclaimed water is sold to customers at 80 percent 

of the potable water rate. 

CCWRP’s sister facility, North Gateway Water Reclamation Plant (NGWRP), will serve the northwest portion of 

Phoenix. The design phase has been completed. The 

NGWRP will have an initial treatment capacity of 4 mgd 

(175 l/s) with an ultimate capacity of 32 mgd (1,400 l/s). 

The plant is modeled after the Cave Creek facility using 

the “don’t see it, don’t hear it, don’t smell it” design mantra. Construction will be preformed using the construction manager-at-risk delivery method. 

Phoenix is using geographic information system (GIS) 

technology to develop master plans for the buildout of 

the reclaimed water distribution system for both the Cave 

Creek and North Gateway reclamation plants. Through 

GIS, potential reclaimed water customers are easily 

identified. GIS also provides information useful for determining pipe routing, reservoir, and pump station locations. The goal is to interconnect the 2 facilities, thus 

building more reliability and flexibility into the system. 

The GIS model is dynamically linked to the water system, planning, and other important databases so that 

geospacial information is constantly kept up to date. A 

54
hydraulic model is being used in conjunction with the 

GIS model to optimize system operation. 

Irrigation demand in Phoenix varies dramatically with the 

seasons, so groundwater recharge and recovery is a key 

component of the water reuse program. Phoenix is currently exploring the use of vadose zone wells because 

they do not require much space and are relatively inexpensive to construct. This method also provides additional treatment to the water as it percolates into the 

aquifer. A pilot vadose zone well facility has been constructed at the NGWRP site to determine the efficacy of 

this technology. A vadose zone recharge facility along 

with a recovery well is being designed for the CCWRP 

site. 

Nonpotable reuse and groundwater recharge with high 

quality effluent play an important role in the City’s water 

resources and operating strategies. The North Phoenix 

Reclaimed Water System (Figure 2-15) integrates multiple objectives, such as minimizing the impact of development in the existing wastewater infrastructure by treating 

wastewater locally and providing a new water resource in 

a desert environment. By using state-of-the-art technology, such as GIS, Phoenix will be able to plan the buildout 

of the reclaimed water system to maximize its efficiency 

and minimize costs. 

2.7.5 Small and Growing Community:

Yelm, Washington 

The City of Yelm, Washington, a community of 3,500 

residents, is considered one of western Washington’s 

fastest growing cities. In response to a determination 

from Thurston County that the continued use of septic 

systems in the Yelm area posed a risk to public health, 

the City developed a sewage plan. The original plan was 

to treat and discharge wastewater to the Nisqually River. 

However, the headwaters of the Nisqually River begin in 

Mount Rainier National Park and end in a National Wildlife Refuge before discharging into the Puget Sound Estuary. The river supports 5 species of Pacific salmon— 

chinook, coho, pink, chum, and steelhead—as well as 

sea-run cutthroat trout. Based on a settlement agreement with local environmental groups, the City agreed to 

pursue upland reuse of their Class A reclaimed water 

with the goal of eliminating the Nisqually River as a wastewater discharge location to augment surface water bodies only during times when reclaimed water could not be 

used 100 percent upland. Reclaimed water also plays a 

very important role in water conservation as Yelm has 

limited water resources. 

The reclamation plant went on line in August of 1999 and 

currently reclaims and reuses approximately 230,000 gpd 

(871 m3

/d). The facility has a design capacity to reclaim 

up to 1.0 mgd (44 l/s). State standards require the use of 

treatment techniques for source control, oxidation, coagulation, filtration, and disinfection. Final reclaimed water requirements include a daily average turbidity of less 

than 2.0 NTU with no values above 5.0 NTU, total coliform 

less than 2.2 per 100 ml as a 7-day median value and 

total nitrogen below 10 mg/l. Major facility components 

include a septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) collection 

system, activated sludge biological treatment with nitrogen removal using Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) technology, flow equalization, an automated chemical feed 

system with in-line static mixers to coagulate remaining 

solids prior to filtration, a continuous backwash, upflow 

sand media filtration system, and chlorine disinfection. 

The facility also includes an on-line computer monitoring 

system. Process monitors provide continuous monitoring of flow, turbidity, and chlorine residual. Alarms provide warning when turbidity reaches 2.0 NTU, the flow to 

the filters shuts off at 3.0 NTU, and the intermediate 

pumps shut down at 3.5 NTU. Chlorine concentrations 

are set for an auto-dialer alarm if the flash mixer falls 

below 1.5 mg/l or if the final residual is below 0.75 mg/l. 

Only reclaimed water that meets the required standard is 

sent to upland use areas. 

Reclaimed water in Yelm is primarily used for seasonal 

urban landscape irrigation at local schools and churches, 

city parks, and a private residence along the distribution route. The true showcase of the Yelm project is 

Cochrane Memorial Park, an aesthetically pleasing 8­

acre city park featuring constructed surface and submerged wetlands designed to polish the reclaimed water 

prior to recharging groundwater. In the center of the park, 

a fishpond uses reclaimed water to raise and maintain 

stocked rainbow trout for catch and release. The City 

also uses reclaimed water for treatment plant equipment 

washdown and process water, fire fighting, street cleaning, and dust control. 

Although summers in western Washington are quite dry, 

during the winter rainy season there is not sufficient irrigation demand for reclaimed water. Excess water is sent 

to generate power in the Centralia Power Canal, a diversion from the Nisqually River. Based on state law, reclaimed water that meets both the reclamation standards 

and state and federal surface water quality requirements 

is “no longer considered a wastewater.” However, per their 

settlement agreement, Yelm is continuing to pursue the 

goal of 100 percent upland reuse via a program to add 

reclaimed water customers and uses. 

Yelm recently updated its Comprehensive Water Plan to 

emphasize an increased dependence on reclaimed water to replace potable water consumption to the greatest 

55
Figure 2-15. North Phoenix Reclaimed Water System

56
-- --

-- --

extent possible. The City is constructing storage capacity to provide collection of reclaimed water during nonpeak periods for distribution during periods of peak demand. This will allow more efficient use of reclaimed water 

and eliminate the need for potable make-up water. Yelm 

is planning to use reclaimed water for bus washing, concrete manufacturing, and additional irrigation purposes. 

Sources: Washington State Department of Ecology and 

City of Yelm, 2003. 

2.7.6 Landscape Uses of Reclaimed Water 

with Elevated Salinity:

 El Paso, Texas 

Because of declining reserves of fresh groundwater and 

an uncertain supply of surface water, the Public Service 

Board, the governing body of El Paso Water Utilities, 

has adopted a strategy to curtail irrigation use of potable 

water by substituting reclaimed municipal effluent. This 

strategy has been implemented in stages, starting with 

irrigation of a county-operated golf course using secondary effluent from the Haskell Plant, and a city-owned golf 

course with tertiary treated effluent from the Fred Hervey 

Plant. More recently, the reuse projects were expanded 

to use secondary effluent from the Northwest Plant to 

irrigate a private golf course, municipal parks, and school 

grounds (Ornelas and Brosman, 2002). Reclaimed water 

use from the Haskell Plant is also being expanded to 

include parks and school grounds. 

Salinity of reclaimed water ranges from 680 to 1200 ppm 

as total dissolved salts (TDS) depending on the plant 

(Table 2-13). Reclaimed water from the Hervey Plant has 

the lowest salinity (680 ppm), and a large portion of it is 

now being injected into an aquifer for recovery as potable water. Reclaimed water from the Haskell Plant and 

the Northwest plant have elevated levels of salinity, and 

are likely to be the principal reclaimed sources for irrigation from now into the near future. The cause of elevated 

salinity at the Northwest Plant is currently being investigated, and it appears to be related to intrusion of shallow 

saline groundwater into sewer collection systems located 

in the valley where high water tables prevail. 

Reuse of reclaimed water from the Hervey Plant on a 

golf course proceeded without any recognizable ill effects on turf or soil quality. This golf course is located 

on sandy soils developed to about 2 feet (60 cm) over a 

layer of caliche, which is mostly permeable. Broadleaf 

trees have experienced some foliar damage, but not to 

the extent of receiving frequent user complaints. This 

golf course uses low pressure, manual sprinklers, and 

plantings consist mostly of pines, which are spray resistant. Reuse of reclaimed water from the Northwest Plant, 

however, has caused severe foliar damage to a large 

number of broadleaf trees (Miyamoto and White, 2002). 

This damage has been more extensive than what was 

projected based on the total dissolved salts of 1200 ppm. 

However, this reclaimed water source has a Na concentration equal to or higher than saline reclaimed water 

sources in this part of the Southwest (Table 2-13). Foliar 

damage is caused primarily through direct salt adsorption through leaves. This damage can be minimized by 

reducing direct sprinkling onto the tree canopy. The use 

of low-trajectory nozzles or sprinklers was found to be 

Table 2-13. Average Discharge Rates and Quality of Municipal Reclaimed Effluent in El Paso and 

Other Area Communities 

El Paso

 Fred Hervey 10 150 

 Haskell 27 329 

 Northwest 17 194 

Alamogordo 1 

Odessa 2 

Treatm ent Plants 

Plant 

Capacity 

(m gd) 

Reuse 

Area 

(acres) TDS 

(ppm ) 

680 

980 

1200 

1800 

1650 

EC 

(dS m 1) SAR Na 

(ppm ) 

0.9 3.7 150 

1.6 7.3 250 

2.2 11.0 350 

2.7 2 310 

2.4 1.9 330 

Water Quality 

Cl 

(ppm ) 

180 

280 

325 

480 

520 

Calciorthid, Aridisols

Torrifluvent, Entisols

Paleorthid, Aridisols 

Camborthid, Aridisols 

Paleustal, Alfisols 

Soil Type 

1These water sources contain substantial quantities of Ca and SO4

. 2Reclaimed water quality of this source changes with season. 

Sources: Ornela and Brosman, 2002; Miyamoto and White, 2002; Ornelas and Miyamoto, 2003; and Miyamoto, 

2003. 

57 
effective through a test program funded by the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Ornelas and Miyamoto, 2003). This finding 

is now used to contain salt-induced foliar damage. 

Another problem associated with the conversion to reclaimed water has been the sporadic occurrence of salt 

spots on the turf in areas where drainage is poor. This 

problem has been contained through trenching and 

subsoiling. Soil salinization problems were also noted in 

municipal parks and school grounds that were irrigated 

with potable water in the valley where clayey soils prevail. This problem is projected to increase upon conversion to reclaimed water from the Haskell Plant unless 

salt leaching is improved. The Texas A&M Research Center at El Paso has developed a guideline for soil selection (Miyamoto, 2003), and El Paso City Parks, in cooperation with Texas A&M Research Center, are initiating 

a test program to determine cost-effective methods of 

enhancing salt leaching. Current indications are that increased soil aerification activities, coupled with 

topdressing with sand, may prove to be an effective 

measure. If the current projection holds, reuse projects 

in El Paso are likely to achieve the primary goal, while 

demonstrating that reclaimed water with high Na and Cl 

concentrations (greater than 359 ppm) can be used effectively even in highly diverse soil conditions through 

site improvements and modified management practices. 

2.7.7 Use of Reclaimed Water in a Fabric 

Dyeing Industry 

The Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) 

reclaimed water system began operation in 1992 and 

currently serves approximately 3,700 acre-feet per year 

(2,300 gpm) for a variety of irrigation, commercial, and 

industrial uses. Industrial customers include the successful conversion of Tuftex Carpets in Santa Fe Springs, 

which was the first application in California of reclaimed 

water used for carpet dyeing. A significant benefit to using reclaimed water is the consistency of water quality. 

This reduces the adjustments required by the dye house 

that had previously been needed due to varying sources 

of water (e.g. Colorado River, State Water Project, or 

groundwater). Since completion of the initial system, 

CBMWD has continued to explore expansion possibilities, looking at innovative uses of reclaimed water. 

The fabric dyeing industry represents a significant potential for increased reclaimed water use in CBMWD and 

in the neighboring West Basin Municipal Water District 

(WBMWD). More than 15 dye houses are located within 

the 2 Districts, with a potential demand estimated to be 

greater than 4,000 acre-feet per year (2,500 gpm). A national search of reclaimed water uses did not identify 

any existing use of tertiary treated wastewater in fabric 

dyeing. 

General Dye and Finishing (General Dye) is a fabric dyeing facility located in Santa Fe Springs, California. This 

facility uses between 400 and 500 acre-feet per year (250 

to 310 gpm) of water, primarily in their dye process and 

for boiler feed. CBMWD is working with the plant manager to convert the facility from domestic potable water 

to reclaimed water for these industrial purposes. 

A 1-day pilot test was conducted on October 15, 2002 

using reclaimed water in one of the 12 large dye machines used at the facility. A temporary connection was 

made directly to the dye machine fill line using a 1-inch 

hose from an air release valve on the CBMWD reclaimed 

water system. General Dye conducted 2 tests with the 

reclaimed water, using reactive dye with a polycotton 

blend and using dispersed dye with a 100-percent polyester fabric. 

Both test loads used about 800 pounds of fabric with 

blue dyes. The identical means and methods of the dyeing process typically employed by General Dye with domestic water were also followed using reclaimed water. 

General Dye did not notice any difference in the dyeing 

process or quality of the end product using the reclaimed 

water versus domestic water. 

A 1-week demonstration test was conducted between 

November 20 and November 27, 2002, based on the 

successful results of the 1-day pilot test. A large variety 

of colors were used during the demonstration test. No 

other parameters were changed. Everything was done 

exactly the same with the reclaimed water that would 

have been done with the domestic water. As with the 

pilot test, the results indicated that reclaimed water can 

successfully be used in the fabric dyeing process, resulting in plans for a full conversion of the General Dye 

facility to reclaimed water for all process water needs. 

2.7.8 Survey of Power Plants Using

Reclaimed Water for Cooling Water 

A wide variety of power facilities throughout the U.S. were 

contacted and asked to report on their experience with 

the use of treated wastewater effluent as cooling water. 

Table 2-14 presents a tabulation of data obtained from 

contacts with various power facilities and related wastewater treatment plants that supply them with effluent 

water. Table 2-14 also provides a general summary of 

the treatment process for each WWTP and identifies treatment performed at the power plant. 

58
Table 2-14. Treatment Processes for Power Plant Cooling Water 

Pow er Facility & Location Average Cooling Water 

Supply & Return Flow (m gd) 

Wastew ater Treatm ent 

Plant Processes 

Treatm ent for Cooling 

Water (by Pow er Plant) 

1. Lancaster County

 Resource Recovery Facility

 Marietta, PA 

Supply = 0.65 

Return = 0 

Zero discharge; all 

blow -dow n evaporated or 

leaves plant in sludge. 

Secondary treatment with 

Alum, Floc & Polymer; 

Additions settle solids, 

remove phosphorus 

Further treatment with 

clarification process, Flash 

Mix, Slow Mix. Also additions 

of ferric sulfate, polymer & 

sodium hypochlorite 

2. PSE&G Ridgefield Park, NJ 

Supply = 0.3 – 0.6 (make-up 

supply to cooling towers) Blowdown disposed of with plant 

wastewater to local sewer 

system. 

Secondary Treatment, 85% 

minimum removal of solids 

Water chemistry controlled 

with biocide, pH control, and 

surfactant 

3. Hillsborough County Solid Waste Supply = 0.7 (includes irrigation Advanced treatment with Chlorine addition, biocide, 

 to Energy Recovery Facility water) Blow-down of 0.093-mgd high level of disinfection. surfactant, tri-sodium 

 (operated by Ogden Martin Corp.) mixed with plant wastewater is Partial tertiary treatment, phosphate, pH control with 

 Tampa, FL returned to WWTP. removes phosphorus. sulfuric acid. 

Advanced Secondary 

Supply = 2.72 (annual avg.) to treatment with nitrification, 

4. Nevada Power – Clark and

 Sunrise Stations

 Las Vegas, NV 

Clark Sta. 

Return = 0 

Blow-down is discharged to 

holding ponds for 

denitrification and biological 

phosphorus removal. 

Tertiary treatment through 

dual media filter & 

None at present time. 

Previously treated with lime 

& softener; discontinued 2-3 

years ago. 

evaporation disinfection in chlorine 

contact tank. 

5. Panda Brandywine Facility

 Brandywine, MD 

Supply = 0.65 

Cooling tower blow-down is 

discharged to a local sewage 

system and eventually returned 

to the WWTP. 

Primary & secondary 

settling. Biological nutrient 

removal, with post filtration 

via sand filters. 

Addition of corrosion 

inhibitors, sodium 

hypochlorite, acid for pH 

control, and anti-foaming 

agents. 

Tertiary treatment 

6. Chevron Refineries; El Segundo, CA

 Richmond, CA 

Approx = 3-5 

Return = 0 

El Segundo: Ammonia 

Stripping plant across 

street. 

Richmond: Caustic Soda 

Treatment Plant Specifically 

Richmond Plant uses Nalco 

Chemical for further 

treatment. 

for Chevron. 

7. Curtis Stanton Energy Center

 Orange County, FL (near

 Orlando) 

Supply = 10 

Return = 0 

Blow-down is evaporated in 

brine concentrator and 

crystallizer units at power plant 

for zero discharge. 

Advanced Wastewater 

treatment including filtration, 

disinfection & biological 

nutrient removal to within 

5:5:3:1* 

PH adjustment with acid, 

addition of scale inhibitors 

and chlorine. Control of 

calcium level. All chemical 

adjustments done at cooling 

towers. 

Tertiary treatment plant 

consisting of trickling filters 

WWTPs provide secondary for ammonia removal, 1st and 

8. Palo Verde Nuclear Plant

Total Supply to (3) units = 72 

Return = 0 

treatment. Treated effluent 

not transmitted to Palo 

2nd stage clarifiers for 

removal of phosphorus, 

 Phoenix, AZ Zero discharge facility; all blowdown is evaporated in ponds. 

Verde is discharged to 

riverbeds (wetlands) under 

magnesium, and silica. 

Cooling tower water is 

State of Arizona permits. further controlled by addition 

of dispersants, defoaming 

agents, and sodium 

* 5:5:3:1 refers to constituent limits of 5 mg/l BOD, 5 mg/l TSS, 3 mg/l nitrogen and 1 mg/l phosphorus.

Source: DeStefano, 2000 

59 
It is important to note that, in all cases for the facilities 

contacted, the quality of wastewater treatment at each 

WWTP is governed by the receiving water body where 

the treated effluent is discharged, and its classification. 

For example, if the water body serves as a source of 

drinking water or is an important fishery, any treated 

effluent discharged into it would have to be of high quality. Effluent discharged to an urban river or to the ocean 

could be of lower quality. 

2.7.9 Agricultural Reuse in Tallahassee, 

Florida 

The Tallahassee agricultural reuse system is a cooperative operation where the city owns and maintains the 

irrigation system, while the farming service is under contract to commercial enterprise. During the evolution of 

the system since 1966, extensive evaluation and operational flexibility have been key factors in its success. 

The City of Tallahassee was one of the first cities in 

Florida to use reclaimed water for agricultural purposes. 

In 1966, the City began to use reclaimed water from its 

secondary wastewater treatment plant for spray irrigation. In 1971, detailed studies showed that the system 

was successful in producing crops for agricultural use. 

The studies also concluded that the soil was effective at 

removing SS, BOD, bacteria, and phosphorus from the 

reclaimed water. Until 1980, the system was limited to 

irrigation of 120 acres (50 hectares) of land used for hay 

production. Based upon success of the early studies and 

experience, a new spray field was constructed in 1980, 

southeast of Tallahassee. 

The southeast spray field has been expanded 3 times 

since 1980, increasing its total area to approximately 

2100 acres (840 hectares). The permitted application rate 

of the site is 3.16 inches per week (8 cm per week), for a 

total capacity of 24.5 mgd (1073 l/s). Sandy soils account for the high application rate. The soil composition 

is about 95 percent sand, with an interspersed clay layer 

at a depth of approximately 33 feet (10 meters). The spray 

field has gently rolling topography with surface elevations ranging from 20 to 70 feet (6 to 21 meters) above 

sea level. 

Secondary treatment is provided to the City’s Thomas 

P. Smith wastewater reclamation plant and the Lake

Bradford Road wastewater reclamation plant. The reclaimed water produced by these wastewater reclamation plants meet water quality requirements of 20 mg/l 

for BOD and TSS, and 200/100 ml for fecal coliform. 

Reclaimed water is pumped approximately 8.5 miles (13.7 

km) from the treatment plant to the spray field and distributed via 16 center-pivot irrigation units. 

Major crops produced include corn, soybeans, coastal 

Bermuda grass, and rye. Corn is stored as high-moisture 

grain prior to sale, and soybeans are sold upon harvest. 

Both the rye and Bermuda grass are grazed by cattle. 

Some of the Bermuda grass is harvested as hay and 

haylage. Cows are allows to graze in winter. 

2.7.10 Spray Irrigation at Durbin Creek

WWTP Western Carolina Regional

Sewer Authority 

The Durbin Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility, located near Fountain Inn, South Carolina, is operated by 

the Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority (WCRSA). 

The plant discharges to Durbin Creek, a relatively small 

tributary of the Enoree River. Average flow from the Durbin 

Creek Plant is 1.37 mgd (5.2 x 103 m3/day) with a peak 

flow of 6.0 mgd (22.7 x 103 m3/day) during storm events. 

The plant is permitted for an average flow of 3.3 mgd 

(12.5 x 103

 m3/day). 

The Durbin Creek plant is located on an 200-acre (81­

hectare) site. Half of the site is wooded with the remaining half cleared for land application of biosolids. Hay is 

harvested in the application fields. Much of the land surrounding the plant site is used as a pasture and for hay 

production without the benefit of biosolids applications. 

As a result of increasingly stringent NPDES permit limits and the limited assimilative capacity of the receiving 

stream, WCRSA began a program to eliminate surface 

water discharge at this facility. Commencing in 1995, 

WCRSA undertook a detailed evaluation of land application and reuse at Durbin Creek. The initial evaluation focused on controlling ammonia discharged to the receiving stream by combining agricultural irrigation with a 

hydrograph-controlled discharge strategy. 

In order to appreciate the potential for reuse and land 

application to address current permit issues facing the 

Durbin Creek WWTP, a brief discussion of their origin is 

necessary. South Carolina develops waste load allocations calculated by a model that is based on EPA discharge criteria. Model inputs include stream flow, background concentrations of ammonia, discharge volume, 

water temperature, pH, and whether or not salmonids are 

present. Because water temperature is part of the model 

input, a summer (May through October) and a winter (November through April) season are recognized in the current NPDES permit. Ammonia concentrations associated 

with both acute and chronic toxicity are part of the model 

output. The stream flow used in the model is the estimated 7-day, 10-year low flow event (7Q10). For the receiving stream, the 7Q10 value is 2.9 cfs (0.08 m3

/s). 

60
The permitted flow of 3.3 mgd (12.5 x 103 m3

/day) is 

used as the discharge volume in the model. 

A detailed evaluation of the characteristics of the receiving water body flow was required to evaluate the potential 

of reuse to address the proposed NPDES limits. The probability of occurrence of a given 7-day low flow rate was 

then determined using an appropriate probability distribution. The annual summer and winter 7Q10 flows for the 

Durbin Creek site were then estimated with the following 

results: 

Annual 7Q10 2.9 cfs (0.08 m3/s) 

Summer 7Q10 (May through October) 

2.9 cfs (0.08 m3

/s) 

Winter 7Q10 (November through April) 

6.4 cfs (0.18 m3

/s) 

The predicted annual 7Q10 of 2.9 cfs (0.08 m3

/s) matched 

the value used by the state regulatory agency and confirmed the validity of the analysis. The winter 7Q10 was 

found to be more than double that of the summer 7Q10. 

This information was then used in conjunction with the 

state’s ammonia toxicity model to develop a conceptual 

summer and winter discharge permit for effluent discharge 

based on stream flow. 

The next step was to evaluate various methods of diverting or withholding a portion of the design discharge 

flow under certain stream flow conditions. 

The most prominent agricultural enterprise in the vicinity 

of the Durbin Creek WWTP is hay production. Thus, 

WCRSA decided to investigate agricultural reuse as its 

first alternative disposal method. 

To evaluate how irrigation demands might vary over the 

summer season, a daily water balance was developed 

to calculate irrigation demands. The irrigation water balance was intended to calculate the consumptive need of 

an agricultural crop as opposed to hydraulic capacities 

of a given site. This provision was made because farmers who would potentially receive reclaimed water in the 

future would be interested in optimizing hay production 

and could tolerate excess irrigation as a means of disposal. Results of this irrigation water balance were then 

combined with the expected stream flow to evaluate the 

requirements of integrating agricultural irrigation with a 

hydrograph control strategy. 

The results of this analysis are provided in Figure 2-16, 

which indicates the storage volume required as a function of the irrigated area given a design flow of 3.3 mgd 

(12.5 x 103 m3/day). As shown in Figure 2-16, if no irrigated area is provided, a storage volume of approximately 

240 million gallons (900 x 103 m3) would be required to 

Figure 2-16. Durbin Creek Storage Requirements as a Function of Irrigated Area 

61 
achieve compliance with a streamflow dependent permit. This storage volume decreases dramatically to approximately 50 million gallons (190 x 103

 m3) if 500 acres 

(200 hectares) of irrigated area are developed. As irrigated area increases from 500 to 1,200 acres (200 to 

490 hectares), the corresponding ratio of increased irrigated area to reduction in storage is less. As indicated in 

Figure 2-16, storage could hypothetically be completely 

eliminated given an irrigated area of approximately 1,900 

acres (770 hectares). The mathematical modeling of 

stream flows and potential demands has demonstrated 

that reuse is a feasible means of achieving compliance 

with increasingly stringent NPDES requirements in South 

Carolina. 

2.7.11 Agricultural Irrigation of Vegetable 

Crops: Monterey, California 

Agriculture in Monterey County, located in the central 

coastal area of California, is a $3 billion per year business. The northern part of the county produces a variety of vegetable crops, many of which may be consumed 

raw. As far back as the 1940s, residential, commercial, 

industrial, and agricultural users were overdrawing the 

County’s northern groundwater supply. This overdraw 

lowered the water tables and created an increasing problem of saltwater intrusion. In the mid-1970s, the California Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 

completed a water quality management plan for the area, 

recommending reclaimed water for crop irrigation. 

At that time, agricultural irrigation of vegetable crops with 

reclaimed water was not widely accepted. To respond to 

questions and concerns from the agricultural community, 

the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency 

(MRWPCA) sponsored an 11-year, $7-million pilot and 

demonstration project known as the Monterey Wastewater Reclamation Study for Agriculture (MWRSA). Study 

objectives were to find answers to questions about such 

issues as virus and bacteria survival on crops, soil permeability, and yield and quality of crops, as well as to 

provide a demonstration of field operations for farmers 

who would use reclaimed water. 

Five years of field operations were conducted, irrigating 

crops with 2 types of tertiary treated wastewater, with a 

well water control for comparison. Artichokes, broccoli, 

cauliflower, celery, and several varieties of lettuce were 

grown on test plots and a demonstration field. Crops produced with reclaimed water were healthy and vigorous, 

and the system operated without complications. The results of the study provided evidence that using reclaimed 

water can be as safe as irrigating with well water, and 

that large scale water reclamation can be accomplished. 

No virus was found in reclaimed water used for irrigation 

or on samples of crops grown with the reclaimed water. 

No tendency was found for metals to accumulate in soils 

or on plant tissues. Soil permeability was not impaired. 

By the time the study was completed in 1987, the project 

had gained widespread community support for water reclamation. 

As a result of the MWRSA, a water reclamation plant 

and distribution system were completed in 1997. The 

project was designed to serve 12,000 acres (4,850 hectares) of artichokes, lettuce, cauliflower, broccoli, celery, 

and strawberries. Delivery of reclaimed water was delayed until spring of 1998 to address new concerns about 

emerging pathogens. The reclaimed water was tested for 

E. Coli 0157:H7, Legionella, Salmonella, Giardia, 

Cryptosporidium, and Cyclospora. No viable organisms 

were found and the results were published in the Recycled Water Food Safety Study. This study increased 

grower and buyer confidence. Currently, 95 percent of 

the project acreage is voluntarily using reclaimed water. 

Growers felt strongly that health department regulations 

should be minimal regarding use of reclaimed water. 

The MRWPCA succeeded in getting the County Health 

Department to approve wording requirements for signs 

along public roads through the project to say, “No Trespassing,” rather than previously proposed wording that 

was detrimental to public acceptance of reclaimed water. Similarly, field worker safety training requires only 

that workers not drink the water, and that they wash their 

hands before eating or smoking after working with reclaimed water. 

Three concerns remain: safety, water quality, and long 

term soil health. To address safety, pathogen testing 

continues and results are routinely placed on the 

MRWPCA website at www.mrwpca.org. The water quality concern is partly due to chloride, but mostly due to 

sodium concentration levels. MRWPCA works with sewer 

users to voluntarily reduce salt levels by using more efficient water softeners, and by changing from sodium 

chloride to potassium chloride for softener regeneration. In 1999, the agency began a program of sampling 

soils from 3 different depth ranges 3 times each season 

from 4 control sites (using well water) and 9 test sites 

(using reclaimed water). Preliminary results indicate that 

using reclaimed water for vegetable production is not 

causing the soil to become saline. 

2.7.12 Water Conserv II: City of Orlando and

Orange County, Florida 

As a result of a court decision in 1979, the City of Orlando and Orange County, Florida, were mandated to 

cease discharge of their effluent into Shingle Creek, which 

62
flows into Lake Tohopekaliga, by March 1988. The City 

and County immediately joined forces to find the best 

and most cost-effective solution. Following several rounds 

of extensive research, the decision was made to construct a reuse project in West Orange and Southeast 

Lake counties along a high, dry, and sandy area known 

as the Lake Wales Ridge. The project was named Water 

Conserv II. The primary use of the reclaimed water would 

be for agricultural irrigation. Daily flows not needed for 

irrigation would be distributed into rapid infiltration basins 

(RIBs) for recharge of the Floridan aquifer. 

Water Conserv II is the largest reuse project of its type 

in the world, a combination of agricultural irrigation and 

RIBs. It is also the first reuse project in Florida permitted 

by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

to irrigate crops produced for human consumption with 

reclaimed water. The project is best described as “a cooperative reuse project by the City of Orlando, Orange 

County, and the agricultural community.” The City and 

County jointly own Water Conserv II. 

The project is designed for average flows of 50 mgd (2,190 

l/s) and can handle peak flows of 75 mgd (3,285 l/s). 

Approximately 60 percent of the daily flows are used for 

irrigation, and the remaining ±40 percent is discharged to 

the RIBs for recharge of the Floridan aquifer. Water 

Conserv II began operation on December 1, 1986. 

At first, citrus growers were reluctant to sign up for reclaimed water. They were afraid of potential damage to 

their crops and land from the use of the reclaimed water. The City and County hired Dr. Robert C.J. Koo, a 

citrus irrigation expert at the University of Florida’s Citrus Research Center at Lake Alfred, to study the use of 

reclaimed water as an irrigation source for citrus. Dr. Koo 

concluded that reclaimed water would be an excellent 

source of irrigation water for citrus. The growers were 

satisfied and comfortable with Dr. Koo’s findings, but 

wanted long-term research done to ensure that there would 

be no detrimental effects to the crop or land from the 

long-term use of reclaimed water. The City and County 

agreed, and the Mid Florida Citrus Foundation (MFCF) 

was created. 

The MFCF is a non-profit organization conducting research 

on citrus and deciduous fruit and nut crops. All research 

is conducted by faculty from the University of Florida’s 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). The 

MFCF Board of Directors is comprised of citrus growers 

in north central Florida and representatives from the City 

of Orlando, Orange County, the University of Florida IFAS, 

and various support industries. Goals of the MFCF are 

to develop management practices that will allow growers 

in the northern citrus area to re-establish citrus and grow 

it profitably, provide a safe and clean environment, find 

solutions to challenges facing citrus growers, and promote urban and rural cooperation. All research conducted 

by the MFCF is located within the Water Conserv II service area. Reclaimed water is used on 163 of the 168 

acres of research. MFCF research work began in 1987. 

Research results to date have been positive. The benefits of irrigating with reclaimed water have been consistently demonstrated through research since 1987. 

Citrus on ridge (sandy, well drained) soils respond well 

to irrigation with reclaimed water. No significant problems have resulted from the use of reclaimed water. Tree 

condition and size, crop size, and soil and leaf mineral 

aspects of citrus trees irrigated with reclaimed water are 

typically as good as, if not better than, groves irrigated 

with well water. Fruit quality from groves irrigated with 

reclaimed water was similar to groves irrigated with well 

water. The levels of boron and phosphorous required in 

the soil for good citrus production are present in adequate 

amounts in reclaimed water. Thus, boron and phosphorous can be eliminated from the fertilizer program. Reclaimed water maintains soil pH within the recommended 

range; therefore, lime no longer needs to be applied. 

Citrus growers participating in Water Conserv II benefit 

from using reclaimed water. Citrus produced for fresh 

fruit or processing can be irrigated by using a direct 

contact method. Growers are provided reclaimed water 

24 hours per day, 7 days per week at pressures suitable 

for micro-sprinkler or impact sprinkler irrigation. At present, 

local water management districts have issued no restrictions for the use of reclaimed water for irrigation of citrus. By providing reclaimed water at pressures suitable 

for irrigation, costs for the installation, operation, and 

maintenance of a pumping system can be eliminated. 

This means a savings of $128.50 per acre per year ($317 

per hectare per year). Citrus growers have also realized 

increased crop yields of 10 to 30 percent and increased 

tree growth of up to 400 percent. The increases are not 

due to the reclaimed water itself, but the availability of 

the water in the soil for the tree to absorb. Growers are 

maintaining higher soil moisture levels. 

Citrus growers also benefit from enhanced freeze protection capabilities. The project is able to supply enough 

water to each grower to protect his or her entire production area. Freeze flows are more than 8 times higher 

than normal daily flows. It is very costly to the City and 

County to provide these flows (operating costs average 

$15,000 to $20,000 per night of operation), but they feel 

it is well worth the cost. If growers were to be frozen out, 

the project would lose its customer base. Sources of 

water to meet freeze flow demands include normal daily 

flows of 30 to 35 mgd (1,310 to 1,530 l/s), 38 million 

63
gallons of stored water (143,850 m3), 80 mgd (3,500 l/s) 

from twenty-five 16-inch diameter wells, and, if needed, 

20 mgd (880 l/s) of potable water from the Orlando Utilities Commission. 

Water Conserv II is a success story. University of Florida 

researchers and extension personnel are delighted with 

research results to date. Citrus growers sing the praises 

of reclaimed water irrigation. The Floridan aquifer is 

being protected and recharged. Area residents view the 

project as a friendly neighbor and protector of the rural 

country atmosphere. 

2.7.13 The Creation of a Wetlands Park: 

Petaluma, California 

The City of Petaluma, California, has embarked on a 

project to construct a new water reclamation facility. The 

existing wastewater plant was originally built in 1938, 

and then upgraded over the years to include oxidation 

ponds for storage during non-discharge periods. The city 

currently uses pond effluent to irrigate 800 acres (320 

hectares) of agricultural lands and a golf course. As part 

of the new facility, wetlands are being constructed for 

multiple purposes including treatment (to reduce suspended solids, metals, and organics), reuse, wildlife habitat, and public education and recreation. The citizens of 

Petaluma have expressed a strong interest in creating a 

facility that not only provides wastewater treatment and 

reuse, but also serves as a community asset. In an effort to further this endeavor, the citizens formed an organization called the Petaluma Wetlands Park Alliance. 

Currently, the project is being designed to include 30 acres 

(12 hectares) of vegetated wetlands to remove algae. 

The wetlands will be located downstream from the City’s 

oxidation ponds. The vegetated treatment wetlands will 

not be accessible to the general public for security reasons. However, an additional 30 acres (12 hectares) of 

polishing wetlands with both open water and dense vegetation zones will be constructed on an adjacent parcel 

of land. These polishing wetlands will be fed by disinfected water from the treatment wetlands, so public access will be allowed. Berms around all 3 wetland cells 

will provide access trails. 

The parcel of land where the polishing wetlands will be 

constructed has many interesting and unique features. 

An existing creek and riparian zone extend through the 

upland portion of the parcel down to the Petaluma River. 

The parcel was historically farmed all the way to the river, 

but in an El Nino event, the river levees breached and 

132 acres (53 hectares) of land has been returned to 

tidal mudflat/marsh. The parcel is directly adjacent to a 

city park, with trails surrounding ponds for dredge spoils. 

A plan has been developed to connect the 2 parcels via 

trails for viewing the tidal marsh, the polishing wetlands, 

and the riparian/creek area. The plan also calls for restoration and expansion of the riparian zone, planting of native vegetation, and restoration/enhancement of the tidal 

marsh. The polishing wetlands will be constructed on a 

portion of the 133 acres (54 hectares) of uplands. The 

remainder of the upland areas will either be restored for 

habitat or cultivated as a standing crop for butterfly and 

bird foraging. Landscaping on the wetlands site will be 

irrigated with reclaimed water. A renowned environmental artist developed the conceptual plan with an image of 

the dog-faced butterfly formed by the wetland cells and 

trails. 

Funding for acquisition of the land and construction of 

the trails and restoration projects has been secured from 

the local (Sonoma County) open space district and the 

California Coastal Conservancy in the amount of $4 

million. The citizen’s alliance has continued to promote 

the concept. The alliance recently hosted a tour of the 

site with the National Audubon Society, asking that the 

site be considered for the location of an Audubon Interpretive Center. 

2.7.14 Geysers Recharge Project:

Santa Rosa, California 

The cities of central Sonoma County, California, have 

been growing rapidly, while at the same time regulations governing water reuse and discharge have become 

more stringent. This has taxed traditional means of reusing water generated at the Laguna Wastewater Plant 

and Reclamation Facility. Since the early 1960s, the 

Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System has 

provided reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation in the 

Santa Rosa Plain, primarily to forage crops for dairy 

farms. In the early 1990s, urban irrigation uses were 

added at Sonoma State University, golf courses, and 

local parks. The remaining reclaimed water not used for 

irrigation was discharged to the Laguna de Santa Rosa 

from October through May. But limited storage capacity, 

conversion of dairy farms to vineyards (decreasing reclaimed water use by over two-thirds), and growing concerns over water quality impacts in the Laguna de Santa 

Rosa, pressured the system to search for a new and 

reliable means of reuse. 

In the northwest quadrant of Sonoma County lies the 

Geysers Geothermal Steamfield, a super-heated steam 

resource used to generate electricity since the mid 1960s. 

At its peak in 1987, the field produced almost 2,000 

megawatts (MW), enough electricity to supply an estimated 2 million homes and businesses with power. Geysers operators have mined the underground steam to such 

64
a degree over the years that electricity production has 

declined to about 1,200 MW. As a result, the operators 

are seeking a source of water to recharge the deep aquifers that yield steam. Geothermal energy is priced competitively with fossil fuel and hydroelectric sources, and 

is an important “green” source of electricity. In 1997, a 

neighboring sewage treatment district in Lake County 

successfully implemented a project to send 8 mgd (350 

l/s) of secondary-treated water augmented with Clear 

Lake water to the southeast Geysers steamfields for recharge. In 1998, the Santa Rosa Subregional Reclamation System decided to build a conveyance system to 

send 11 mgd (480 l/s) of tertiary-treated water to the northwest Geysers steamfield for recharge. The Santa Rosa 

contribution to the steamfield is expected to yield an 

additional 85 MW or more of electricity production. 

The conveyance system to deliver water to the steamfield 

includes 40 miles (64 km) of pipeline, 4 large pump stations, and a storage tank. The system requires a lift of 

3,300 feet (1,005 meters). Distribution facilities within 

the steamfield include another 18 miles (29 km) of pipeline, a pump station, and tank, plus conversion of geothermal wells from production wells to injection wells. 

The contract with the primary steamfield operator, Calpine 

Corporation, states that Calpine is responsible for the 

construction and operation of the steamfield distribution 

system and must provide the power to pump the water to 

the steamfield. The Subregional Reclamation System, in 

turn, is responsible for the construction and operation of 

the conveyance system to the steamfield and provides 

the reclaimed water at no charge. The term of the contract is for 20 years with an option for either party to 

extend for another 10 years. 

One of the major benefits of the Geysers Recharge Project 

is the flexibility afforded by year-round reuse of water. 

The system has been severely limited because of seasonal discharge constraints and the fact that agricultural 

reuse is not feasible during the wet winter months. The 

Geysers steamfield will use reclaimed water in the winter, when no other reuse options are available. However, 

during summer months, demand for reuse water for irrigation is high. The system will continue to serve agricultural and urban users while maintaining a steady but reduced flow of reclaimed water to the Geysers. A detailed 

daily water balance model was constructed to assist in 

the design of the initial system and to manage the optimum blend of agricultural, urban, and Geysers recharge 

uses. 

In addition to the benefits of power generation, the Geysers Recharge Project will bring an opportunity for agricultural reuse along the Geysers pipeline alignment, 

which traverses much of Sonoma County’s grape-growing regions. Recent listings of coho salmon and steelhead trout as threatened species may mean that existing agricultural diversions of surface waters will have to 

be curtailed. The Geysers pipeline could provide another source of water to replace surface water sources, 

thereby preserving the habitat of the threatened species. 

2.7.15 Advanced Wastewater Reclamation 

in California 

The Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System is a 

regional water supply project sponsored jointly by the 

Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange 

County Sanitation District (OCSD) in southern California. Planning between OCWD and OCSD eventually led 

to the decision to replace Water Factory 21 (WF21) with 

the GWR System. OCSD, an early partner with OCWD in 

WF21, will continue to supply secondary wastewater to 

the GWR System. As one of the largest advanced reclaimed water facilities in the world, the GWR System 

will protect the groundwater from further degradation 

due to seawater intrusion and supplement existing water supplies by providing a new, reliable, high-quality 

source of water to recharge the Orange County groundwater basin. For OCSD, reusing the water will also provide peak wastewater flow disposal relief and postpone 

the need to construct a new ocean outfall by diverting 

treated wastewater flows that would otherwise be discharged to the Pacific Ocean. 

The GWR System addresses both water supply and 

wastewater management needs through beneficial reuse 

of highly treated wastewater. OCWD is the local agency 

responsible for managing and protecting the lower Santa 

Ana River groundwater basin. Water supply needs include both the quantity and quality of water. The GWR 

System offers a new source of water to meet future increasing demands from the region’s groundwater producers, provides a reliable water supply in times of drought, 

and reduces the area’s dependence on imported water. 

The GWR System will take treated secondary wastewater from OCSD (activated sludge and trickling filter effluent) and purify it using microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO) and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. Lime is added 

to stabilize the water. This low-salinity water (less than 

100 mg/l TDS) will be injected into the seawater barrier 

or percolated through the ground into Orange County’s 

aquifers, where it will blend with groundwater from other 

sources, including imported and Santa Ana River 

stormwater, to improve the water quality. The GWR System will produce a peak daily production capacity of 78,400 

acre-feet per year (70 mgd or 26,500 m3

/yr) in the initial 

phase and will ultimately produce nearly 145,600 acre65
feet per year (130 mgd or 492,100 m3

/yr) of a new, reliable, safe drinking water supply, enough to serve over 

200,000 families. Over time, the water produced by the 

GWR System will lower the salinity of groundwater by 

replacing the high-TDS water currently percolated into 

the groundwater basin with low-TDS reclaimed water from 

the GWR System. The project conforms to the California 

State Constitution by acknowledging the value of reclaimed water. Less energy is used to produce the GWR 

System water than would be required to import an equivalent volume of water, reducing overall electrical power 

demand in the region. 

The GWR System will also expand the existing seawater 

intrusion barrier to protect the Orange County groundwater basin from further degradation. The groundwater levels have been lowered significantly in some areas of the 

groundwater basin due to the substantial coastal pumping required to meet peak summer potable water demands. The objective of the barrier is to create a continuous mound of freshwater that is higher than sea level, so 

that the seawater cannot migrate into the aquifer. As 

groundwater pumping activities increase, so do the 

amounts of freshwater required to maintain the protective mound. OCWD currently operates 26 injection wells 

to supply water to the barrier first created in the mid 

1970s. Additional water is required to maintain a suitable 

barrier. To determine optimal injection well capacities and 

locations, a Talbert Gap groundwater computer model 

was constructed and calibrated for use as a predictive 

tool. Based on the modeling analysis, 4 new barrier wells 

will be constructed in an alignment along the Santa Ana 

River to cut off saltwater intrusion at the east end of the 

Talbert Gap. The modeling results also indicate that a 

western extension of the existing barrier is required. 

Twelve new barrier wells will be constructed at the western end of the Talbert Gap to inhibit saltwater intrusion 

under the Huntington Beach mesa. 

The project benefits OCSD’s wastewater management 

effort as well as helping to meet Orange County’s water 

supply requirements. The GWR System conforms to the 

OCSD Charter, which supports water reuse as a scarce 

natural resource. By diverting peak wastewater effluent 

discharges, the need to construct a new ocean outfall is 

deferred, saving OCSD over $175 million in potential 

construction costs. These savings will be used to help 

off-set the cost of the GWR system where OCSD will 

pay for half of the Phase 1 construction. The GWR System also reduces the frequency of emergency discharges 

near the shore, which are a significant environmental issue with the local beach communities. 

2.7.16 An Investigation of Soil Aquifer 

Treatment for Sustainable Water 

An intensive study, entitled, “An Investigation of Soil 

Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse,” was 

conducted to assess the sustainability of several different SAT systems with different site characteristics and 

effluent pretreatments (AWWARF, 2001). The sites selected for study and key characteristics of the sites are 

presented in Table 2-15. 

Main objectives of the study were to: (1) examine the 

sustainability of SAT systems leading to indirect potable 

reuse of reclaimed water; (2) characterize the processes 

that contribute to removal of organics, nitrogen, and viruses during transport through the infiltration interface, 

soil percolation zone, and underlying groundwater aquifer; and (3) develop relationships among above-ground 

treatment and SAT for use by regulators and utilities. 

The study reported the following results: 

 Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) present in SAT product water was composed of natural organic matter 

(NOM), soluble microbial products that resemble 

NOM, and trace organics. 

 Characterization of the DOC in SAT product water 

determined that the majority of organics present were 

not of anthropenic origin. 

 The frequency of pathogen detection in SAT products waters could not be distinguished from the frequency of pathogen detection in other groundwaters. 

 Nitrogen removal during SAT was sustained by 

anaerobic ammonia oxidation. 

The study reported the following impacts: 

 Effluent pretreatment did not affect final SAT product water with respect to organic carbon concentrations. A watershed approach may be used to predict 

SAT product water quality. 

 Removal of organics occurred under saturated anoxic conditions and a vadose zone was not necessary for an SAT system. If nitrogen removal is desired during SAT, nitrogen must be applied in a reduced form, and a vadose zone combined with soils 

that can exchange ammonium ions is required. 

66
Table 2-15. Field Sites for Wetlands/SAT Research 

Facility Key Site Characteristics 

Sweetwater Wetlands/Recharge 

Facility, AZ 

Deep vadose zone (>100 feet) with extensive vadose zone monitoring 

capabilities and several shallow groundwater wells located downgradient. 

Mesa Northwest, AZ 

Shallow vadose zone (5-20 feet). Multi-depth sampling capabilities below 

basins. Array of shallow groundwater wells located from 500 feet to greater 

than 10,000 feet from recharge site. 

Phoenix Tres Rios Cobble Site, AZ Horizontal flow and shallow (<21 feet) saturated zone sampling capabilities. 

Majority of flow infiltrates into groundwater. 

Rio Hondo/Montebello Forebay, CA Vadose zone (20-50 feet). Water supply is a mixture of reclaimed water and 

other available water sources. Multi-depth sampling capabilities. 

San Gabriel/Montebello Forebay, CA Shallow vadose zone (10-20 feet). Water supply is a mixture of reclaimed 

water and other available water sources. Multi-depth sampling capabilities. 

Riverside Water Quality Control Plant Hidden 

Valley Wetlands, CA 

Horizontal flow and shallow (<3 feet) vadose zone sampling capabilities. 

Approximately 25% of flow infiltrates into groundwater. 

East Valley (Hansen Spreading Grounds), CA Deep vadose zone (>100 feet). Multi-depth and downgradient sampling 

capabilities exist. 

Avra Valley Wastewater Treatment 

Facility, AZ 

Wastewater treatment applied is similar to facilities in Mesa and Phoenix, 

Arizona. However, drinking water supply is based only on local groundwater. 

 The distribution of disinfection by-products produced 

during chlorination of SAT product water was affected 

by elevated bromide concentrations in reclaimed water. 

2.7.17 The City of West Palm Beach, Florida

Wetlands-Based Water Reclamation 

Project 

The City of West Palm Beach water supply system consists of a 20-square-mile (52-km2

) water catchment area 

and surface water allocation from Lake Okeechobee, 

which flows to a canal network that eventually terminates 

at Clear Lake, where the City’s water treatment plant is 

located. As part of the Everglades restoration program, 

the timing, location, and quantity of water releases to the 

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) canals from Lake Okechobee will be modified. More water 

will be directed towards the Everglades for hydropattern 

restoration and less water will be sent to the SFWMD 

canals. This translates into less water available for water supplies in the lower east coast area. Therefore, indirect potable reuse, reuse for aquifer recharge purposes, 

and aquifer storage and recovery are some of the alternative water supply strategies planned by the City of West 

Palm Beach. 

The City of West Palm Beach has developed a program 

to use highly treated wastewater from their East Central 

Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (ECRWWTP) for 

beneficial reuse including augmentation of their drinking 

water supply. Presently, all of the wastewater effluent 

from the ECRWWTP (approximately 35 mgd [1,530 l/s] 

average daily flow) is injected over 3,000 feet (914 

meters) into the groundwater (boulder zone) using 6 deep 

wells. Rather than continuing to dispose of the wastewater effluent, the City of West Palm Beach developed the 

Wetlands-Based Water Reclamation Project (WBWRP). 

The project flow path is shown in Figure 2-17. 

To protect and preserve its surface water supply system 

and to develop this reuse system to augment the water 

supply, the City purchased a 1,500-acre (607-hectare) 

wetland reuse site. This site consists of a combination 

of wetlands and uplands. A portion of this property was 

used for the construction of a standby wellfield. The 

standby wellfield site covers an area of 323 acres (131 

hectares) and consists of wetlands and uplands dominated by Melaleuca trees. Two important goals of the 

project were to: (1) develop an advanced wastewater treatment facility at the ECRWWTP that could produce reclaimed water that, when discharged, would be compatible with the hydrology and water quality at the wetland 

67
reuse site, and (2) produce a reliable water supply to 

augment the City’s surface water supply. Treatment was 

to be provided by the reclaimed water production facility, 

wetlands, and through aquifer recharge. Groundwater withdrawal would meet drinking water and public health standards. Monitoring was performed at the wetland reuse 

site from July 1996 to August 1997. The purpose of this 

monitoring was to establish baseline conditions in the 

wetlands prior to reclaimed water application and to determine the appropriate quality of the reclaimed water 

that will be applied to the wetland reuse site. In addition 

to the monitoring of background hydrology, groundwater 

quality, and surface water quality, the baseline-monitoring program investigated sediment quality, vegetation, 

fish, and the presence of listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. Groundwater samples 

from the wetland reuse site and the standby wellfield met 

the requirements for drinking water except for iron. Iron 

was detected in excess of the secondary drinking water 

standards of 0.3 mg/l at all of the wells, but not in excess of the Class III surface water quality criteria of 1.0 

mg/l. Total nitrogen (TN) concentrations in the wetlands 

ranged from 0.67 mg/l to 3.85 mg/l with an average value 

of 1.36 mg/l. The concentration of total phosphorus (TP) 

was low throughout the wetlands, ranging from less than 

0.01 to 0.13 mg/l, with an average value of 0.027 mg/l.

In 1995, the City of West Palm Beach constructed a 

150,000-gpd (6.6-l/s) AWT constructed wetlands demonstration project. The goals of this project were to demonstrate that an AWT facility could produce an effluent quality of total suspended solids (TSS), 5-day carbonaceous 

Figure 2-17. Project Flow Path 

biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5

), TN, and TP goals 

of 5, 5, 3, and 1 mg/l, respectively, and that wetlands 

could provide some additional treatment prior to discharge. 

The demonstration facility met the AWT goals as well as 

all of the surface water quality standards, state and federal drinking water standards (except for iron), and all 

public health standards (absence of Cryptosporidum, Giardia, enteric viruses, and coliforms). 

A hydrologic model capable of simulating both groundwater flow and overland flow was constructed and calibrated to assess the hydrology, hydrogeology, and potential hydraulic conveyance characteristics within the 

project area. The model indicated that maintenance of 

viable wetlands (i.e., no extended wet or dry periods) 

can be achieved at the wetland reuse site, the standby 

wellfield, and with aquifer recharge to augment the water supply. 

Reclaimed water will initially be applied to the wetland 

reuse site at a rate of 2 inches (5 cm) per week, which 

corresponds to a reclaimed water flow of approximately 

6 mgd (263 l/s) over 770 acres (312 hectares) of the 

1,415-acre (573-hectare) site. The results of the modeling indicate that up to 6 mgd (263 l/s) of reclaimed water 

can be applied to the wetland reuse site without producing more than an 8-inch (20-cm) average rise in surface 

water levels in the wetlands. A particle tracking analysis 

was conducted to evaluate the fate of discharge at the 

wetland reuse site and the associated time of travel in 

the surficial aquifer. The particle tracking analysis indicated that the travel time from the point of reclaimed 

68
water application to the point of groundwater discharge Figure 2-18. Growth of Reuse in Florida 

(from the standby wellfield to the M Canal) ranged from 2 

to 34 years. The M Canal flows into the City’s surface 

water reservoir. 

Based on the results of the demonstration project, a 10­

mgd (438-l/s) reclaimed water facility was designed with 

operational goals for TN and TP of less than 2.0 mg/l 

and 0.05 mg/l (on an annual average basis) respectively, 

in order to minimize change in the wetland vegetation. A 

commitment to construction and operation of a high-quality 

reclaimed water facility has been provided to meet these 

stringent discharge requirements. 

Public participation for this project consisted of holding 

several tours and meetings with regulatory agencies, 

public health officials, environmental groups, media, and 

local residents from the early planning phases through 

project design. Brochures describing the project drivers, proposed processes, safety measures, and benefits to the community were identified. A public relations 

firm was also hired to help promote the project to elected 

officials and state and federal policy makers. 

2.7.18 Types of Reuse Applications in 

Florida 

Florida receives an average of more than 50 inches (127 

cm) of rainfall each year. While the state may appear to 

have an abundance of water, continuing population 

growth, primarily in the coastal areas, contributes to increased concerns about water availability. The result is 

increased emphasis on water conservation and reuse as 

a means to more effectively manage state water resources (FDEP, 2002a). 

By state statute, Florida established the encouragement 

and promotion of water reuse as formal state objectives 

(York et al., 2002). In response, the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FDEP), along with the 

state’s water management districts and other state agencies, have implemented comprehensive programs designed to achieve these objectives. 

As shown in Figure 2-18, the growth of reuse in Florida 

during 1986 to 2001 has been remarkable (FDEP, 2002b). 

In 2001, reuse capacity totaled 1,151 mgd (50,400 l/s), 

which represented about 52 percent of the total permitted capacity of all domestic wastewater treatment facilities in the state. About 584 mgd (25,580 l/s) of reclaimed 

water were used for beneficial purposes in 2001. 

The centerpiece of Florida’s Water Reuse Program is a 

detailed set of rules governing water reuse. Chapter 62­

610, Florida Administrative Code (Florida DEP, 1999), 

Source: Florida DEP, 2002b 

includes discussion of landscape irrigation, agricultural 

irrigation, industrial uses, groundwater recharge, indirect 

potable reuse, and a wide range of urban reuse activities. This rule also addresses reclaimed water ASR, blending of demineralization concentrate with reclaimed water, and the use of supplemental water supplies. 

Given the complexity of the program and the number of 

entities involved, program coordination is critical. The 

Reuse Coordinating Committee, which consists of representatives of the Florida DEP, Florida’s 5 water management districts, Florida Department of Health, the Public 

Service Commission, Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services and Florida Department of Community Affairs, meets regularly to discuss reuse activities and issues. In addition, permitting staffs from the 

water management districts and the Florida DEP meet 

regularly to discuss local reuse issues and to bring potential reclaimed water users and suppliers together. Indeed, statutory and rule provisions mandate the use of 

reclaimed water and implementation of reuse programs 

(York et al., 2002). 

Florida’s Water Reuse Program incorporates a number 

of innovations and advancements. Of note is the “Statement of Support for Water Reuse”, which was signed by 

the heads of the agencies comprising the Reuse Coordinating Committee. EPA Region 4 also participated as a 

signatory party. The participating agencies committed to 

encouraging, promoting, and facilitating water reuse in 

Florida. 

In addition, working as a partner with the Water Reuse 

Committee of the Florida Water Environment Association, Florida DEP developed the “Code of Good Practices for Water Reuse.” This is a summary of key management, operation, and public involvement concepts that 

define quality reuse programs. 

69
As outlined in the Water Conservation Initiative (FDEP, 

2002a), the future of Florida’s Water Reuse Program will 

be guided by the need to ensure that reclaimed water is 

used efficiently and effectively in Florida (York et al., 

2002). The Water Conservation Initiative report contains 

15 strategies for encouraging efficiency and effectiveness in the Water Reuse Program. 

2.7.19 Regionalizing Reclaimed Water in 

the Tampa Bay Area 

The Southwest Florida Water Management District 

(SWFMWD) is one of 5 water management districts in 

the state responsible for permitting groundwater and surface water withdrawals. The Tampa Bay area is within 

the SWFWMD and has experienced prolonged growth 

that has strained potable water supplies. A profile of the 

Tampa Bay area is given below: 

 Home to nearly 2.5 million people who live in the 3 

counties (Pasco, Hillsborough, and Pinellas) referred 

to as the Tampa Bay area. 

 The largest water user group in the Tampa Bay area 

is the public, using 306.2 million mgd (13,410 l/s), 

representing 64 percent of the water total use in the 

area in the year 2000. There are 38 wastewater treatment facilities in the Tampa Bay area operated by 

19 public and private utilities. In 2000 these facilities: 

Figure 2-19. Available Reclaimed Water in Pasco, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties 

70 
- Produced an annual average of 201 mgd (8,800

l/s) of treated wastewater. 

- 73 mgd (3,200 l/s) of reclaimed water was used

for beneficial purposes, representing 36 percent 

use of available flows. 

- Of the 73 mgd (3,200 l/s), 44 mgd (1,930 l/s) (60

percent) of reclaimed water replaced the use of 

traditional, high-quality (potable) water resources. 

As the regulatory authority responsible for managing 

water supplies in the region, SWFWMD views the offset 

achieved through use of reclaimed water as an important 

contribution to the regional water supply. The District’s 

“Regional Water Supply Plan” includes a goal to effectively use 75 percent of available reclaimed water resources in order to offset existing or new uses of high 

quality water sources. The objectives to meet the goal 

by 2020 or earlier are collectively designed to enhance 

the use and efficiency of reclaimed water by: 

 Maximizing reclaimed water locally to meet water 

demands in service areas 

 Increasing the efficiency of use through technology 

for dealing with wet-weather flows and demand management (i.e., meters, education, etc.) 

 Interconnecting systems to move excess flows to 

areas where the water is needed, when it is needed, 

for a regional water resource benefit 

There is not enough reclaimed water in the Tampa Bay 

area to meet all of the irrigation and other needs in the 

region. However, there are opportunities to transport excess reclaimed water flows that cannot be used locally 

to achieve benefits to areas of high demand or other beneficial uses, such as natural system restoration. As a 

first step in evaluating how reclaimed water may be used 

in the Tampa Bay Area, the SWFWMD developed an 

inventory of existing water reclamation facilities, their 

locations, total flow and flows already committed to beneficial reuse, and flows that might be available for an 

expanded reuse program (Figure 2-19). Subsequent planning efforts will build on this information to evaluate interconnections between reuse systems for optimal use. 

2.8 References 

When a National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

number is cited in a reference, that reference is available 

from: 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

(703) 487-4650 

Adamski, R., S. Gyory, A. Richardson, and J. Crook. 

2000. “The Big Apple Takes a Bite Out of Water Reuse.” 

2000 Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, January 30 

– February 2, 2000. San Antonio, Texas. 

American Water Works Association, California-Nevada 

Section. 1997. Guidelines for the Onsite Retrofit of Facilities Using Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water. 

American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF); KIWA. 1988. “The Search for a Surrogate,” American Water Works Association Research 

Foundation, Denver, Colorado. 

American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF). 2001. “An Investigation of Soil Aquifer 

Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse.” Order Number 90855. 

Babcock, R., C. Ray, and T. Huang. 2002. “Fate of Pharmaceuticals in Soil Following Irrigation with Recycled 

Water.” WEFTEC 2002 Proceedings of the 75th Annual 

Conference and Exposition, McCormick Place, Chicago, 

Illinois. 

Bouwer, H. 1991. “Role of Groundwater Recharge in Treatment and Storage of Wastewater for Reuse.” Water Science Technology, 24:295-302. 

Bouwer, H. 1991. “Simple Derivation of the Retardation 

Equation and Application to Referential Flow and 

Macrodispersion.” Groundwater, 29(1): 41-46. 

Bouwer, H. 1988. “Systems for Artificial Recharge for 

Groundwater.” Proceedings of the International Symposium. Annaheim, California. American Society of Civil 

Engineers. 

Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice. 1989. “Effect of Water Depth 

in Groundwater Recharge Basins on Infiltration Rate.” 

Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 115:556-

568. 

71
Calabrese, E.J., C.E. Gilbert, and H. Pastides. 1989. 

Safe Drinking Water Act, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, 

Michigan. 

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2002. 

2002 Statewide Recycled Water Survey.California State 

Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recycling, Sacramento, California. Available from 

www.swrcb.ca.gov/recycling/recyfund/munirec/ 

index.html. 

California State Water Resources Control Board. 1990. 

California Municipal Wastewater Reclamation in 1987. 

California State Water Resources Control Board, Office 

of Water Recycling, Sacramento, California. 

California State Water Resources Control Board. 1980. 

Evaluation of Industrial Cooling Systems Using Reclaimed 

Municipal Wastewater. California State Water Resources 

Control Board, Office of Water Recycling, Sacramento, 

California. 

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 2001. City of Orlando, Phase 

I Eastern Regional Reclaimed Water Distribution System. Prepared for the City of Orlando, Florida, by Camp 

Dresser & McKee Inc., Maitland, Florida. 

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1990a. City of Boca Raton, 

Florida Reclaimed Water System Master Plan. Prepared 

for the City of Boca Raton, Florida, by Camp Dresser & 

McKee Inc., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. 

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1990b. Effluent Reuse Feasibility Study and Master Plan for Urban Reuse. Prepared for the Manatee County Public Works Department 

and the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Sarasota, Florida. 

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1987. City of St. Petersburg Reclaimed Water System Master Plan Update. 

Prepared for the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, by Camp 

Dresser & McKee Inc., Clearwater, Florida. 

Carlson, R.R., K.D. Lindstedt, E.R. Bennett, and R.B. 

Hartman. 1982. “Rapid Infiltration Treatment of Primary 

and Secondary Effluents.” Journal WPCF, 54: 270-280. 

Chalmers, R.B., M. Patel, W. Sevenandt and D. Cutler. 

2003. Meeting the Challenge of Providing a Reliable Water 

Supply for the Future, the Groundwater Replenishment 

System. WEFTEC 2003. 

City of Yelm. 2003. 2003 Ground Water Monitoring and 

Use Information. Provided by Shelly Badger, City Administrator, and Jon Yanasek, Operator-in-Charge. Yelm, 

Washington. 

Cronk, J.K., and M.S. Fennessy. 2001. “Wetland Plants: 

Biology and Ecology.” Lewis Publishers. 

Crook, J. 1990. “Water Reclamation.” Encyclopedia of 

Physical Science and Technology. R. Myers (ed.), Academic Press, Inc., pp. 157-187. San Diego, California. 

Crook, J., T. Asano, and M.H. Nellor. 1990. “Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Water in California.” 

Water Environment and Technology, 2 (8), 42-49. 

Cuyk, S.V., R. Siegrist, A. Logan, S. Massen, E. Fischer, 

and L. Figueroa. 1999. “Purification of Wastewater in Soil 

Treatment Systems as Affected by Infiltrative Surface 

Character and Unsaturated Soil Depth.” Water Environment Federation, WEFTEC99, Conference Proceedings. 

Daughton, C.G., and T.A. Temes. 1999. “Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment: 

Agents of Subtle Change?” Environmental Health Perspectives, 107, supplement. December, 1999. 

DeStefano, Eugene, C. 2000. “Panda Perkiomen Power 

Plant Supply Water Quality Comparisons.” Memorandum dated September 13, 2000. 

Dorica, J., P. Ramamurthy, and A. Elliott. 1998. “Reuse 

of Biologically Treated Effluents in Pulp and Paper Operations” Report MR 372. Pulp and Paper Institute of 

Canada. 

Drewes J., M. Reinhardt and P. Fox. 2003. “Comparing 

Microfiltration/Reverse Osmosis and Soil Aquifer Treatment for Indirect Potable Reuse of Water”, Water Research, 37, 3612-3621. 

Drewes, J.E., P. Fox, and M Jekel. 2001. “Occurrence 

of Iodinated X-Ray Contrast Media in Domestic Effluents and Their Fate During Indirect Potable Reuse”, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, A36, 1633­

1646. 

Engineering Science. 1987. “Monterey Wastewater Reclamation Study for Agriculture.” Prepared for Monterey 

Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, Monterey, California. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002a. 

Florida Water Conservation Initiative. Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. 

72
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002b. 

2001 Reuse Inventory. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. 

“Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application.” 

Chapter 62-610, Florida Administrative Code. Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, 

Florida. 

Fox, P. 2002. “Soil Aquifer Treatment: An Assessment 

of Sustainability.” Management of Aquifer Recharge for 

Sustainability. A.A. Balkema Publishers. 

Fox, P. 1999. “Advantages of Aquifer Recharge for a Sustainable Water Supply” United Nations Environmental 

Programme/International Environmental Technology Centre International Symposium on Efficient Water Use in 

Urban Areas, Kobe, Japan, June 8-10, pp. 163-172. 

Fox, P., Naranaswamy, K. and J.E. Drewes. 2001. “Water Quality Transformations during Soil Aquifer Treatment at the Mesa Northwest Water Reclamation Plant, 

USA,”, Water Science and Technology, 43, 10, 343-350. 

Fox, P. 2002. “Soil Aquifer Treatment: An Assessment 

of Sustainability.” Management of Aquifer Recharge for 

Sustainability: A. A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, 9.21-

26. 

Fox, P., J. Gable. 2003. “Sustainable Nitrogen Removal 

by Anaerobic Ammonia Oxidation During Soil Aquifer 

Treatment.” Water Environment Federation, 2003 

WEFTEC Conference Proceedings:, Los Angeles, California. 

Gagliardo, P., B. Pearce, G. Lehman, and S. Adham. 

2002. “Use of Reclaimed Water for Industrial Applications.” 2002 WateReuse Symposium. September 8 – 

11. Orlando, Florida

Gearheart, R. A. 1988. “Arcata’s Innovative Treatment 

Alternative.” Proceedings of a Conference on Wetlands 

for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Enhancement. 

August 2-4, 1988. Humboldt State University. Arcata, 

California. 

Gerba, C.P., and S.M. Goyal. 1985. “Pathogen Removal 

from Wastewater During Groundwater Recharge.” Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. T. Asano (ed.), pp. 283­

317. Butterworth Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts. 

Godlewski, V.J., Jr., B. Reneau, and R. Elmquist. 1990. 

“Apopka, Florida: A Growing City Implements Beneficial Reuse.” 1990 Biennial Conference Proceedings. 

National Water Supply Improvement Association. Vol. 2. 

August 19-23, 1990. Buena Vista, Florida. 

Gordon, C., K. Wall, S. Toze, and G. O’Hara. 2002. “Influence of Conditions on the Survival of Enteric Viruses 

and Indicator Organisms in Groundwater” Management 

of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. A. Balkema 

Publishers. Lisse, p. 133-138. 

Grisham, A., and W.M. Fleming. 1989. “Long-Term Options for Municipal Water Conservation.” Journal AWWA, 

81: 34-42.

Haynes, D. C., “Water Recycling in the Pulp and Paper 

Industry.” TAPPI. Vol 57. No. 4. April, 1974. 

Hirsekorn, R.A., and R.A. Ellison. 1987. “Sea Pines Public 

Service District Implements a Comprehensive Reclaimed 

Water System.” Water Reuse Symposium IV Proceedings. August 2-7, 1987. Denver, Colorado. 

Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff. 1986a. Design 

Report: Dual-Distribution System (Reclaimed Water supply, Storage and Transmission System), Project APRICOT. Prepared for the City of Altamonte Springs, Florida, 

by Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff. Orlando, 

Florida. 

Irvine Ranch Water District. 1991. Water Resource Master Plan. Irvine, California. 

Irvine Ranch Water District. 1990. Engineer’s Report: Use 

of Reclaimed Water for Flushing Toilets and Urinals, and 

Floor Drain Trap Priming in the Restroom Facilities at 

Jamboree Tower. Irvine, California. 

Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Water Reclamation 

website www.IRWD.com. 

International Water Association (IWA). 2000. “Constructed 

Wetlands for Pollution Control: Process, Performance, 

Design and Operation.” Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control. IWA Publishing. 

Jackson, J. 1989. “Man-made Wetlands for Wastewater 

Treatment: Two Case Studies.” D.A. Hammer Ed. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Municipal 

Industrial and Agricultural. Lewis Publishers. P 574-580. 

Jaques, R.S. 1997. “Twenty Years in the Making – Now a 

Reality, Nations Largest Project to Provide Recycled 

Water for Irrigation of Vegetable Crops Begins Operations.” Proceedings for the Water Environment Federation, 70th Annual Conference and Exposition, October 

18-122, 1997. Chicago, Illinois. 

73
Johns, F.L., R. J. Neal, and R. P. Arber Associates, Inc. 

1987. “Maximizing Water Resources in Aurora, Colorado Through Reuse.” Water Reuse Symposium IV Proceedings. August 2-7, 1987. Denver, Colorado. 

Johnson, L.J., and J. Crook, 1998, “Using Reclaimed 

Water in Building for Fire Suppressions.” Proceedings 

of the Water Environment Federation 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. Orlando, Florida. 

Johnson, W.D. 1998. “Innovative Augmentation of a 

Community’s Water Supply – The St. Petersburg, Florida 

Experience.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October 

3-7, 1998. Orlando, Florida. 

Joint Task Force. 1998. Using Reclaimed Water to Augment Potable Water Supplies. Special publication prepared by a joint task force of the Water Environment 

Federation and the American Water Works Association. 

Published by the Water Environment Federation. Alexandria, Virginia. 

Kadlec, R.H., and R.L. Knight. 1996. “Treatment Wetlands.” Lewis Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 

Khan, S. J., and E. Rorije. 2002. “Pharmaceutically active compounds in aquifer storage and recovery.” Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability. A. A. 

Belkema Publishers. Lisse, P. 169-179. 

Kopchynski, T., Fox, P., Alsmadi, B. and M. Berner. 

1996. “The Effects of Soil Type and Effluent Pre-Treatment on Soil Aquifer Treatment”, Wat. Sci. Tech., 34:11, 

pp. 235-242. 

Lance, J.C., R.C. Rice, and R.G. Gilbert. 1980. “Renovation of Sewage Water by Soil Columns Flooded with 

Primary Effluent.” Journal WPCF, 52(2): 381-388. 

Lauer, W.C. 1991. “Denver’s Direct Potable Water Reuse Demonstration Project.” Proceedings of the International Desalination Association. Conference on Desalination and Water Reuse. Topsfield, Massachusetts. 

Lindsey, P., R., K. Waters, G. Fell, and A. Setka 

Harivandi. 1996. “The Design and Construction of a Demonstration/Research Garden Comparing the Impact of 

Recycled vs. Potable Irrigation Water on Landscape 

Plants, Soils and Irrigation Components.” Water Reuse 

Conference Proceedings. American Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado. 

Longoria, R.R., D.W. Sloan, and S.M. Jenkins. 2000. 

“Rate Setting for Industrial Reuse in San Marcos, Texas.” 

2000. WateReuse Conference Proceedings, January 30 

– February 2, 2003. San Antonio, Texas. 

Lundt, M. M., A. Clapham, B.W. Hounan, and R.E. Finger. 1996. “Cooling with Wastewater.” Water Reuse 

Conference Proceedings. American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado. 

McNeal, M.B. 2002. “Aquifer Storage Recovery has a 

Significant Role in Florida’s Reuse Future.” 2002 

WateReuse Symposium, September 8 – 11. Orlando, 

Florida. 

Medema, G. J., and P. J. Stuyzand. 2002. “Removal of 

Micro-organisms upon Recharge, Deep Well Injection and 

River Bank Infiltration in the Netherlands.” Management 

of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. A. Belkema 

Publishers. Lisse, p. 125-131. 

Mills, W. R. 2002. “The Quest for Water Through Artificial Recharge and Wastewater Recycling.” Management 

of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. A. Balkema 

Publishers, p. 3-10. 

Miyamoto, S., and J. White. 2002. “Foliar Salt Damage 

of Landscape Plants Induced by Sprinkler Irrigation.” 

Texas Water Resources Inst. TR 1202. 

Miyamoto, S. 2003. “Managing Salt Problems in Landscape Use of Reclaimed Water in the Southwest.” Proceedings of the Reuse Symposium. 2003. San Diego, 

California. 

National Research Council. 1998. Issues in Potable Reuse. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 1980. Drinking Water and 

Health, Vol. 2. pp. 252-253. National Academy Press. 

Washington, D.C. 

NCASI. 2003. Memo report from Jay Unwin. April 23, 

2003. 

Nellor, M.H., R.B. Baird, and J.R. Smyth. 1985. “Health 

Effects of Indirect Potable Reuse.” Journal AWWA. 

77(7): 88-96. 

Oaksford, E.T. 1985. Artificial Recharge: Methods, Hydraulics, and Monitoring. In: Artificial Recharge of 

Groundwater. T. Asano (ed) pp 69-127, Butterworth 

Publishers, Boston Massachusetts. 

Olsthoorn, T. N., and M. J. M. Mosch. 2002. “Fifty years 

Artificial in the Amsterdam Dune Area, In. Management 

74
of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability.” A. A. Balkema 

Publishers, Lisse, p. 29-33. 

Ornelas, D., and D. Brosman. 2002. “Distribution System Startup Challenges for El Paso Water Utilities.” 2002 

Reuse Symposium. Orlando, Florida. 

Ornelas, D., and S. Miyamoto. 2003. “Sprinkler Conversion for Minimizing Foliar Salt Damage.” Proceedings of 

the WateReuse Symposium. 2003. San Antonio, Texas. 

Overman, A.R., and W.G. Leseman. 1982. “Soil and 

Groundwater Changes under Land Treatment of Wastewater.” Transactions of the ASAE. 25(2): 381-87. 

Payne, J.F., A. R. Overman, M. N. Allhands, and W. G. 

Leseman. 1989. “Operational Characteristics of a Wastewater Irrigation System.” Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Vol. 5(3): 355-60. 

PBS&J. 1992. Lakeside Lake Load Analysis Study Prepared for Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Peyton, D. 2002. “Modified Recharge Basin Floors to 

Control Sediment and Maximize Infiltration Efficiency. 

Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. 

A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 215-220.

Piet, G.J. and B.C.J. Zoeteman. 1980. Organic Water 

Quality Changes During Sand Bank and Dune Filtration 

of Surface Waters in the Netherlands. Journal AWWA, 

72(7) 400-414. 

Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking Water Standards. 

Publication No. 956, Washington, D.C. 

Pyne, R.D.G. 2002. “Groundwater Recharge and Wells: 

A Guide to Aquifer Storage Recovery.” Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, p. 376. 

Pyne. 1995. Groundwater Recharge and Wells: A Guide 

to Aquifer Storage and Recovery. CRC. Boca Raton. 

Raines, H.K., B. Geyer, M. Bannister, C. Weeks, and T. 

Richardson. 2002. “Food Crop Irrigation with Recycled 

Water is Alive and Well in California.” 2002 WateReuse 

Symposium, September 8 –11. Orlando, Florida. 

Reed, S. and R. Bastian. 1991. “Potable Water Via Land 

Treatment and AWT.” Water Environment & Technology. 3(8): 40-47. 

Rice, R.C., and H. Bouwer. 1980. “Soil-Aquifer Treatment 

Using Primary Effluent.” Journal WPCF. 51(1): 84-88. 

Richardson, T.G. 1998. “Reclaimed Water for Residential Toilet Flushing: Are We Ready?” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado. 

Rowe, D.R. and I.M. Abdel-Magid. 1995. Handbook of 

Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. CRC Press, Inc. 

550 p. 

SAWS website. 2004. www.saws.org. 

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. 2002. 2001-

2002 Annual Groundwater Recharge Monitoring Report. 

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Whittier, 

California. 

Sedlak, D.L., J.L. Gray, and K.E. Pinkston. 2000. “Understanding Microcontaminants in Recycled Water,” Env. 

Sci. Tech. News. 34 (23). 

Skjemstad, J. O., M. H. B. Hayes, and R. S. Swift. 2002. 

“Changes in Natural Organic Matter During Aquifer Storage. Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: 

A. A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 149-154.

Sloss, E., D. F. McCaffrey, R. D. Fricker, S. A. 

Geschwind, and B.R. Ritz. 1999. “Groundwater Recharge 

with Reclaimed Water Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles 

County, 1982-1993.” RAND Corporation. Santa Monica, 

California. 

Sloss, E, S. A. Geschwind, D. F. McCaffrey, and B. R. 

Ritz. 1996. “Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Water: An Epidemiologic Assessment in Los Angeles 

County, 1987-1991.” RAND Corporation. Santa Monica, 

California. 

Sontheimer, H. 1980. “Experience with Riverbank Filtration Along the Rhine River.” Journal AWWA , 72(7): 386­

390. 

Snyder, J. K., A. K. Deb, F. M. Grablutz, and S. B. 

McCammon. 2002. “Impacts of Fire Flow and Distribution System Water Quality, Design, and Operation.” 

AWWA Research Foundation. Denver, Colorado. 

Solley, Wayne B., R. R. Pierce, H. and A. Perlman. 1998. 

“U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200: Estimated Use 

of Water in the United States in 1995.” Denver, Colorado. 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2002. 

“Tampa Bay Area Regional Reclaimed Water Initiative.” 

75
Southwest Florida Water Management District, 

Brooksville, Florida. 

State of California. 1987. Report of the Scientific Advisory Panel on Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed 

Wastewater. Prepared for State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Water Resources, and Department of Health Services. Sacramento, California. 

Stuyzand, P. J. 2002. “Quantifying the Hydrochemical 

Impact and Sustainability of Artificial Recharge Systems. 

Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. 

A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 77-82.

Tanji, K.K. (ed.) 1990. Agricultural Salinity Assessment 

and Management. American Society of Civil Engineers. 

New York, New York. 

Thomas, M., G. Pihera, and B. Inham. 2002. “Constructed Wetlands and Indirect Potable Reuse in Clayton 

County, Georgia.” Proceedings of the Water Environment 

Federation 75thAnnual Technical Exhibition & Conference 

(on CD-ROM), September 28 – October 2, 2002. Chicago, Illinois. 

Toze, S., and J. Hanna. 2002. “The Survival Potential of 

Enteric Microbial Pathogens in a Reclaimed Water ASR 

Project.” Management of Aquifer Recharge for 

Sustainability: A. A. Balkems Publishers. Lisse, p. 139­

142. 

Tsuchihashi, R., T. Asano, and R. H. Sakaji. 2002. “Health 

Aspects of Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Water.” Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability. 

A. A. Belkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 11-20.

Turney, D.T., Lansey, K.E., Quanrud, D.M. and R. Arnold 

(In Press) “Endocrine Disruption in Reclaimed Water: 

Fate During Soil Aquifer Treatment.” Journal of Environmental Engineering. 

U.S. EPA. 2001. “Removal of Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals Using Drinking Water Treatment Processes.” Technology Transfer and Support Division. Cincinnati, Ohio, 

EPA/625/R-00/015. 

U.S. EPA . 1999a. “Treatment Wetland Habitat and Wildlife Use Assessment: Executive Summary” EPA 832-S99-001. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1999b. “Free Water Surface Wetlands for

Wastewater Treatment: A Technology Assesment” EPA832-S-99-002. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA. 1989. Transport and Fate of Contaminants in 

the Subsurface. EPA/625/4-89/019. EPA Center for Environmental Research Information. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. EPA. 1976. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. U.S. EPA-570/9-76-003. Washington, 

D.C. 

Vickers, A. 2001. Handbook for Water Reuse and Conservation. Waterplow Press. Amherst, Mass. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2003. Facility Information. Provided by Glenn Pieritz, Regional 

Engineer and Kathy Cupps, Water Reuse Lead. Olympia, Washington. 

WEF (Water Environment Federation). 2001. Manual 

of Practice FD-16 Second Edition. Natural Systems for 

Wastewater Treatment. Chapter 9: Wetland Systems. 

Alexandria, Virginia. 

Water Environment Federation and American Water 

Works Association. 1998. Using Reclaimed Water to 

Augment Potable Water Resources, USA. 1998. 

Water Pollution Control Federation. 1989. Water Reuse 

Manual of Practice, Second Edition. Water Pollution Control Federation, Alexandria, Virginia. 

Wyvill, J. C., J.C. Adams, and G. E. Valentine. 1984. 

“An Assessment of the Potential for Water Reuse in the 

Pulp and Paper Industry.” U.S. Department of the Interior Report No. RU-84/1. March, 1984. 

Yarbrough, M. E. “Cooling Tower Blowdown Reduction at 

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.” NACE Corrosion 93. Paper 650. Arizona Public Service Co. Palo 

Verde Nuclear Generating Sta. Lon C. Brouse, Calgon 

Corporation, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Yologe, O., R. Harris, and C. Hunt. 1996. “Reclaimed 

Water: Responsiveness to Industrial Water Quality Concerns,.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado. 

York, D.W., L. Walker-Coleman, and C. Ferraro. 2002. 

“Florida’s Water Reuse Program: Past, Present, and Future Directions.” Proceedings of Symposium XVII. Water 

Reuse Association. Orlando, Florida. 

Young, R.E., and T. R. Holliman. 1990. “Reclaimed Water in Highrise Office Buildings.” Proceedings of Conserv 

90, August 12-16. 1990. Phoenix, Arizona. 

76
CHAPTER 3

Technical Issues In Planning Water Reuse Systems

This chapter considers technical issues associated with 

planning the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water derived 

from domestic wastewater facilities. These technical issues include the: 

 Identification and characterization of potential demands for reclaimed water 

 Identification and characterization of existing sources 

of reclaimed water to determine their potential for 

reuse 

 Treatment requirements for producing a safe and reliable reclaimed water that is suitable for its intended 

applications 

 Storage facilities required to balance seasonal fluctuations in supply with fluctuations in demand 

 Supplemental facilities required to operate a water 

reuse system, such as conveyance and distribution 

networks, operational storage facilities, alternative 

supplies, and alternative disposal facilities 

 Potential environmental impacts of implementing 

water reclamation 

 Identification of knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to operate and maintain the proposed system 

Figure 3-1. Phases of Reuse Program Planning 

Technical issues of concern in specific reuse applications are discussed in Chapter 2, “Types of Reuse Applications.” 

3.1 Planning Approach 

One goal of the Guidelines for Water Reuse is to outline 

a systematic approach to planning for reuse so that planners can make sound preliminary judgments about the 

local feasibility of reuse, taking into account the full range 

of key issues that must be addressed in implementing 

reclamation programs. 

Figure 3-1 illustrates a 3-phase approach to reuse planning. This approach groups reuse planning activities into 

successive stages that include preliminary investigations, screening of potential markets, and detailed evaluation of selected markets. Each stage of activity builds 

on previous stages until enough information is available 

to develop a conceptual reuse plan and to begin negotiating the details of reuse with selected users. At each 

stage, from early planning through implementation, public involvement efforts play an important role. Public involvement efforts provide guidance to the planning process and outline steps that must be taken to support 

project implementation. 

77
3.1.1 Preliminary Investigations 

This is a fact-finding phase, meant to rough out physical, economic, and legal/institutional issues related to 

water reuse planning. The primary task is to locate all 

potential sources of effluent for reclamation and reuse 

and all potential markets for reclaimed water. It is also 

important to identify institutional constraints and enabling 

powers that might affect reuse. This phase should be 

approached with a broad view. Exploration of all possible 

options at this early planning stage will establish a practical context for the plan and also help to avoid creating 

dead-ends in the planning process. 

Questions to be addressed in this phase include: 

 What local sources of effluent might be suitable for 

reuse? 

 What are the potential local markets for reclaimed 

water? 

 What other nontraditional freshwater supplies are 

available for reuse? 

 What are the present and projected reliability benefits of fresh water in the area? 

 What are the present and projected user costs of 

fresh water in the area? 

 What sources of funding might be available to support the reuse program? 

 How would water reuse “integrate,” or work in harmony with present uses of other water resources in 

the area? 

 What public health considerations are associated 

with reuse, and how can these considerations be 

addressed? 

 What are the potential environmental impacts of water reuse? 

 What type of reuse system is likely to attract the 

public’s interest and support? 

 What existing or proposed laws and regulations affect reuse possibilities in the area? 

 What local, state, or federal agencies must review 

and approve implementation of a reuse program? 

 What are the legal liabilities of a purveyor or user of 

reclaimed water? 

The major task of this phase involves conducting a preliminary market assessment to identify potential reclaimed water users. This calls for defining the water 

market through discussions with water wholesalers and 

retailers, and by identifying major water users in the 

market. The most common tools used to gather this type 

of information are telephone contacts and/or letters to 

potential reuse customers. Often, a follow-up phone 

contact is needed in order to determine what portion of 

total water use might be satisfied by reclaimed water, 

what quality of water is required for each type of use, 

and how the use of reclaimed water might affect the 

user’s operations or discharge requirements. 

This early planning stage is an ideal time to begin to 

develop or reinforce strong working relationships, among 

wastewater managers, water supply agencies, and potential reclaimed water users. These working relationships will help to develop solutions that best meet a 

particular community’s needs. 

Potential users will be concerned with the quality of reclaimed water and reliability of its delivery. They will also 

want to understand state and local regulations that apply to the use of reclaimed water. Potential customers 

will also want to know about constraints to using reclaimed 

water. They may have questions about connection costs 

or additional wastewater treatment costs that might affect their ability to use the product. 

3.1.2 Screening of Potential Markets 

The essence of this phase is to compare the unit costs 

of fresh water to a given market and the unit costs of 

reclaimed water to that same market. On the basis of 

information gathered in preliminary investigations, one or 

more “intuitive projects” may be developed that are clear 

possibilities, or that just “seem to make sense.” For example, if a large water demand industry is located next 

to a wastewater treatment plant, there is a strong potential for reuse. The industry has a high demand for water, 

and costs to convey reclaimed water would be low. Typically, the cost-effectiveness of providing reclaimed water to a given customer is a function of the customer’s 

potential demand versus the distance of the customer 

from the source of reclaimed water. In considering this 

approach, it should be noted that a concentration of 

smaller customers might represent a service area that 

would be as cost-effective to serve as a single large user. 

Once these anchor customers are identified, it is often 

beneficial to search for smaller customers located along 

the proposed path of the transmission system. 

78
The value of reclaimed water – even to an “obvious” potential user will depend on the: 

 Quality of water to be provided, as compared to the 

user’s requirements 

 Quantity of fresh water available and the ability to 

meet fluctuating demand 

 Effects of laws that regulate reuse, and the attitudes 

of agencies responsible for enforcing applicable laws 

 Present and projected future cost of fresh water to 

the user 

These questions all involve detailed study, and it may 

not be cost-effective for public entities to apply the required analyses to every possible reuse scenario. A 

useful first step is to identify a wide range of candidate 

reuse systems that might be suitable in the area and to 

screen these alternatives. Then, only the most promising 

project candidates move forward with detailed evaluations. 

In order to establish a comprehensive list of reuse possibilities, the following factors should be taken into account: 

 Levels of treatment – if advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) is currently required prior to discharge 

of effluent, cost savings might be available if a market exists for secondary treated effluent. 

 Project size – the scale of reuse can range from 

conveyance of reclaimed water to a single user up 

to the general distribution of reclaimed water for a 

variety of nonpotable uses. 

 Conveyance network – different distribution routes 

will have different advantages, taking better advantage of existing rights-of-way, for example, or serving a greater number of users. 

In addition to comparing the overall costs estimated for 

each alternative, several other criteria can be factored 

into the screening process. Technical feasibility may be 

used as one criterion, and the comparison of estimated 

unit costs of reclaimed water with unit costs of fresh water, as another. An even more complex screening process may include a comparison of weighted values for a 

variety of objective and subjective factors, such as: 

 How much flexibility would each system offer for future expansion or change? 

 How much fresh water use would be replaced by 

each system? 

 How complicated would program implementation be, 

given the number of agencies that would be involved 

in each proposed system? 

 To what degree would each system advance the “stateof-the-art” in reuse? 

 What level of chemical or energy use would be associated with each system? 

 How would each system impact land use in the area? 

Review of user requirements could enable the list of potential markets to be reduced to a few selected markets 

for which reclaimed water could be of significant value. 

The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program 

(BARWRP) in San Francisco, California used a sophisticated screening and alternative analysis procedure. This 

included use of a regional GIS-based market assessment, a computer model to evaluate cost-effective methods for delivery, detailed evaluation criteria, and a spreadsheet-based evaluation decision methodology (Bailey et 

al., 1998). The City of Tucson, Arizona, also used a GIS 

database to identify parcels such as golf courses, parks, 

and schools with a potential high demand for turf irrigation. In Cary, North Carolina, the parcel database was 

joined to the customer-billing database allowing large water 

users to be displayed on a GIS map. This process was a 

key element in identifying areas with high concentrations 

of dedicated irrigation meters on the potable water system (CDM, 1997). As part of an evaluation of water reclamation by the Clark County Sanitation District, Nevada, 

the alternatives analysis was extended beyond the traditional technical, financial, and regulatory considerations 

to include intangible criteria such as: 

 Public acceptance including public education 

 Sensitivity to neighbors 

 Administrative agencies for the project 

 Institutional arrangements to implement 

 Impacts to existing developments as facilities are 

constructed 

Source: Pai et. al., 1996 

3.1.3 Detailed Evaluation of Selected 

Markets 

The evaluation steps contained in this phase represent 

the heart of the analyses necessary to shape a reuse 

program. At this point, a certain amount of useful data 

79
should be known including the present freshwater consumption and costs for selected potential users and a 

ranking of “most-likely” projects. In this phase, a more 

detailed look at conveyance routes and storage requirements for each selected system will help to refine preliminary cost estimates. Funding and benefit options can 

be compared, user costs developed, and a comparison 

made between the costs and benefits of fresh water 

versus reclaimed water for each selected system. The 

detailed evaluation will also look in more detail at the 

environmental, institutional, and social aspects of each 

project. 

Questions that may need to be addressed as part of the 

detailed evaluation include: 

 What are the specific water quality requirements of 

each user? What fluctuation can be tolerated? 

 What is the daily and seasonal water use demand 

pattern for each potential user? 

 Can fluctuations in demand best be met by pumping capacity or by using storage? Where would storage facilities best be located? 

 If additional effluent treatment is required, who 

should own and operate the additional treatment facilities? 

 What costs will the users in each system incur in 

connecting to the reclaimed water delivery system? 

 Will industrial users in each system face increased 

treatment costs for their waste streams as a result 

of using reclaimed water? If so, is increased internal recycling likely, and how will this affect their water use? 

 Will customers in the service area allow project costs 

to be spread over the entire service area? 

 What interest do potential funding agencies have in 

supporting each type of reuse program being considered? What requirements would these agencies 

impose on a project eligible for funding? 

 Will use of reclaimed water require agricultural users 

to make a change to their irrigation patterns or to 

provide better control of any irrigation discharges? 

 What payback period is acceptable to users who must 

invest in additional facilities for onsite treatment, storage, or distribution of reclaimed water? 

 What are the prospects of industrial source control 

measures in the area, and would institution of such 

measures reduce the additional treatment steps necessary to permit reuse? 

 How “stable” are the potential users in each selected 

candidate reuse system? Are they likely to remain 

in their present locations? Are process changes 

being considered that might affect their ability to use 

reclaimed water? 

Many of these questions can be answered only after 

further consultation with water supply agencies and prospective users. Both groups may seek more detailed 

information as well, including the preliminary findings 

made in the first 2 phases of effort. The City of Tampa 

set the following goals and objectives for their first residential reclaimed water project: 

 Demonstrate customer demand for the water 

 Demonstrate customer willingness to pay for the 

service 

 Show that the project would pay for itself and not be 

subsidized by any utility customer not receiving reclaimed water 

 Make subscription to the reclaimed water service 

voluntary 

Source: Grosh et. al., 2002 

Detailed evaluations should lead to a preliminary assessment of technical feasibility and costs. Comparison 

among alternative reuse programs will be possible, as 

well as preliminary comparison between these programs 

and alternative water supplies, both existing and proposed. 

In this phase, economic comparisons, technical optimization steps, and environmental assessment activities 

leading to a conceptual plan for reuse might be accomplished by working in conjunction with appropriate consulting organizations. 

3.2 Potential Uses of Reclaimed 

Water 

Urban public water supplies are treated to satisfy the 

requirements for potable use. However, potable use 

(drinking, cooking, bathing, laundry, and dishwashing) 

represents only a fraction of the total daily residential 

use of treated potable water. The remainder may not 

require water of potable quality. In many cases, water 

used for nonpotable purposes, such as irrigation, may 

be drawn from the same ground or surface source as 

80
municipal supplies, creating an indirect demand on potable supplies. The Guidelines examine opportunities for 

substituting reclaimed water for potable water supplies 

where potable water quality is not required. Specific reuse opportunities include: 

 Urban 

 Industrial 

 Agricultural 

 Environmental and Recreational 

 Groundwater Recharge 

 Augmentation of Potable Supplies 

The technical issues associated with the implementation of each of these reuse alternatives are discussed in 

detail in Chapter 2. The use of reclaimed water to provide 

both direct and indirect augmentation of potable supplies 

is also presented in Chapter 2. 

3.2.1 National Water Use 

Figure 3-2 presents the national pattern of water use in 

the U.S. according to the U.S. Geological Survey (Solley 

et al., 1998). Total water use in 1995 was 402,000 mgd 

(152 x 107 m3/d) with 341,000 mgd (129 x 107 m3/d) being 

fresh water and 61,000 mgd (23 x 107 m3/d) saline water. 

The largest freshwater demands were associated with 

agricultural irrigation/livestock and thermoelectric power, 

representing 41 and 39 percent, respectively, of the total 

freshwater use in the United States. Public and domestic water uses constitute 12 percent of the total demand. 

Figure 3-2. 1995 U.S. Fresh Water Demands by 

Major Uses 

Source: Solley et. al., 1998 

81 

The remainder of the water use categories are mining 

and industrial/commercial with 8 percent of the demand. 

The 2 largest water use categories, thermoelectric power 

and agricultural irrigation, account for 80 percent of the 

total water use. These water uses present a great potential for supplementing with reclaimed water. 

Figure 3-3 provides a flow chart illustrating the source, 

use, and disposition of fresh water in the U.S. Of the 

341,000 mgd (129 x 107

 m3/d) of fresh water used in the 

U.S., only 29 percent is consumptively used and 71 percent is return flow. This amounts to a total of 241,000 

mgd (91 x 107 m3/d), of which 14 percent originates from 

domestic and commercial water use. Domestic wastewater comprises a large portion of this number. 

Figure 3-4 shows estimated wastewater effluent produced daily in each state, representing the total potential 

reclaimed water supply from existing wastewater treatment facilities. Figure 3-5 shows the estimated water 

demands by state in the United States. Estimated water 

demands are equal to the total fresh and saline withdrawals for all water-use categories (public supply, domestic, commercial, irrigation, livestock, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power). Areas where high water 

demand exists might benefit by augmenting existing water 

supplies with reclaimed water. Municipalities in coastal 

and arid states, where water demands are high and freshwater supplies are limited, appear to have a reasonable 

supply of wastewater effluent that could, through proper 

treatment and reuse, greatly extend their water supplies. 

Arid regions of the U.S. (such as the southwest) are candidates for wastewater reclamation, and significant reclamation projects are underway throughout this region. 

Yet, arid regions are not the only viable candidates for 

water reuse. Local opportunities may exist for a given 

municipality to benefit from reuse by extending local water supplies and/or reducing or eliminating surface water 

discharge. For example, the City of Atlanta, Georgia, located in the relatively water-rich southeast, has experienced water restrictions as a result of recurrent droughts. 

In south Florida, subtropical conditions and almost 55 

inches (140 cm) per year of rainfall suggest an abundance of water; however, landscaping practices and regional hydrogeology combine to result in frequent water 

shortages and restrictions on water use. Thus, opportunities for water reclamation and reuse must be examined 

on a local level to judge their value and feasibility. 

3.2.2 Potential Reclaimed Water Demands 

Residential water demand can further be categorized as 

indoor use, which includes toilet flushing, cooking, laundry, bathing, dishwashing, and drinking; or outdoor use, 
Figure 3-3. Fresh Water Source, Use and 

Disposition 

Source: Solley et. al., 1998

82 
Figure 3-4. Wastewater Treatment Return Flow by State, 1995 

Source: Solley et al., 1998 

Figure 3-5. Total Withdrawals 

Source: Solley et al., 1998 

83
which consists primarily of landscape irrigation. Outdoor 

use accounts for approximately 31 percent of the residential demand, while indoor use represents approximately 69 percent (Vickers, 2001). Figure 3-6 presents 

the average residential indoor water use by category. It 

should be noted that these are national averages, and 

few residential households will actually match these figures. Inside the home, the largest use of water is toilet 

flushing (almost 30 percent). The potable use (cooking, 

drinking, bathing, laundry, and dishwashing) represents 

about 60 percent of the indoor water use or about 40 

percent of the total residential (outdoor and indoor) demand. Reclaimed water could be used for all nonpotable 

uses (toilet flushing and outdoor use), which are approximately 50 percent of the total residential water demand. 

Leaks are neglected in these calculations. 

Approximately 38 billion gallons of water is produced daily 

in the U.S. for domestic and public use. On average, a 

typical American household consumes at least 50 percent of their water through lawn irrigation. The U.S. has a 

daily requirement of 40 billion gallons (152 million m3) a 

day of fresh water for general public use. This requirement does not include the 300 billion gallons (1,135 million m3) used for agricultural and commercial purposes. 

For example, a dairy cow must consume 4 gallons (15 l) 

of water to produce 1 gallon (4 l) of milk, and it takes 300 

million gallons (1.1 million m3) of water to produce a 1­

day supply of U.S. newsprint (American Water Works 

Association Website, 2003). 

The need for irrigation is highly seasonal. In the North 

where turf goes dormant, irrigation needs will be zero in 

the winter months. However, irrigation demand may repFigure 3-6. Average Indoor Water Usage 

(Total = 69.3 gpcd) 

resent a significant portion of the total potable water demand in the summer months. In coastal South Carolina, 

winter irrigation use is estimated to be less than 10 percent of the total potable demand. This increases to over 

30 percent in the months of June and July. In Denver, 

during July and August when temperatures exceed 90 °F 

(32 °C), approximately 80 percent of all potable water 

may be used for irrigation. Given the seasonal nature of 

urban irrigation, eliminating this demand from the potable 

system through reuse will result in a net annual reduction in potable demands and, more importantly, may also 

significantly reduce peak-month potable water demands. 

It is not surprising then that landscape irrigation currently 

accounts for the largest urban use of reclaimed water in 

the U.S. This is particularly true of urban areas with substantial residential areas and a complete mix of landscaped areas ranging from golf courses to office parks 

to shopping malls. Urban areas also have schools, parks, 

and recreational facilities, which require regular irrigation. 

Within Florida, for example, studies of potable water consumption have shown that 50 to 70 percent of all potable 

water produced is used for outside purposes, principally 

irrigation. 

The potential irrigation demand for reclaimed water generated by a particular urban area can be estimated from 

an inventory of the total irrigable acreage to be served 

by the reuse system and the estimated weekly irrigation rates, determined by factors such as local soil characteristics, climatic conditions, and type of landscaping. In some states, recommended weekly irrigation rates 

are available from water management agencies, county 

or state agricultural agents, and irrigation specialists. 

Reclaimed water demand estimates should also take 

into account any other proposed uses for reclaimed 

water within the proposed service area, such as industrial cooling and process water, decorative fountains, and 

other aesthetic water features. 

Agricultural irrigation represents 40 percent of total water 

demand nationwide and presents another significant opportunity for water reuse, particularly in areas where agricultural sites are near urban areas and can easily be 

integrated with urban reuse applications. Such is the case 

in Orange County, California, where the Irvine Ranch 

Water District provides reclaimed water to irrigate urban 

landscape and mixed agricultural lands (orchards and 

vegetable row crops). As agricultural land use is displaced 

by residential development in this growing urban area, 

the District has the flexibility to convert its reclaimed water 

service to urban irrigation. 

In Manatee County, Florida, agricultural irrigation is a 

Source: Vickers, 2001 significant component of a county-wide water reuse pro84
gram. During 2002, the County’s 3 water reclamation facilities, with a total treatment capacity of 34.4 mgd (1,500 

l/s), provided about 10.2 mgd (446 l/s) of reclaimed water. This water was used to irrigate golf courses, parks, 

schools, residential subdivisions, a 1,500-acre (600-hectare) gladioli farm, and about 6,000 acres (2,400 hectares) of mixed agricultural lands (citrus, ridge and furrow 

crops, sod farms, and pasture). The original 20-year reuse agreements with the agricultural users are being extended for 10 years, ensuring a long-term commitment 

to reclaimed water with a significant water conservation 

benefit. The urban reuse system has the potential to grow 

as development grows. Manatee County has more than 

385 acres (154 hectares) of lake storage (1,235 million 

gallons or 47 x 105

 m3 of volume) and 2 reclaimed water 

aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) projects. 

A detailed inspection of existing or proposed water use 

is essential for planning any water reuse system. This 

information is often available through municipal billing 

records or water use monitoring data that is maintained 

to meet the requirements of local or regional water management agencies. In other cases, predictive equations 

may be required to adequately describe water demands. 

Water needs for various reuse alternatives are explored 

further in Chapter 2. In addition to expected nonpotable 

uses for reclaimed water, a review of literature shows 

consideration and implementation of reuse projects for a 

wide variety of demands including toilet flushing, commercial car washing, secondary and primary sources of 

fire protection, textile mills to maintain water features, 

cement manufacturing, and make-up water for commercial air conditioners. By identifying and serving a variety 

of water uses with reclaimed water, the utilization of reclaimed water facilities can be increased, thereby increasing the cost effectiveness of the system while at the 

same time increasing the volume of potable water conserved. 

3.2.3 Reuse and Water Conservation 

The need to conserve the potable water supply is an 

important part of urban and regional planning. For example, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California predicted in 1990 that by the year 2010 water demands would exceed reliable supplies by approximately 

326 billion gallons (1,200 x 109 m3) annually (Adams, 

1990). To help conserve the potable water supplies, the 

Metropolitan Water District developed a multi-faceted 

program that includes conservation incentives, rebate 

programs, groundwater storage, water exchange agreements, reservoir construction, and reclaimed water 

projects. Urban reuse of reclaimed water is an essential 

element of the program. In 2001, approximately 62 billion 

gallons (330 x 106

 m3) of reclaimed water were used in 

the District’s service area for groundwater recharge, landscape irrigation, agricultural, commercial, and industrial 

purposes. It is estimated that more than 195 billion gallons (740 x 106

 m3) of reclaimed water will be reused by 

2010. Due to long-term conservation programs, additional 

supply agreements, and an increase in the reclaimed 

water supply the District expects to meet the area’s water needs for the next ten years even during times of 

critical drought (Metropolitan, 2002). 

Perhaps the greatest benefit of urban reuse systems is 

their contribution to delaying or eliminating the need to 

expand potable water supply and treatment facilities. 

The City of St. Petersburg, Florida, has experienced 

about a 10 percent population growth since 1976 without any significant increase in potable water demand 

because of its urban reuse program. Prior to the start-up 

of its urban reuse system, the average residential water 

demand in a study area in St. Petersburg was 435 gallons per day (1,650 l/d). After reclaimed water was made 

available, the potable water demand was reduced to 220 

gallons per day (830 l/d) (Johnson and Parnell, 1987). 

Figure 3-7 highlights the City of St. Petersburg’s estimated potable water savings since implementing an urban reuse program. 

In 2001, Florida embarked on the Water Conservation 

Initiative (FDEP, 2002) – a program designed to promote 

water conservation in an effort to ensure water availability for the future. Recognizing the conservation and recharge potential of water reuse, a Water Reuse Work 

Group was convened to address the effective and efficient use of reclaimed water as a component in overall 

strategies to ensure water availability. The Water Reuse Work Group published its initial report in 2001 

(FDEP, 2001) and published a more detailed strategy 

report in 2003 (FDEP, 2003). The final reuse strategy 

report includes 16 major strategies designed to ensure 

efficient and effective water reuse. Of particular note 

are strategies that encourage the use of reclaimed water meters and volume-based rates, in addition to encouraging groundwater recharge and indirect potable reuse. 

Currently, approximately 20 percent of all water supplied 

by the Irvine Ranch Water District in southern California 

is reclaimed water. Total water demand is expected to 

reach 69 mgd (3,024 l/s) in Irvine by 2010. At that time 

Irvine expects to be able to provide service to meet approximately 26 mgd (1,139 l/s) of this demand with reclaimed water (Irvine Ranch Water District, 2002). An 

aggressive urban reuse program in Altamonte Springs, 

Florida is credited with a 30 percent reduction in potable 

water demands (Forest et al., 1998). 

85
3.3 

Figure 3-7. Potable and Reclaimed Water Usage in St. Petersburg, Florida 

Sources of Reclaimed Water 

Under the broad definition of water reclamation and reuse, sources of reclaimed water may range from industrial process waters to the tail waters of agricultural irrigation systems. For the purposes of these guidelines, 

however, the sources of reclaimed water are limited to 

the effluent generated by domestic wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs). 

Treated municipal wastewater represents a significant 

potential source of reclaimed water for beneficial reuse. 

As a result of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972, the Clean Water Act of 1977 and 

its subsequent amendments, centralized wastewater 

treatment has become commonplace in urban areas of 

the U.S. In developed countries, approximately 73 percent of the population is served by wastewater collection 

and treatment facilities. Yet only 35 percent of the population of developing countries is served by wastewater 

collection. Within the U.S., the population generates an 

estimated 41 billion gallons per day (1.8 x 106 l/s) of 

potential reclaimed water (Solley et al., 1998). As the 

world population continues to shift from rural to urban, 

the number of centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems will also increase, creating significant 

opportunities to implement water reuse systems to augment water supplies and, in many cases, improve the 

quality of surface waters. 

3.3.1 Locating the Sources 

In areas of growth and new development, completely new 

collection, treatment, and distribution systems may be 

designed from the outset with water reclamation and reuse in mind. In most cases, however, existing facilities 

will be incorporated into the water reuse system. In areas where centralized treatment is already provided, existing WWTFs are potential sources of reclaimed water. 

In the preliminary planning of a water reuse system incorporating existing facilities, the following information 

is needed for the initial evaluation: 

 Residential areas and their principal sewers 

 Industrial areas and their principal sewers 

 Wastewater treatment facilities 

 Areas with combined sewers 

 Existing effluent disposal facilities 

 Areas and types of projected development 

 Locations of potential reclaimed water users 

For minimizing capital costs, the WWTFs ideally should 

be located near the major users of the reclaimed water. 

However, in adapting an existing system for water reuse, other options are available. For example, if a trunk 

86
sewer bearing flows to a WWTF passes through an area 

of significant potential reuse, a portion of the flows can 

be diverted to a new “satellite” reclamation facility to serve 

that area. The sludge produced in the satellite reclamation facility can be returned to the sewer for handling at 

the WWTF. By this method, odor problems may be reduced or eliminated at the satellite reclamation facility. 

However, the effects of this practice can be deleterious 

to both sewers and downstream treatment facilities. Alternatively, an effluent outfall passing through a potential reuse area could be tapped for some or all of the 

effluent, and additional treatment could be provided, if 

necessary, to meet reclaimed water quality standards. 

These alternative configurations are illustrated in Figure 

3-8. 

Figure 3-8. Three Configuration Alternatives 

for Water Reuse Systems 

3.3.2 Characterizing the Sources 

Existing sources must be characterized to roughly establish the wastewater effluent’s suitability for reclamation and reuse. To compare the quality and quantity of 

available reclaimed water with the requirements of potential users, information about the operation and performance of the existing WWTF and related facilities 

must be examined. Important factors to consider in this 

preliminary stage of reuse planning are: 

 Level of treatment (e.g., primary, secondary, advanced) 

and specific treatment processes (e.g., ponds, activated sludge, filtration, disinfection, nutrient removal, 

disinfection) 

 Effluent water quality 

 Effluent quantity (use of historical data to determine 

daily and season at average, maximum, and minimum flows) 

 Industrial wastewater contributions to flow 

 System reliability 

 Supplemental facilities (e.g., storage, pumping, transmission) 

3.3.2.1 Level of Treatment and Processes 

Meeting all applicable treatment requirements for the production of safe, reliable reclaimed water is one of the 

keys to operating any water reuse system. Thus careful 

analysis of applicable state and local requirements and 

provision of all necessary process elements are critical 

in designing a reuse system. Because of differing environmental conditions from region to region across the 

country, and since different end uses of the reclaimed 

water require different levels of treatment, a universal 

quality standard for reclaimed water does not exist. In 

the past, the main objective of treatment for reclaimed 

water was secondary treatment and disinfection. As 

wastewater effluent is considered a source for more and 

more uses, such as industrial process water or even potable supply water, the treatment focus has expanded 

beyond secondary treatment and disinfection to include 

treatment for other containments such as metals, dissolved solids, and emerging contaminants (such as pharmaceutical residue and endocrine disruptors). However, 

at this early planning stage, only a preliminary assessment of the compatibility of the secondary effluent quality and treatment facilities with potential reuse applications is needed. A detailed discussion of treatment re87
quirements for water reuse applications is provided in 

Section 3.4. 

Knowledge of the chemical constituents in the effluent, 

the level of treatment, and the treatment processes provided is important in evaluating the WWTF’s suitability 

as a water reclamation facility and determining possible 

reuse applications. An existing plant providing at least 

secondary treatment, while not originally designed for 

water reclamation and reuse, can be upgraded by modifying existing processes or adding new unit processes 

to the existing treatment train to supply reclaimed water 

for most uses. For example, with the addition of chemicals, filters, and other facilities to ensure reliable disinfection, most secondary effluents can be enhanced to 

provide a source of reclaimed water suitable for unrestricted urban reuse. However, in some parts of the U.S., 

the effluent from a secondary treatment system may 

contain compounds of concern. Such effluent may not 

be used because it could result in water quality problems. In these cases, treatment processes must be selected to reduce these compounds before they are released. This can create additional disposal issues as 

well. A typical example would be the presence of elevated 

TDS levels within the effluent, resulting in problems where 

the reclaimed water is used for irrigation (Sheikh et al., 

1997; Dacko, 1997; Johnson, 1998). 

In some cases, existing processes necessary for effluent disposal practices may no longer be required for 

water reuse. For example, an advanced wastewater 

treatment plant designed to remove nitrogen and/or 

phosphorus would not be needed for agricultural or urban irrigation, since the nutrients in the reclaimed water 

are beneficial to plant growth. 

In addition to the unit processes required to produce a 

suitable quality of reclaimed water, the impact of any 

return streams (e.g., filter backwash, RO concentrate 

return, etc.) to the WWTF’s liquid and solids handling 

processes should be considered. 

3.3.2.2 Reclaimed Water Quality 

Effluent water quality sampling and analysis are required 

as a condition of WWTF discharge permits. The specific 

parameters tested are those required for preserving the 

water quality of the receiving water body, (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, coliforms or other 

indicators, nutrients, and sometimes toxic organics and 

metals). This information is useful in the preliminary evaluation of a wastewater utility as a potential source of reclaimed water. For example, as noted earlier, the nitrogen and phosphorus in reclaimed water represents an 

advantage for certain irrigation applications. For industrial reuse, however, nutrients may encourage biological 

growths that could cause fouling. Where the latter uses 

are a small fraction of the total use, the customer may 

be obliged to remove the nutrients or blend reclaimed 

water with other water sources. The decision is based on 

case-by-case assessments. 

In some cases, the water quality data needed to assess 

the suitability of a given source are not included in the 

WWTF’s existing monitoring requirements and will have 

to be gathered specifically for the reuse evaluation. 

Coastal cities may experience saltwater infiltration into 

their sewer system, resulting in elevated chloride concentrations in the effluent or reclaimed water. Chloride 

levels are of concern in irrigation because high levels 

are toxic to many plants. However, chloride levels at 

WWTFs typically are not monitored. Even in the absence 

of saltwater infiltration, industrial contributions or practices within the community being served may adversely 

impact reclaimed water quality. The widespread use of 

water softeners may increase the concentration of salts 

to levels that make the reclaimed water unusable for 

some applications. High chlorides from saltwater infiltration led the City of Punta Gorda, Florida to cease reclaimed water irrigation in 2001. This facility had irrigated 

an underdrained agricultural site for almost 20 years, but 

flow discharged from the underdrains caused a violation 

of conductivity limitations in the receiving water. 

Damage to landscape plants in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, was traced to elevated chlorides in the 

reclaimed water. This coastal city operates 4 reclamation plants and those serving older beach communities 

are prone to saltwater infiltration. In response to this problem, the City initiated on-line monitoring of conductance 

in order to identify and halt the use of unacceptable water. The City also developed a planting guide for reclaimed 

water customers to identify foliage more and less suitable for use with reclaimed water service (Johnson, 1998). 

The Carmel Area Wastewater District in California experienced a similar problem with golf course turf associated with elevated sodium. This was due to a combination of the potable water treatment processes being used, 

and the prevalence of residential and commercial water 

softeners. Solutions included the use of gypsum, periodic use of potable water for irrigation to flush the root 

zone, a switch from sodium hydroxide to potassium hydroxide for corrosion control, and attempts to reduce the 

use of self-regenerating water softeners (Sheikh et al., 

1997). Some coastal communities, or areas where salinity is a concern, have begun to restrict the discharge of 

chemical salts into the sanitary sewer system either by 

requiring their placement in a special brine line or by charging a fee for their treatment and removal (Sheikh and 

Rosenblum, 2002). A California state law recently gave 

88
local jurisdictions the ability to prohibit the use of selfregenerating water softeners that had been previously 

exempt from regulation by a prior statute (California Health 

and Safety Code). 

The West Basin Municipal Water District in southwest 

Los Angeles County, California, created designer reclaimed water of different qualities to increase their reclaimed water customer base. Table 3-1 describes the 

5 different grades of designer water they produce and 

supply to their 200-square mile area of customers. 

For the purpose of reuse planning, it is best to consider 

reclaimed water quality from the standpoint of water supply, (i.e., what quality is required for the intended use?). 

Where a single large customer dominates the demand 

for reclaimed water, the treatment selected may suit that 

particular, major customer. In Pomona, California, activated carbon filters were used in place of conventional 

sand filters at the reclamation plant to serve paper mills 

that require low color in their water supply. 

Industrial reuse might be precluded if high levels of dissolved solids, dissolved organic material, chlorides, phosphates, and nutrients are present, unless additional treatment is provided by the industrial facility. Recreational 

reuse might be limited by nutrients, which could result in 

unsightly and odorous algae blooms. Trace metals in high 

concentrations might restrict the use of reclaimed water 

for agricultural and horticultural irrigation. 

3.3.2.3 Reclaimed Water Quantity 

Just as the potable water purveyor must meet diurnal 

and seasonal variations in demand, so too must the 

purveyor meet variations in demand for reclaimed water. 

Diurnal and seasonal fluctuations in supply and demand 

must be taken into account at the preliminary design stage 

of any water reclamation system. Such an approach is 

warranted, given the fact that diurnal and seasonal supplies and demands for reclaimed water often exhibit more 

variations than that of potable water and, in many cases, 

the peaks in supply and demand are independent of one 

another. 

For example, WWTF flows tend to be low at night, when 

urban irrigation demand tends to be high. Seasonal flow 

fluctuations may occur in resort areas due to the influx 

Table 3-1. Five Grades of Reclaimed Water Produced by West Basin MWD 

Grade Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 

Name Tertiary Nitrified Pure RO Softened RO Ultra-Pure RO 

Treatment 

Secondary effluent; 

additional filtration 

and disinfection 

Tertiary water with 

ammonia removal 

Secondary water plus microfiltration and RO 

Grade 3 plus lime softening 

treatment Double pass RO 

Use Landscape; golf 

course irrigation Cooling towers Low pressure boiler feed for refineries 

Indirect potable reuse for 

the Water Replenishment 

District 

High pressure boiler feed 

for refineries 

Softening the water 

Quality Drivers Human contact and 

health requirements 

Need to remove ammonia 

to reduce corrosion 

Need to reduce 

contaminants that cause 

scaling; strong desire to 

use the water multiple 

times in the process 

preserves the pipes that 

deliver the water to the 

injection wells. Microfiltration and RO have been 

perceived as providing 

acceptable treatment for 

High pressure increases the 

need to further reduce 

contaminants that cause 

scaling. Desire to use the 

water multiple times in the 

process 

indirect potable reuse. 

Reliability 

No contractual 

guarantee; 100% 

reliable due to 

constant source 

No information provided No contractual guarantees 

No contractual guarantees. 

May be perceived as more 

reliable 

No contractual guarantees. 

Probably perceived as more 

reliable 

Price 

25 - 40% discount 

from baseline 

standard 

Approximately 20% 

discounted from baseline 

standard 

Equal to baseline standard 

or slightly higher 

20% discount from baseline 

standard 

100% price premium 

compared to the baseline 

standard 

2001-02 

Volume (AF) 2,600 8,300 6,500 7,300 2,600 

Adapted from: “West Basin Municipal Water District: 5 Designer (Recycled) Waters to Meet Customer’s Needs” 

produced by Darryl G. Miller, General Manager, West Basin Municipal Water District, Carson, California. 

89 
of tourists, and seasons of high flow do not necessarily 

correspond with seasons of high irrigation demand. Figure 3-9 illustrates the fluctuations in reclaimed water 

supply and irrigation demand in a southwest Florida 

community. Treatment facilities serving college campuses, resort areas, etc. also experience significant fluctuations in flow throughout the year. Where collection 

systems are prone to infiltration and inflow, significant 

fluctuations in flow may occur during the rainy season. 

Information about flow quantities and fluctuations is critical in order to determine the size of storage facilities 

needed to balance supply and demand in water reuse 

systems. A more detailed discussion of seasonal storage requirements is provided in Section 3.5. Operational 

storage requirements to balance diurnal flow variations 

are detailed in Section 3.6.3. 

3.3.2.4 Industrial Wastewater Contributions 

Industrial waste streams differ from domestic wastewater in that they may contain relatively high levels of elements and compounds, which may be toxic to plants 

and animals or may adversely impact treatment plant 

performance. Where industrial wastewater flow contributions to the WWTF are significant, reclaimed water 

quality may be affected. The degree of impact will, of 

course, depend on the nature of the industry. A rigorous pretreatment program is required for any water reclamation facility that receives industrial wastes to ensure the reliability of the biological treatment processes 

by excluding potentially toxic levels of pollutants from 

the sewer system. Planning a reuse system for a WWTF 

with substantial industrial flows will require identification 

of the constituents that may interfere with particular reuse applications, and appropriate monitoring for parameters of concern. Wastewater treatment facilities receiving substantial amounts of high-strength industrial wastes 

may be limited in the number and type of suitable reuse 

applications. 

3.4 Treatment Requirements for Water 

Reuse 

One of the most critical objectives in any reuse program 

is to ensure that public health protection is not compromised through the use of reclaimed water. To date there 

have not been any confirmed cases of infectious disease resulting from the use of properly treated reclaimed 

water in the U.S. Other objectives, such as preventing 

environmental degradation, avoiding public nuisance, 

and meeting user requirements, must also be satisfied, 

but the starting point remains the safe delivery and use 

of properly treated reclaimed water. 

Protection of public health is achieved by: (1) reducing 

or eliminating concentrations of pathogenic bacteria, 

parasites, and enteric viruses in the reclaimed water, (2) 

controlling chemical constituents in reclaimed water, and/ 

or (3) limiting public exposure (contact, inhalation, ingestion) to reclaimed water. Reclaimed water projects may 

vary significantly in the level of human exposure incurred, 

with a corresponding variation in the potential for health 

risks. Where human exposure is likely in a reuse application, reclaimed water should be treated to a high degree prior to its use. Conversely, where public access to 

Figure 3-9. Reclaimed Water Supply vs. Irrigation Demand 

90 
a reuse site can be restricted so that exposure is unlikely, a lower level of treatment may be satisfactory, 

provided that worker safety is not compromised. 

Determining the necessary treatment for the intended 

reuse application requires an understanding of the: 

 Constituents of concern in wastewater 

 Levels of treatment and processes applicable for reducing these constituents to levels that achieve the 

desired reclaimed water quality 

3.4.1 Health Assessment of Water Reuse 

The types and concentrations of pathogenic organisms 

found in raw wastewater are a reflection of the enteric 

organisms present in the customer base of the collection system. Chemical pollutants of concern may also 

be present in untreated wastewater. These chemicals 

may originate from any customer with access to the 

collection system, but are typically associated with industrial customers. Recent studies have shown that 

over-the-counter and prescription drugs are often found 

in wastewater. 

The ability for waterborne organisms to cause disease 

is well established. Our knowledge of the hazards of 

chemical pollutants varies. In most cases, these concerns are based on the potential that adverse health 

effects may occur due to long-term exposure to relatively low concentrations. In addition, chemicals capable 

of mimicking hormones have been shown to disrupt the 

endocrine systems of aquatic animals. 

In order to put these concerns into perspective with respect to water reclamation, it is important to consider 

the following questions. 

 What is the intended use of the reclaimed water?

 Consideration should be given to the expected degree of human contact with the reclaimed water. It is 

reasonable to assume that reclaimed water used for 

the irrigation of non-food crops on a restricted agricultural site may be of lesser quality than water used 

for landscape irrigation at a public park or school, 

which in turn may be of a lesser quality than reclaimed 

water intended to augment potable supplies. 

 Given the intended use of reclaimed water, what concentrations of microbiological organisms and chemicals of concern are acceptable? 

Reclaimed water quality standards have evolved over 

a long period of time, based on both scientific studies and practical experience. Chapter 4 provides a 

summary of state requirements for different types of 

reuse projects. While requirements might be similar 

from state to state, allowable concentrations and the 

constituents monitored are state-specific. Chapter 4 

also provides suggested guidelines for reclaimed water 

quality as a function of use. 

 Which treatment processes are needed to achieve 

the required reclaimed water quality? 

While it must be acknowledged that raw wastewater may pose a significant risk to public health, it is 

equally important to point out that current treatment 

technologies allow water to be treated to almost any 

quality desired. For many uses of reclaimed water, 

appropriate water quality can be achieved through 

conventional, widely practiced treatment processes. 

Advanced treatment beyond secondary treatment 

may be required as the level of human contact increases. 

 Which sampling/monitoring protocols are required to 

ensure that water quality objectives are being met? 

As with any process, wastewater reuse programs 

must be monitored to confirm that they are operating as expected. Once a unit process is selected, 

there are typically standard Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) practices to assure that the system is functioning as designed. Reuse projects will 

often require additional monitoring to prevent the 

discharge of substandard water to the reclamation 

system. On-line, real-time water quality monitoring 

is typically used for this purpose. 

3.4.1.1 Mechanism of Disease Transmission 

For the purposes of this discussion, the definition of disease is limited to illness caused by microorganisms. 

Health issues associated with chemical constituents in 

reclaimed water are discussed in Section 3.4.1.7. Diseases associated with microorganisms can be transmitted by water to humans either directly by ingestion, 

inhalation, or skin contact of infectious agents, or indirectly by contact with objects or individuals previously 

contaminated. The following circumstances must occur 

for an individual to become infected through exposure 

to reclaimed water: (a) the infectious agent must be 

present in the community and, hence, in the wastewater from that community; (b) the agents must survive, to 

a significant degree, all of the wastewater treatment 

processes to which they are exposed; (c) the individual 

91
must either directly or indirectly come into contact with 

the reclaimed water; and (d) the agents must be present 

in sufficient numbers to cause infection at the time of 

contact. 

The primary means of ensuring reclaimed water can be 

used for beneficial purposes is first to provide the appropriate treatment to reduce or eliminate pathogens. 

Treatment processes typically employed in water reclamation systems are discussed below and in Section 

3.4.2. Additional safeguards are provided by reducing

the level of contact with reclaimed water. Section 3.6 

discusses a variety of cross-connection control measures that typically accompany reuse systems. 

The large variety of pathogenic microorganisms that may 

be present in raw domestic wastewater is derived principally from the feces of infected humans and primarily 

transmitted by consumption. Thus, the main transmission route is referred to as the “fecal-oral” route. Contaminated water is an important conduit for fecal-oral 

transmission to humans and occurs either by direct consumption or by the use of contaminated water in agriculture and food processing. There are occasions when 

host infections cause passage of pathogens in urine. 

The 3 principal infections leading to significant appearance of pathogens in urine are: urinary schistosomiasis, 

typhoid fever, and leptospirosis. Coliform and other bacteria may be numerous in urine during urinary tract infections. Since the incidence of these diseases in the U.S. 

is very low, they constitute little public health risk in water reuse. Microbial agents resulting from venereal infections can also be present in urine, but they are so vulnerable to conditions outside the body that wastewater is 

not a predominant vehicle of transmission (Feachem et 

al., 1983 and Riggs, 1989). 

3.4.1.2 Pathogenic Microorganisms and Health 

Risks 

The potential transmission of infectious disease by pathogenic agents is the most common concern associated 

with reuse of treated municipal wastewater. Fortunately, 

sanitary engineering and preventive medical practices have 

combined to reach a point where waterborne disease 

outbreaks of epidemic proportions have, to a great extent, been controlled. However, the potential for disease 

transmission through water has not been eliminated. With 

few exceptions, the disease organisms of epidemic history are still present in today’s sewage. The level of treatment today is more related to severing the transmission 

chain than to fully eradicating the disease agents. 

Many infectious disease microbes affecting individuals in 

a community can find their way into municipal sewage. 

Most of the organisms found in untreated wastewater 

are known as enteric organisms; they inhabit the intestinal tract where they can cause disease, such as diarrhea. Table 3-2 lists many of the infectious agents potentially present in raw domestic wastewater. These microbes can be classified into 3 broad groups: bacteria, 

parasites (parasitic protozoa and helminths), and viruses. 

Table 3-2 also lists the diseases associated with each 

organism. 

a. Bacteria 

Bacteria are microscopic organisms ranging from approximately 0.2 to 10 μm in length. They are distributed ubiquitously in nature and have a wide variety of nutritional 

requirements. Many types of harmless bacteria colonize 

in the human intestinal tract and are routinely shed in the 

feces. Pathogenic bacteria are also present in the feces 

of infected individuals. Therefore, municipal wastewater 

can contain a wide variety and concentration range of 

bacteria, including those pathogenic to humans. The numbers and types of these agents are a function of their 

prevalence in the animal and human community from 

which the wastewater is derived. Three of the more common bacterial pathogens found in raw wastewater are 

Salmonella sp, Shigella sp. and enteropathogenic Escherichia coli which have caused drinking water outbreaks 

with significant numbers of cases of hemolytic uremic 

syndrome (HUS) and multiple deaths (e.g. Walkerton, 

Ontario; Washington County, NY; Cabool, MO; Alpine, 

WY). 

Bacterial levels in wastewater can be significantly lowered through either a “removal” or an “inactivation” process. The removal process involves the physical separation of the bacteria from the wastewater through sedimentation and/or filtration. Due to density considerations, 

bacteria do not settle as individual cells or even colonies. Typically, bacteria can adsorb to particulate matter 

or floc particles. These particles settle during sedimentation, secondary clarification, or during an advanced 

treatment process such as coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation using a coagulant. Bacteria can also be removed by using a filtration process that includes sand 

filters, disk (cloth) filters, or membrane processes. Filtration efficiency for a sand or cloth filter is dependent 

upon the effective pore size of the filtering medium and 

the presence of a “pre-coat” layer, usually other particulate matter. Because the pore sizes inherent to 

microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes (including 

those membranes used in membrane bioreactors), bacteria are, to a large extent, completely removed due to 

size exclusion. Ultimately, the sedimented or filtered bacteria are removed from the overall treatment system 

through the sludge and backwash treatment system. 

92
Table 3-2. Infectious Agents Potentially Present in Untreated Domestic Wastewater 

Pathoge n Dis e as e

Bac teria 

 Shigella ( s pp.) Shigellos is (bac illary dy s entery )

 Salmonella typhi Ty phoid fev er

 Salmonella (1700 s eroty pes s pp.) Salmonellos is

 Vib ro c holerae Cholera

 Es c heric hia c oli (enteropathogenic ) G as troenteritis and s eptic emia, 

hemoly tic uremic s y ndrome (HUS)

 Yers inia enteroc olitic a Yers inios is

 Leptos pira (s pp.) Leptos piros is

 Campylob ac ter jejune G as troenteritis , reac tiv e arthritis

Protoz oa 

 Entamoeb a his tolytic a Amebias is (amebic dy s entery )

 G iardia lamb lia G iardias is (gas troenteritis )

 Cryptos poridium Cry ptos poridios is , diarrhea, fev er

 Mic ros poridia Diarrhea

Helminths 

 As caris lumb ricoides As c arias is (roundw orm infec tion)

 Anc ylos toma (s pp) Ancy lostomiasis (hook worm infection)

 Nec ator americ anus Nec atorias is (roundworm infec tion)

 Anc ylos toma (s pp.) Cutaneous larv a migrams (hook worm infec tion)

 Strongloides s terc oralis Strongy loidias is (threadworm infection)

 Tric huris tric hiura Tric hurias is (whipw orm infec tion)

 Taenia (s pp.) Taenias is (tapeworm infec tion)

 Enterob ius vermic ularis Enterobias is (pinwork infec tion)

 Ec hinoc oc c us granulos us (s pp.) Hy datidos is (tapeworm infec tion)

Virus es 

 Enteroviruses (polio, echo, coxsackie, G as troenteritis , heart anomolies , meningitis , 

 new enterovirus es, serotype 68 to 71) others

 Hepatitis A and E v irus Infec tious hepatitis

 Adenov irus Res piratory dis eas e, ey e infec tions , 

gas troenteritis (serotype 40 and 41)

 Rotav irus G as troenteritis

 Parv ov irus G as troenteritis

 Noroviruses Diarrhea, vomiting, fev er

 As trov irus G as troenteritis

 C alic iv irus G as troenter itis

 Coronav irus G as troenteritis 

Source: Adapted from National Research Council, 1996; Sagik et. al., 1978; and Hurst et. al., 1989 

Inactivation of bacteria refers to the destruction (death) pounds, generally inactivate bacteria cells by disrupting 

of bacteria cells or the interference with reproductive DNA, thus causing direct cell death and/or inhibiting abilability using a chemical or energy agent. Such inactiva- ity to reproduce. UV light also inactivates bacteria by 

tion is usually referred to as disinfection. The most com- damaging the DNA, thus inhibiting the ability to repromon disinfectants used in wastewater treatment are free duce. Ozone, another powerful oxidant, can cause cell 

chlorine, chloramines, ultraviolet (UV) light, and ozone. inactivation by direct damage to the cell wall and memChlorine, a powerful chemical oxidant, generally inacti- brane, disruption of enzymatic reaction, and damage to 

vates bacterial cells by causing physiological damage to DNA. The relative effectiveness of each chemical disincell membranes and damage to the internal cell compo- fectant is generally related to the product of disinfectant 

nents. Chloramines, chlorine substituted ammonia com- concentration and the disinfectant contact time. This prod93
uct is commonly referenced as the “Ct” value. Tables of 

various Ct values required to inactivate bacteria (and other 

pathogens, such as viruses and protozoans) are readily 

available in the literature for clean (filtered) water applications. These Ct values are a function of temperature, 

pH, and the desired level of inactivation. 

In recognition of the many constraints associated with 

analyzing wastewater for all of the potential pathogens 

that may be present, it has been common practice to 

use a microbial indicator or surrogate to indicate fecal 

contamination of water. Some bacteria of the coliform 

group have long been considered the prime indicators 

of fecal contamination and are the most frequently applied indicators used by state regulatory agencies to 

monitor water quality. The coliform group is composed 

of a number of bacteria that have common metabolic 

attributes. The total coliform groups are all gram-negative aspogenous rods, and most are found in feces of 

warm-blooded animals and in soil. Fecal coliforms are, 

for the most part, bacteria restricted to the intestinal tract 

of warm-blooded animals and comprise a portion of the 

total coliform group. Coliform organisms are used as 

indicators because they occur naturally in the feces of 

warm-blooded animals in higher concentrations than 

pathogens, are easily detectable, exhibit a positive correlation with fecal contamination, and generally respond 

similarly to environmental conditions and treatment processes as many bacterial pathogens. Where low levels 

of coliform organisms are used to indicate the absence 

of pathogenic bacteria, there is consensus among microbiologists that the total coliform analysis is not superior to the fecal coliform analysis. Specific methods have 

been developed to detect and enumerate Escherichia 

coli for use as a potential indicator organism. 

b. Parasitic Protozoa and Helminths 

The most common parasites in domestic untreated wastewater include several genera in the microspora, protozoa, trematode, and nematode families. Since the parasites cannot multiply in the environment, they require a 

host to reproduce and are excreted in the feces as 

spores, cysts, oocysts, or eggs, which are robust and 

resistant to environmental stresses such as dessication, 

heat, and sunlight. Most parasite spores, cysts, oocysts, 

and eggs are larger than bacteria and range in size from 

1 μm to over 60 μm. While these parasites can be present 

in the feces of infected individuals who exhibit disease 

symptoms, carriers with unapparent infections can also 

excrete them, as may be the case with bacteria and viral 

infections as well. Furthermore, some protozoa such as 

Toxoplasma and Cryptosporidium are among the most 

common opportunistic infections in patients with acquired 

immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (Slifko et al., 2000). 

There are several helminthic parasites that occur in wastewater. Examples include the roundworm Ascaris as well 

as other nematodes such as the hookworms and pinworm. Many of the helminths have complex life cycles, 

including a required stage in intermediate hosts. The infective stage of some helminths is either the adult organism or larvae, while the eggs or ova of other helminths 

constitute the infective stage of the organisms. The eggs 

and larvae, which range in size from about 10 μm to more 

than 100 μm, are resistant to environmental stresses and 

may survive usual wastewater disinfection procedures. 

Helminth ova are readily removed by commonly used 

wastewater treatment processes such as sedimentation, 

filtration, or stabilization ponds. A 1992 study in St. Petersburg, Florida, showed helminths were completely removed in the secondary clarifiers (Rose and Carnahan, 

1992). 

In recent years, the protozoan parasites have emerged 

as a significant human health threat in regards to chlorinated drinking water. In particular, the protozoa such 

as Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium pavum, and 

Cyclospora cayetanensis have caused numerous waterborne and/or foodborne outbreaks. Microsporidia spp. 

have also been implicated as a waterborne pathogen 

(Cotte et al., 1999). 

Protozoan pathogens can be reduced in wastewater by 

the same previously described mechanisms of removal 

and inactivation. Cryptosporidium oocysts are 4 to 6 mm 

in diameter while Giardia cysts range between 8 to 16 

mm in diameter. Due to the relatively large size compared to bacteria, the protozoa can be removed by properly designed and operated sedimentation and filtration 

systems commonly employed in wastewater and water 

treatment. In terms of inactivation, commonly used disinfectants such as chlorine are not as effective for inactivating the protozoa as compared to bacteria and viruses. Table 3-3 shows the relative microbial resistance 

to disinfection compared to E. coli. For the chemical 

disinfectants, a higher Ct value is required to show an 

equal level of inactivation as compared to bacteria. Advanced disinfection using irradiation such as UV or electron beam treatments have been shown to be effective 

for inactivating the pathogens with the necessary fluence 

or dose being roughly equivalent to that required by 

some bacteria. 

c. Viruses 

Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites able to multiply only within a host cell and are host-specific. Viruses 

occur in various shapes and range in size from 0.01 to 

0.3 μm in cross-section and are composed of a nucleic

acid core surrounded by an outer coat of protein. Bacte94
riophage are viruses that infect bacteria as the host; they 

have not been implicated in human infections and are 

often used as indicators in seeded virus studies. Coliphages are host specific viruses that infect the coliform 

bacteria. 

Enteric viruses multiply in the intestinal tract and are 

released in the fecal matter of infected persons. Not all 

types of enteric viruses have been determined to cause 

waterborne disease, but over 100 different enteric viruses are capable of producing infections or disease. In 

general, viruses are more resistant to environmental 

stresses than many of the bacteria, although some viruses persist for only a short time in wastewater. The 

Enteroviruses, Rotavirus, and the Enteric Adenoviruses, 

which are known to cause respiratory illness, gastroenteritis, and eye infections, have been isolated from 

wastewater. Of the viruses that cause diarrheal disease, 

only the Noroviruss and Rotavirus have been shown to be 

major waterborne pathogens (Rose, 1986) capable of 

causing large outbreaks of disease. 

There is no evidence that the Human Immunodeficiency 

Virus (HIV), the pathogen that causes AIDS, can be transmitted via a waterborne route (Riggs, 1989). The results 

of one laboratory study (Casson et al., 1992), where primary and undisinfected secondary effluent samples were 

inoculated with HIV (Strain IIIB) and held for up to 48 

hours at 25° C (77° F), indicated that HIV survival was 

significantly less than Polio virus survival under similar 

conditions. A similar study by Casson et al. in 1997 indicated that untreated wastewater spiked with blood cells 

infected with the HIV exhibited a rapid loss of HIV, although a small fraction remained stable for 48 hours. 

Similar to bacteria and protozoan parasites, viruses can 

be both physically removed from the wastewater or inactivated. However, due to the relatively small size of typical viruses, the sedimentation and filtration processes 

are less effective at removal. Significant virus removal 

can be achieved with ultrafiltration membranes, possibly 

in the 3- to 4-log range. However, for viruses, inactivation is generally considered the more important of the 2 

main reduction methods. Due to the size and relatively 

noncomplex nature of viruses, most disinfectants demonstrate reasonable inactivation levels at relatively low Ct 

values. Interestingly, for UV light disinfection, relatively 

high fluence values are required to inactivate viruses when 

compared to bacteria and protozoans. It is believed that 

the protein coat of the virus shields the ribonucleic acid 

(RNA) from UV light. 

3.4.1.3 Presence and Survival of Pathogens 

a. Presence

Bacteria, viruses, and parasites can all be detected in 

wastewater. Studies of pathogens have reported average levels of 6.2, 5.8, and 5.3 log cfu/100ml of Yersinia, 

Shigella, and Salmonella detected in primary-clarified 

sewage influent over a 2-year period in a U.S. facility 

(Hench et al., 2003). Salmonella may be present in concentrations up to 10,000/l. The excretion of Salmonella 

typhi by asymptomatic carriers may vary from 5 x 103 to 

45 x 106 bacteria/g of feces. But there are few studies in 

recent years, which have directly investigated the presence of bacterial pathogens and have focused more 

often on the indicator bacteria. Concentrations excreted 

by infected individuals range from 106 cysts, 107 oocysts 

and as high as 1012 virus particle per gram of feces for 

Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Rotavirus, respectively 

(Gerba, 2000). Pathogen levels in wastewater can vary 

depending on infection in the community. 

Levels of viruses, parasites, and indicator bacteria reported in untreated and secondary treated effluents are 

shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5. These tables illustrate the 

tremendous range in the concentrations of microorganTable 3-3. Ct Requirements for Free Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide to Achieve 99 Percent 

Inactivation of E. Coli Compared to Other Microorganisms 

Microbe Cl2 Ct 

% Greater Cl2 Ct 

Requirement 

Compared to E. Coli 

Chloramine 

Ct 

% Greater Chloramine Ct 

Requirement Compared 

to E. Coli 

E. Coli 0.6 NA 113 NA 

Poliovirus 1.7 96% 1,420 170% 

Giardia 54-250 196-199% 430-580 117-135% 

Cryptosporidium >7,200 >200% >7,200 >194% 

Adapted from: Maier, 2000 

95 
isms that may be found in raw and secondary wastewater. 

The methods currently used to detect Cryptosporidium 

oocysts and Giardia cysts are limited since they cannot 

assess viability or potential infectivity. Therefore, the 

health risks associated with finding oocysts and cysts 

in the environment cannot be accurately ascertained 

from occurrence data and the risks remain unknown. 

Dowd et al. (1998) described a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method to detect and identify the microsporidia 

(amplifying the small subunit ribosomal DNA of 

microsporidia). They found isolates in sewage, surface 

waters, and ground waters. The strain that was most often detected was Enterocytozoon bieneusi, which is a 

cause of diarrhea and excreted from infected individuals 

into wastewater. Microsporidia spores have been shown 

to be stable in the environment and remain infective for 

days to weeks outside their hosts (Shadduck, 1989; 

Waller, 1980; Shadduck and Polley, 1978). Because of 

their small size (1 to 5 μm), they may be difficult to remove using conventional filtration techniques. However, 

initial studies using cell culture suggest that the spores 

may be more susceptible to disinfection (Wolk et al., 

2000). 

Under experimental conditions, absorption of viruses and 

E. coli through plant roots, and subsequent acropetal 

translocation has been reported (Murphy and Syverton, 

1958). For example, one study inoculated soil with Polio 

virus, and found that the viruses were detected in the 

leaves of plants only when the plant roots were damaged 

or cut. The likelihood of translocation of pathogens 

through trees or vines to the edible portions of crops is 

extremely low, and the health risks are negligible. 

Table 3-4. Microorganism Concentrations in 

Raw Wastewater 

Organism Range in Average Concentrations 

(CFU, PFU or Cysts/Oocysts) 

Fecal Coliforms/100L 105 to 105 

Enterococi/100L 104

 to 105 

Shigella /100mL 1 to 103 

Salm onella /100mL 102 to 104 

Helminth ova/100mL 1 to 103 

Enteric virus/100L 1 to 5 x103 

Giardia cysts/100L 0.39 to 4.9x104 

Cryptosporidium oocysts/100L 0.2 to 1.5 x103 

Source: NRC, 1998 and Maier et. al., 2000 

Table 3-5. Microorganism Concentrations in 

Secondary Non-Disinfected 

Wastewater 

Organism Average Concentrations 

(CFU, PFU, or Cysts/Oocysts per 100L) 

Fecal Coliforms 7,764 

Enterococci 2,186 

Enteric virus 20 to 650 

Giardia cysts 5 to 2,297 

Cryptosporidium oocysts 140 

Source: NRC, 1998 

b. Survival

Most pathogens do not increase in numbers outside of 

their host, although in some instances the ova of helminths do not mature to the larval stage until they are in 

the soil. In all cases, the numbers decrease at various 

rates, depending on a number of factors including the 

inherent biologic nature of the agent, temperature, pH, 

sunlight, relative humidity, and competing flora and fauna. 

Examples of relative survival times for some pathogens 

are given in Table 3-6. These values are intended to 

indicate relative survival rates only, and illustrate the 

various persistence of selected organisms. 

3.4.1.4 Pathogens and Indicator Organisms in 

Reclaimed Water 

There have been a number of studies regarding the presence of pathogens and indicator organisms in reclaimed 

water and such studies continue as experience in this 

field expands. Koivunen et al. (2003) compared the reduction of fecal coliforms to the reduction of Salmonella 

by conventional biological treatment, filtration, and disinfection. Fecal coliform bacteria were present at 1000­

fold greater concentration, and the Salmonella bacteria 

were reduced to non-detectable levels by advanced treatment (greater than 99.9 percent). Fecal coliform bacteria 

were a good, conservative indicator of such reductions. 

However, given the numbers of Salmonellae in secondary effluents and the fact that 18 carried multiple antibiotic resistance, the authors concluded that without proper 

additional advanced treatment, there may be a significant public health risk. 

A year-long study investigated a conventional reuse treatment facility in St. Petersburg, Florida (Rose et al., 1996). 

In this facility, deep-bed sand filtration and disinfection, 

with total chlorine residual (4 to 5 mg/L) were the barriers 

assessed through both monitoring of naturally occurring 

bacteria, protozoa, and viruses, as well as through seeded 

challenge studies. Removals were 5 log for human vi96
---

Table 3-6. Typical Pathogen Survival Times at 20-30 oC 

Pathogen 

Survival Time (days) 

Fresh Water & Sewage Crops Soil

Viruses a 

 Enteroviruses b <120 but usually <50 <60 but usually <15 <100 but usually <20

Bacteria 

 Fecal coliformsa,c <60 but usually <30 <30 but usually <15 <70 but usually <20

 Salmonella spp. a <60 but usually <30 <30 but usually <15 <70 but usually <20

 Shigella spp. a <30 but usually <10 <10 but usually <5 

Vibrio cholerae d <30 but usually <10 <5 but usually <2 <20 but usually <10

Protozoa 

 Entamoeba

 histolytica cysts <30 but usually <15 <10 but usually <2 <20 but usually <10

Helminths 

 Ascaris 

 lumbricoides eggs Many months <60 but usually <30 Many months 

a In seawater, viral survival is less and bacterial survival is very much less, than in 

fresh water. 

b Includes polio-, echo-, and coxsackieviruses 

c Fecal coliform is not a pathogen but is often used as an indicator organism 

d V. cholerae survival in aqueous environments is a subject of current uncertainty. 

Source: Adapted from Feacham et. al., 1983 

ruses and coliphage indicators, with anywhere from 1.5 

to 3 log reductions by disinfection. A 3 log reduction for 

protozoa was achieved and greater than 1 log reduction 

was achieved for bacteria and indicators. Protozoan viability was not evaluated. In this study, Enterococci and 

Clostridium were not included as alternative indicators. 

Only the phage was used as a virus indicator. Seeded 

trials using bacteriophage demonstrated a 1.5 and 1.6 

log reduction by filtration and disinfection, respectively. 

A second study was done at the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority (UOSA) in Fairfax County, Virginia. 

Samples were collected once per month for 1 year from 

8 sites from the advanced wastewater reclamation plant 

(Rose et al., 2000). The 8 sites were monitored for indicator bacteria, total and fecal coliforms, enterococci, 

Clostridium, coliphage (viruses which infect E.coli), human enteric viruses, and enteric protozoa. Multimedia 

filtration reduced the bacteria by approximately 90 percent, but did not effectively reduce the coliphage or enteroviruses. The enteric protozoa were reduced by 85 to 

95.7 percent. Chemical lime treatment was the most efficient barrier to the passage of microorganisms (reducing 

these microorganisms by approximately 99.99 percent 

for bacteria, 99.9 percent for Clostridium and enteroviruses, and 99 percent for protozoa). Disinfection was 

achieved through chlorination (free chlorine residuals of 

0.2 to 0.5 mg/l), and effectively achieved another 90 to

99 percent reduction. Overall, the plant was able to 

achieve a 5 to 7 log reduction of bacteria, 5 log reduction 

of enteroviruses, 4 log reduction of Clostridium, and 3.5 

log reduction of protozoa. Total coliforms, enterococci, 

Clostridium, coliphage, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia were 

detected in 4 or fewer samples of the final effluent. No 

enteroviruses or fecal coliforms were detected. Protozoa appeared to remain the most resistant microorganisms found in wastewater. However, as with the St. Petersburg study, protozoan viability in these studies was 

not addressed. 

Table 3-7 provides a summary of influent and effluent 

microbiological quality for the St. Petersburg and Upper 

Occaquan studies for enterovirus, Cryptosporidium, and 

Giardia. Enteroviruses were found 100 percent of the 

time in untreated wastewater. The enteric protozoa, 

Cryptosporidium, and Giardia were found from 67 to 100 

percent of the time in untreated wastewater. Giardia 

cysts were found to be more prevalent, and at higher 

concentrations than oocysts in wastewater, perhaps due 

to the increased incidence of infection in populations 

compared to cryptosporidiosis and higher asymptomatic infections. Levels of oocysts in sewage are similar 

throughout the world (Smith and Rose, 1998). However, 

crops irrigated with wastewater of a poorer quality in 

97
Table 3-7 Pathogens in Untreated and Treated Wastewater 

City Organism 

Untreated W astew ater Reclaim ed W ater 

% Positive Average Value % Positive Average Value 

Enterovirus (PFU/100l) 100 1,033 8 0.01 

St. Petersburg, FL Cryptosporidium (oocysts/100l) 67 1,456 17 0.75 

Giardia (cysts/100l) 100 6,890 25 0.49 

Enterovirus (PFU/100l) 100 1,100 0 0 

Upper Occoquan, VA Cryptosporidium (oocysts/100l) 100 1,500 8.3 0.037 

Giardia (cysts/100l) 100 49,000 17 1.1 

Source: Walker-Coleman et. al., 2002; Rose and Carnahan, 1992; Sheikh and Cooper, 1998; Rose et. al., 2001; Rose and 

Quintero-Betancourt, 2002; and York et. al., 2002 

Israel contained more oocysts than cysts (Armon et al., 

2002). 

The results of these studies indicate that the treatment 

processes employed are capable of significantly reducing or eliminating these pathogens. 

The State of Florida recognizes that Giardia and 

Cryptosporidium are pathogens of increasing importance 

to water reclamation and now requires monitoring for these 

pathogens (Florida DEP, 1999). Results of this monitoring are presented in Table 3-8. The Florida facilities highlighted in this table generally feature secondary treatment, filtration, and high-level disinfection. Table 3-9 includes the associated data from these facilities for TSS, 

turbidity, and total chlorine residual. 

Visual inspection studies in Florida and elsewhere routinely found Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts 

in reclaimed water that received filtration and high-level 

disinfection and was deemed suitable for public 

access uses. A number of more detailed studies which 

considered the viability and infectivity of the cysts and 

oocysts suggested that Giardia was likely inactivated by 

chlorine but 15 to 40 percent of detected Cryptosporidium 

oocysts may survive (Keller, 2002; Sheikh, 1999; Garcia, 

2002; Genacarro, 2003; Quintero, 2003). Other studies 

evaluating UV and the electron beam as alternatives to 

chlorine disinfection found that both parasites were easily inactivated (Mofidi 2002 and Slifko 2001). Both Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts required less than 

10mJ/cm2 for complete inactivation by UV (Mofidi 2002 

and Slifko 2001). 

In December 2003, the Water Environment Research 

Foundation (WERF) initiated a series of workshops on 

indicators for pathogens in wastewater, stormwater, and 

biosolids. The first workshop considered the state of 

science for indicator organisms. Potential indicators for 

further study were identified in an attempt to improve upon 

current indicator organism use and requirements. The 

results of this effort are summarized in Table 3-10. Subsequent phases of this effort will evaluate the usefulness 

of the selected list of indicators and compare them with 

current indicators. Detailed studies will then be conducted 

using the most promising indicators in field studies at 

various sites in the U.S. 

3.4.1.5 Aerosols 

Aerosols are defined as particles less than 50 μm in diameter that are suspended in air. Viruses and most 

pathogenic bacteria are in the respirable size range; 

hence, the inhalation of aerosols is a possible direct mean 

of human infection. Aerosols are most often a concern 

where reclaimed water is applied to urban or agricultural 

sites with sprinkler irrigation systems, or where it is used 

for cooling water make-up. 

The concentration of pathogens in aerosols is a function 

of their concentration in the applied water and the aerosolization efficiency of the spray process. During spray 

irrigation, the amount of water that is aerosolized can 

vary from less than 0.1 percent to almost 2 percent, with 

a mean aerosolization efficiency of 1 percent or less. 

Infection or disease may be contracted indirectly by deposited aerosols on surfaces such as food, vegetation, 

and clothes. The infective dose of some pathogens is 

lower for respiratory tract infections than for infections 

via the gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, for some pathogens, inhalation may be a more likely route for disease 

transmission than either contact or ingestion. 

The infectivity of an inhaled aerosol depends on the depth 

of the respiratory penetration and the presence of pathogenic organisms capable of infecting the respiratory sys98
Table 3-8. Summary of Florida Pathogen Monitoring Data 

Statistic Giardia Cryptosporidium 

Number of observations 69 68 

% having detectable concentrations 58% 22% 

25 percentile (#/100 l) ND ND 

50 percentile (#/100 l) 4 ND 

75 percentile (#/100 l) 76 ND 

90 percentile (#/100 l) 333 2.3 

Maximum (#/100 l) 3,096 282 

Notes: (a) All numeric data are total numbers of cysts or oocysts per 100 L. 

(b) ND indicates a value less than detection. 

Source: Walker-Coleman, et. al., 2002. 

Table 3-9. Operational Data for Florida Facilities 

Statistic TSS (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Chlorine Residual (mg/l) 

Minimum 0.19 0.31 1.01 

10 percentile 0.4 0.45 1.9 

25 percentile 0.8 0.65 2.32 

50 percentile 1 0.99 4.1 

75 percentile 1.76 1.36 5 

90 percentile 2.1 1.8 7.1 

Maximum 6 4.5 10.67 

Source: Walker-Coleman et. al., 2002 

tem. Aerosols in the 2 to 5 μm size range are generally 

excluded from the respiratory tract, with some that are 

subsequently swallowed. Thus, if gastrointestinal pathogens are present, infection could result. A considerably 

greater potential for infection occurs when respiratory 

pathogens are inhaled in aerosols smaller than 2 μm in 

size, which pass directly to the alveoli of the lungs (Sorber 

and Guter, 1975). 

One of the most comprehensive aerosol studies, the Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study (Camann et al., 1986), 

monitored viral and bacterial infections in a mostly rural 

community surrounding a spray injection site near Wilson, Texas. The source of the irrigation water was 

undisinfected trickling filter effluent from the Lubbock 

Southeast water reclamation plant. Spray irrigation of 

the wastewater significantly elevated air densities of 

fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, mycobacteria, and 

coliphage above the ambient background levels for at 

least 650 feet (200 meters) downwind. The geometric 

mean concentration of enteroviruses recovered 150 to 

200 feet (44 to 60 meters) downwind was 0.05 pfu/m3

, a 

level higher than that observed at other wastewater aerosol sites in the U.S. and in Israel (Camann et al., 1988). 

While disease surveillance found no obvious connection 

between the self-reporting of acute illness and the degree of aerosol exposure, serological testing of blood 

samples indicated that the rate of viral infections was 

slightly higher among members of the study population 

who had a high degree of aerosol exposure (Camann et 

al., 1986). 

For intermittent spraying of disinfected reclaimed water, 

occasional inadvertent contact should pose little health 

hazard from inhalation. Cooling towers issue aerosols 

continuously, and may present a greater concern if the 

water is not properly disinfected. Although a great deal 

of effort has been expended to quantify the numbers of 

fecal coliforms and enteric pathogens in cooling tower 

waters, there is no evidence that they occur in large num99
Table 3-10 Some Suggested Alternative Indicators for Use in Monitoring Programs 

Param e te r Pathoge n Pre s e nce 

F+ RNA coliphages 

Viruses Somatic coliphages 

Adenovirus 

JC virus 

E. coli 

Bacteria Enterococci 

Bifidobacteria 

Clostridium perfringens 

Parasites Sulfite reducing 

Clostridium spp. 

Non-microbial indicators Fecal sterols 

Pathogens as possible indicators Cryptosporidium 

Giardia 

Source: WERF Workshop, 2003 

bers, although the numbers of other bacteria may be quite 

large (Adams and Lewis, n.d.). 

No documented disease outbreaks have resulted from 

the spray irrigation of disinfected, reclaimed water. Studies indicate that the health risk associated with aerosols from spray irrigation sites using reclaimed water is 

low (U.S. EPA, 1980b). However, until more sensitive 

and definitive studies are conducted to fully evaluate the 

ability of pathogens contained in aerosols to cause disease, the general practice is to limit exposure to aerosols produced from reclaimed water that is not highly 

disinfected. Exposure is limited through design or operational controls. Design features include: 

 Setback distances, which are sometimes called buffer 

zones 

 Windbreaks, such as trees or walls around irrigated 

areas 

 Low pressure irrigation systems and/or spray nozzles 

with large orifices to reduce the formation of fine 

mist 

 Low-profile sprinklers 

 Surface or subsurface methods of irrigation 

Operational measures include: 

 Spraying only during periods of low wind velocity 

 Not spraying when wind is blowing toward sensitive 

areas subject to aerosol drift or windblown spray 

 Irrigating at off-hours, when the public or employees 

would not be in areas subject to aerosols or spray 

All these steps would be considered part of a best management plan for irrigation systems regardless of the 

source of water used. 

Most states with reuse regulations or guidelines include 

setback distances from spray areas to property lines, 

buildings, and public access areas. Although predictive 

models have been developed to estimate microorganism concentrations in aerosols or larger water droplets 

resulting from spray irrigation, setback distances are 

determined by regulatory agencies in a somewhat arbitrary manner, using levels of disinfection, experience, 

and engineering judgment as the basis. 

3.4.1.6 Infectious Disease Incidence Related to 

Wastewater Reuse 

Epidemiological investigations have focused on wastewater-contaminated drinking water supplies, the use of 

raw or minimally-treated wastewater for food crop irrigation, health effects to farm workers who routinely contact poorly treated wastewater used for irrigation, and 

the health effects of aerosols or windblown spray emanating from spray irrigation sites using undisinfected 

wastewater. These investigations have all provided evidence of infectious disease transmission from such prac100
tices (Lund, 1980; Feachem et al., 1983; Shuval et al., 

1986). 

Review of the scientific literature, excluding the use of 

raw sewage or primary effluent on sewage farms in the 

late 19th century, does not indicate that there have been 

no confirmed cases of infectious disease resulting from 

reclaimed water use in the U.S. where such use has 

been in compliance with all appropriate regulatory controls. However, in developing countries, the irrigation of 

market crops with poorly treated wastewater is a major 

source of enteric disease (Shuval et al., 1986). 

Occurrences of low level or endemic waterborne diseases 

associated with exposure to reclaimed water have been 

difficult to ascertain for several reasons: 

 Current detection methods have not been sufficiently 

sensitive or specific enough to accurately detect low 

concentrations of pathogens, such as viruses and 

protozoa, even in large volumes of water. 

 Many infections are often not apparent, or go unreported, thus making it difficult to establish the endemicity of such infections. 

 The apparently mild nature of many infections preclude reporting by the patient or the physician. 

 Current epidemiological techniques are not sufficiently 

sensitive to detect low-level transmission of these 

diseases through water. 

 Illness due to enteroviral or parasite infections may 

not become obvious for several months or years. 

 Once introduced into a population, person-to-person 

contact can become a secondary mode of transmission of many pathogens, thereby obscuring the role 

of water in its transmission. 

Because of the insensitivity of epidemiological studies to 

provide a direct empirical assessment of microbial health 

risk due to low-level exposure to pathogens, methodologies have increasingly relied on indirect measures of risk 

by using analytical models for estimation of the intensity 

of human exposure and the probability of human response 

from the exposure. Microbial risk assessment involves 

evaluating the likelihood that an adverse health effect may 

occur from human exposure to one or more potential 

pathogens. Most microbial risk assessments in the past 

have used a framework originally developed for chemicals that is defined by 4 major steps: (1) hazard identification, (2) dose-response identification, (3) exposure 

assessment, and (4) risk characterization. However, this 

framework does not explicitly acknowledge the differences 

between health effects due to chemical exposure versus 

those due to microbial exposure. Those differences include acute versus chronic health effects, potential for 

person-to-person transmission of disease, and the potential need to account for the epidemiological status of 

the population (Olivieri, 2002). 

Microbial risk analyses require several assumptions to 

be made. These assumptions include a minimum infective dose of selected pathogens, concentration of pathogens present, quantity of pathogens ingested, inhaled, 

or otherwise contacted by humans, and probability of 

infection based on infectivity models. The use of microbial risk assessment models have been used extensively 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to evaluate food safety for pathogens such as Listeria 

Monocytogenes in ready to eat foods (USDA, n.d.). The 

World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) also provide risk assessment 

methodologies for use in evaluating food safety (Codex 

Alimentarius). 

In order to assess health risks associated with the use 

of reclaimed water, pathogen risk assessment models to 

assess health risks associated with the use of reclaimed 

water have been used as a tool in assessing relative health 

risks from microorganisms in drinking water (Cooper et 

al., 1986; Gerba and Haas, 1988; Olivieri et al., 1986; 

Regli et al., 1991; Rose et al., 1991; Gale, 2002) and 

reclaimed water (Asano and Sakaji, 1990; EOA, Inc., 

1995; Rose and Gerba, 1991; Tanaka et al., 1998; 

Patterson et al., 2001). Most of the models calculated 

the probability of individual infection or disease as a result of a single exposure. One of the more sophisticated 

models calculates a distribution of risk over the population by utilizing epidemiological data such as incubation 

period, immune status, duration of disease, rate of symptomatic development, and exposure data such as processes affecting pathogen concentration (EOA, Inc., 

1995). 

At the present time, no wastewater disinfection or reclaimed water standards or guidelines in the U.S. are 

based on risk assessment using microorganism infectivity models. Florida is investigating such an approach 

and has suggested levels of viruses between 0.04 to 14/ 

100 l, depending on the virus (ranging from Rotavirus 

infectivity to a less infectious virus), viable oocysts at 22/ 

100 l, and viable cysts at 5/100 l (York and WalkerColeman, 1999). Microbial risk assessment methodology is a useful tool in assessing relative health risks 

associated with water reuse. Risk assessment will undoubtedly play a role in future criteria development as 

epidemiological-based models are improved and refined. 

101
3.4.1.7 Chemical Constituents 

The chemical constituents potentially present in municipal wastewater are a major concern when reclaimed 

water is used for potable reuse. These constituents may 

also affect the acceptability of reclaimed water for other 

uses, such as food crop irrigation or aquaculture. Potential mechanisms of food crop contamination include: 

 Physical contamination, where evaporation and repeated applications may result in a buildup of contaminants on crops 

 Uptake through the roots from the applied water or 

the soil, although available data indicate that potentially toxic organic pollutants do not enter edible portions of plants that are irrigated with treated municipal wastewater (National Research Council, 1996) 

 Foliar uptake 

With the exception of the possible inhalation of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from indoor exposure, chemical concerns are less important where reclaimed water 

is not to be consumed. Chemical constituents are a consideration when reclaimed water percolates into groundwater as a result of irrigation, groundwater recharge, or 

other uses. These practices are covered in Chapter 2. 

Some of the inorganic and organic constituents in reclaimed water are listed in Table 3-11. 

a. Inorganics 

In general, the health hazards associated with the ingestion of inorganic constituents, either directly or through 

food, are well established (U.S. EPA, 1976). EPA has 

set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking 

water. The concentrations of inorganic constituents in 

reclaimed water depend mainly on the source of wastewater and the degree of treatment. Residential use of 

water typically adds about 300 mg/l of dissolved inorganic solids, although the amount added can range from 

approximately 150 mg/l to more than 500 mg/l (Metcalf 

& Eddy, 2002). As indicated in Table 3-11 the presence 

of total dissolved solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy 

metals, and other inorganic constituents may affect the 

acceptability of reclaimed water for different reuse applications. Wastewater treatment using existing technology can generally reduce many trace elements to below 

recommended maximum levels for irrigation and drinking 

water. Uses in wetlands and recreational surface waters 

must also consider aquatic life protection and wetland 

habitat. 

b. Organics 

The organic make-up of raw wastewater includes naturally occurring humic substances, fecal matter, kitchen 

wastes, liquid detergents, oils, grease, and other substances that, in one way or another, become part of the 

sewage stream. Industrial and residential wastes may 

contribute significant quantities of synthetic organic compounds. 

The need to remove organic constituents is related to 

the end use of reclaimed water. Some of the adverse 

effects associated with organic substances include: 

 Aesthetic effects – organics may be malodorous and 

impart color to the water 

 Clogging – particulate matter may clog sprinkler heads 

or accumulate in soil and affect permeability 

 Proliferation of microorganisms – organics provide 

food for microorganisms 

 Oxygen consumption – upon decomposition, organic 

substances deplete the dissolved oxygen content 

in streams and lakes. This negatively impacts the 

aquatic life that depends on the oxygen supply for 

survival 

 Use limitation – many industrial applications cannot 

tolerate water that is high in organic content 

 Disinfection effects – organic matter can interfere 

with chlorine, ozone, and ultraviolet disinfection, 

thereby making them less available for disinfection 

purposes. Further, chlorination may result in formation of potentially harmful disinfection byproducts 

 Health effects – ingestion of water containing certain 

organic compounds may result in acute or chronic 

health effects. 

The wide range of anthropogenic organic contaminants 

in streams influenced by urbanization (including wastewater contamination) includes pharmaceuticals, hormones, antioxidants, plasticizers, solvents, polynuclear 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), detergents, pesticides, 

and their metabolites (Kolpin et al., 2002). The stability 

and persistence of these compounds are extremely variable in the stream/sediment environment. A recent comprehensive study of the persistence of anthropogenic and 

natural organic molecules during groundwater recharge 

suggests that carbamezepine may survive long enough 

to serve as a useful tracer compound of wastewater origin (Clara et al., 2004). 

102
Table 3-11. Inorganic and Organic Constituents of Concern in Water Reclamation and Reuse 

Cons titue nt Me as ure d 

Param e te rs Reasons for Concer n 

Suspended Solids Suspended solids (SS), Organic contaminants, heavy metals, etc. are 

including volatile and absorbed on particulates. Suspended matter 

fixed solids can shield microorganisms from disinfectants. 

Excessive amounts of suspended solids cause 

plugging in irrigation systems. 

Biodegradable Biochemical oxygen demand, Aesthetic and nuisance problems. Organics 

Organics chemical oxygen demand, 

total organic carbon 

provide food for microorganisms, adversely 

affect disinfection processes, make water 

unsuitable for some industrial or other uses, 

consume oxygen, and may result in acute or 

chronic effects if reclaimed water is u 

Nutrients Nitrogen, Phosphorus, 

Potassium 

Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are 

essential nutrients for plant growth and their 

presence normally enhances the value of the 

water for irrigation. When discharged to the 

aquatic environment, nitrogen and phosphorus 

can lead to the growth of undesir 

Stable Organics Specific compounds 

(e.g., pesticides, chlorinated 

hydrocarbons) 

Some of these organics tend to resist 

conventional methods of wastewater treatment. 

Some organic compounds are toxic in the 

environment, and their presence may limit the 

suitability of reclaimed water for irrigation or 

other uses. Chlorine reacts with man 

Hydrogen Ion 

Concentration 

pH The pH of wastewater affects disinfection, 

coagulation, metal solubility, as well as alkalinity 

of soils. Normal range in municipal wastewater 

is pH = 6.5 - 8.5, but industrial waste can alter 

pH significantly. 

Heavy Metals Specific elements (e.g., Some heavy metals accumulate in the 

Cd, Zn, Ni, and Hg) environment and are toxic to plants and animals. 

Their presence may limit the suitability of the 

reclaimed water for irrigation or other uses. 

Dissolved 

Inorganics 

Total dissolved solids, electrical 

Conductivity, specific elements 

(e.g., Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, and B) 

Excessive salinity may damage some crops. 

Specific inorganics electrical conductivity ions 

such as chloride, sodium, and boron are toxic to 

specific elements (e.g., in some crops, sodium 

may pose soil permeability Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, and 

B problems). 

Residual Chlorine Free and combined chlorine Excessive amounts of free available chlorine 

(>0.05 Chlorine chlorine mg/l) may cause leaf-tip 

burn and damage some sensitive crops. 

However, most chlorine in reclaimed water is in 

a combined form, which does not cause crop 

damage. Some concerns are expre 

Source: Adapted from Pettygrove and Asano, 1985 

103 
The health effects resulting from organic constituents 

are of primary concern for indirect or direct potable reuse. In addition, these constituents may be of concern 

where reclaimed water is utilized for food crop irrigation, where reclaimed water from irrigation or other beneficial uses reaches potable groundwater supplies, or 

where the organics may bioaccumulate in the food chain 

(e.g., in fish-rearing ponds). 

Traditional measures of organic matter such as BOD, 

chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total organic carbon (TOC), are widely used as indicators of treatment 

efficiency and water quality for many nonpotable uses of 

reclaimed water. However, these measures have only 

indirect relevance related to evaluating toxicity and health 

effects. Sophisticated analytical instrumentation makes 

it possible to identify and quantify extremely low levels 

of organic constituents in water. Examples include gas 

chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (GC/MS/ 

MS) or high performance liquid chromatography/mass 

spectrometry (HPLC/MS). These analyses are costly and 

may require extensive and difficult sample preparation, 

particularly for nonvolatile organics. 

Organic compounds in wastewater can be transformed 

into chlorinated organic species where chlorine is used 

for disinfection purposes. In the past, most attention was 

focused on the trihalomethane (THM) compounds; a family of organic compounds typically occurring as chlorine 

or bromine-substituted forms of methane. Chloroform, a 

commonly found THM compound, has been implicated 

in the development of cancer of the liver and kidney. 

Improved analytical capabilities to detect extremely low 

levels of chemical constituents in water have resulted in 

identification of several health-significant chemicals and 

disinfection byproducts in recent years. For example, the 

extremely potent carcinogen, N-nitrosodimethylamine 

(NDMA) is present in sewage and is produced when municipal wastewater effluent is disinfected with chlorine or 

chloramines (Mitch et al, 2003). In some situations, the 

concentration of NDMA present in reclaimed water exceeds action levels set for the protection of human health, 

even after reverse osmosis treatment. To address concerns associated with NDMA and other trace organics in 

reclaimed water, several utilities in California have installed UV/H2O2 treatment systems for treatment of reverse osmosis permeate. 

Quality standards have been established for many inorganic constituents. Treatment and analytical technology 

has demonstrated the capability to identify, quantify, and 

control these substances. Similarly, available technology is capable of eliminating pathogenic agents from 

contaminated waters. On the basis of available information, there is no indication that health risks from using 

highly treated reclaimed water for potable purposes are 

greater than those from using existing water supplies 

(National Research Council, 1994). Yet, unanswered questions remain about organic constituents, due mainly to 

their potentially large numbers and unresolved health risk 

potentials related to long-term, low-level exposure. Assessment of health risks associated with potable reuse 

is not definitive due to limited chemical and toxicological 

data and inherent limitations in available epidemiological 

and toxicological methods. The results of epidemiological studies directed at drinking water have generally been 

inconclusive, and extrapolation methodologies used in 

toxicological assessments provide uncertainties in overall risk characterization (National Research Council, 1998). 

3.4.1.8 Endocrine Disrupters 

In addition to the potential adverse effects of chemicals 

described in Section 3.4.1.6, certain chemical constituents present in wastewater also can disrupt hormonal 

systems. This phenomenon, which is referred to as endocrine disruption, can occur through a variety of mechanisms associated with hormone synthesis, hormone 

receptor binding, and hormone transformation. As a result of the many mechanisms through which chemicals 

can impact hormone function, a large number of chemicals are classified as endocrine disrupters. However, 

the exact types of chemicals that are classified as endocrine disrupters vary among researchers. Table 3-12 

highlights a number of example sources of potential 

endocrine disrupters. 

For example, the oxyanion, perchlorate, is an endocrine 

disrupter because it affects the thyroid system (U.S. EPA, 

2002). The herbicide, atrazine, is an endocrine disrupter 

because it affects an enzyme responsible for hormone 

regulation (Hayes et al. 2002). A USGS project recently 

sampled 139 streams in 30 states for any 1 of 95 endocrine disrupters. The results indicated that 80 percent of 

the streams had at least 1 of these compounds (McGovern 

and McDonald, 2003). The topic of endocrine disruption 

has significant implications for a wide variety of chemicals used by industry, agriculture, and consumers. As a 

result, the EPA, the European Union (EU), and other government organizations are currently evaluating approaches for regulating endocrine-disrupting chemicals. 

With respect to water reuse, the greatest concerns associated with endocrine disruption are related to a series 

of field and laboratory studies demonstrating that chemicals in wastewater effluent caused male fish to exhibit 

female characteristics (Purdom et al., 1994; Harries et 

al., 1996; Harries et al., 1997). This process, which is 

referred to as feminization, has been attributed mostly to 

the presence of steroid hormones excreted by humans 

104
(Desbrow et al., 1998 and Snyder et al., 2001). The hormones involved in fish feminization include the endogenous (i.e., produced within the body) hormone 17b-estradiol as well as hormones present in pharmaceuticals 

(e.g., ethinyl estradiol in birth control pills). Other chemicals capable of feminizing fish are also present in wastewater. These include nonylphenol and alkylphenol 

polyethoxylates, both of which are metabolites of nonionic detergents formed during secondary wastewater 

treatment (Ahel et al., 1994). 

The specific endocrine-disrupting chemicals in reclaimed 

water can be quantified using modern analytical methods. As indicated previously, the compounds most likely 

to be responsible for feminization of fish include steroid 

hormones (e.g., 17b-estradiol and ethinyl estradiol) and 

detergents metabolites (e.g., nonylphenol and alkylphenol 

polyethoxylates). Although these compounds cannot be 

quantified at the levels expected in reclaimed water with 

the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) 

techniques routinely used to quantify priority pollutants, 

they can be measured with equipment available in many 

modern laboratories. For the hormones, analytical methods such as gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (GC/MS/MS) (Ternes et al., 1999, Huang and 

Sedlak, 2001), high performance liquid chromatography/ 

mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS) (Ferguson et al., 2001), 

or immunoassays (Huang and Sedlak, 2001 and Snyder 

et al., 2001) are needed to detect the low concentrations 

present in wastewater effluent (e.g., ethinyl estradiol 

concentrations are typically less than 2 υg/l in wastewater effluent). Although the endocrine-disrupting detergent 

metabolites are present at much higher concentrations 

than the hormones, their analysis also requires specialized analytical methods (Ahel et al., 1994) not available 

from many commercial laboratories. 

Bioassays can also be used to quantify the potential of 

reclaimed water to cause endocrine disruption. These 

methods are attractive because they have the potential 

to detect all of the difficult-to-measure endocrine-disrupting chemicals in 1 assay. The simplest bioassays involve in vitro tests, in which a hormone receptor from a 

mammalian cell is used to detect endocrine-disrupting 

chemicals. Among the different in vitro assays, the Yeast 

Estrogen Screen (YES) assay has been employed most 

frequently (Desbrow et al., 1998). Comparisons between 

in vitro bioassays and chemical measurements yield 

Table 3-12. Examples of the Types and Sources of Substances that have been Reported as Potential 

Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals 

Category Examples of Substances Examples of Uses Examples of Sources 

Polychlorinated polychlorinated dioxins and industrial production of incineration and landfill 

Compounds polychlorinated biphenyls byproducts (mostly banned) runoff 

Organochlorine Pesticides DDT, dieldrin, and lindane insecticides (many phased 

out) 

agricultural runoff 

Current Use Pesticides atrazine, trifluralin, and 

permethrin 

pesticides agricultural runoff 

Organotins tributyltin antifoulants on ships harbors 

Alkylphenolics nonylphenol and 

octylphenol 

surfactants (and their 

metabolites) 

industrial and municipal 

effluents 

Phthalates dibutyl phthalate and 

butylbenzyl phthalate 

plasticisers industrial effluent 

Sex Hormones 17-beta estradiol and 

estrone 

produced naturally by 

animals 

municipal effluents 

Synthetic Steroids ethinylestradiol contraceptives municipal effluents 

Phytoestrogens isoflavones, lignans, 

coumestans 

present in plant material pulp mill effluents 

Source: Adapted from McGovern and McDonald, 2003 and Berkett and Lester, 2003 

105 
consistent results, indicating that steroid hormones are 

the most significant endocrine disrupting chemicals in 

wastewater effluent. Unfortunately, in vitro bioassays do 

not always detect compounds that disrupt hormone systems through mechanisms other than binding to hormone 

receptors. As a result, in vivo bioassays, usually performed with fish, may provide more accurate results. A 

clear dose-related response to various endocrine-disrupting compounds has been established in fish; however, 

little is known about species differences in sensitivity to 

exposure. Individual responses to exposure may also 

vary widely (Routledge et al., 1998). Because many laboratories are unable to perform in vivo bioassays under 

the necessary conditions (e.g., flow-through tests with 

rainbow trout), in vivo bioassays are not always practical. Available data suggest that nitrification/denitrification and filtration can reduce the concentrations of hormones and detergent metabolites while reverse osmosis 

lowers concentrations to levels that are unlikely to cause 

endocrine disruption (Huang and Sedlak, 2001 and Fujita 

et al., 1996). 

The current focus of research on disruption of the estrogen system may be attributable to the relative ease of 

detecting this form of endocrine disruption. As additional 

research is performed, other chemicals in wastewater 

effluent may be found to disrupt hormonal systems 

through mechanisms yet to be documented. For example, 

although results from in vitro bioassays suggest that the 

steroid hormones are most likely responsible for feminization of fish, it is possible that other endocrine disrupters contribute to the effect through mechanisms that cannot be detected by the bioassays. 

The ecological implications associated with the feminization of fish are unknown. The potential of reclaimed 

water to cause endocrine disruption in humans is also 

unknown. It is anticipated that problems associated with 

endocrine disruption could occur, given prolonged consumption of substantial volumes of polluted water. The 

compounds in wastewater effluent that are believed to 

be responsible for feminization of fish may not pose a 

serious risk for humans because of differences between 

human and fish physiology. For example, the hormone 

17b-estradiol is not used in the oral form in clinical applications because it would be metabolized before it 

could reach its target. Nevertheless, the evidence of 

endocrine disruption in wildlife and the absence of data 

about the effects of low-level exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds in humans has led to new scrutiny 

regarding endocrine-disrupting chemicals in reclaimed 

water. 

3.4.2 Treatment Requirements 

Untreated municipal wastewater may include contributions from domestic and industrial sources, infiltration 

and inflow from the collection system, and, in the case 

of combined sewer systems, urban stormwater runoff. 

The quantity and quality of wastewater derived from each 

source will vary among communities, depending on the 

number and type of commercial and industrial establishments in the area and the condition of the sewer system. 

Levels of wastewater treatment are generally classified 

as preliminary, primary, secondary, and advanced. Advanced wastewater treatment, sometimes referred to as 

tertiary treatment, is generally defined as anything beyond secondary treatment. A generalized flow sheet for 

municipal wastewater treatment is shown in Figure 3-

10. 

In the last decade, significant advances were made in 

wastewater treatment equipment, design, and technology. For example, biological nutrient removal (BNR) 

processes have become more refined. Membranes are 

capable of producing higher quality effluent at higher flux 

rates and lower pressures than was possible before. 

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) have shown to be effective in producing a high quality effluent, while greatly reducing a treatment plant’s footprint. Microfiltration, used 

in some locations to replace conventional media filtration, has the advantage of effectively removing all parasite cysts (e.g., Giardia and Cryptosporidium). Advances 

in UV radiation technology have resulted in a cost competitive disinfection process capable of reducing the concentration of most pathogens to extremely low levels. 

Wastewater treatment from raw to secondary is well understood and covered in great detail in other publications 

such as the Manual of Practice (MOP) 8, Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, 4th Edition, (WEF, 

1998). In this edition of the Guidelines for Water Reuse 

the discussion about treatment processes will be limited 

to those with a particular application to water reuse and 

reclamation. Such processes generally consist of disinfection and treatment beyond secondary treatment, although some limited access reuse programs may use 

secondary effluent without concern. It should be pointed 

out that treatment for particular pollutants at the water 

reclamation facility is not always the best answer. Source 

controls should also be investigated. In Orange County, 

California, 1,4-dioxane (listed as a probable human carcinogen based on animal studies) was found in 9 production wells at levels greater than the California action levels. This problem was solved by working with a treatment plant customer who voluntarily ceased discharge 

106
of 1,4-dioxane to the sewer system (Woodside and 

Wehner, 2002). 

3.4.2.1 Disinfection 

The most important process for the destruction of microorganisms is disinfection. In the U.S., the most common 

disinfectant for both water and wastewater is chlorine. 

Ozone and UV light are other prominent disinfectants 

used at wastewater treatment plants. Factors that should 

be considered when evaluating disinfection alternatives 

include disinfection effectiveness and reliability, capital 

costs, operating and maintenance costs, practicality 

(e.g., ease of transport and storage or onsite generation, 

ease of application and control, flexibility, complexity, 

and safety), and potential adverse effects. Examples of 

adverse effects include toxicity to aquatic life or formation of toxic or carcinogenic substances. The predominant advantages and disadvantages of disinfection alternatives are well known and have been summarized by 

the EPA in their Wastewater Technology Fact Sheets on 

Ultraviolet Disinfection (September 1999), Ozone Disinfection (September 1999), and Chlorine Disinfection (September 1999), Design Manual entitled, “Municipal Wastewater Disinfection” and Water Environment Federation 

(WEF) Manual of Practice FD-10 (1996). 

The efficiency of chlorine disinfection depends on the 

water temperature, pH, degree of mixing, time of contact, presence of interfering substances, concentration 

and form of chlorinating species, and the nature and concentration of the organisms to be destroyed. In general, 

bacteria are less resistant to chlorine than viruses, which 

in turn, are less resistant than parasite ova and cysts. 

Figure 3-10. Generalized Flow Sheet for Wastewater Treatment 

Subsequent Use 

Chemical Precipitation� 

Biological 

UV UV UV 

Electrodialysis� 

Distillation� 

Ion Exchange� 

Chemical Precipitation 

• Chemical Coagulation� 

� ( � 

(BNR) 

Subsequent Use Subsequent Use 

Screening� 

and Grease� 

Sedimentation Suspended Growth 

(SG)� 

• Activated Sludge� 

• Membrane � 

Attached Growth (AG)� 

• Trickling Filter (TF)� 

• Biological Aerated � 

• Upflow Anaerobic � 

• Rotating Biological � 

Contactor (RBC) � 

Mixed Growth (MG)� 

• Integrated Fixed-� 

• MBR� 

• Trickling Filter/� 

High-Rate 

Sedimentation Sludge Processing 

Disposal 

Chemically 

Enhanced� 

Pretreatment� 

(CEPT) 

Preliminary Primary Secondary Advanced 

Effluent for� 

Low-Rate Processes 

Stabilization Ponds� 

Aerated Lagoons� 

Wetlands� 

Overland Flow� 

Soil-Aquifer 

Treatment (SAT) 

Phosphorus Removal 

Source: Adapted from Pettygrove and Asano, 1985 

Disinfection/� 

Pathogen 

Removal 

Chlorine� 

Disinfection/� 

Pathogen 

Removal 

Chlorine� 

Disinfection/� 

Pathogen 

Removal 

Chlorine� 

Dissolved Solids Removal 

Reverse Osmosis� 

Nanofiltration 

Organics & Metals Removal 

Carbon Adsorption� 

Suspended Solids Removal 

� Filtration� 

• Low-Pressure �� 

� Membranes–Ultrafiltration � 

UF) and Microfiltration (MF)

• Nanofiltration (NF) and � 

� Reverse Osmosis (RO) � 

� Membranes� 

• Advanced Oxidation �� 

� Processes 

Nitrogen Removal 

Selective Ion Exchange� 

Overland Flow� 

Biological Nutrient Removal 

Effluent for� Effluent for� 

Comminution� 

Grit removal 

Fats, Oils,� 

Removal 

� Bioreactor (MBR)� 

� Filter (BAF)� 

� Sludge Blanket � 

� (UASB)� 

� Film Activated � 

� Sludge (IFAS)� 

� Secondary � 

� Clarification � 

� (TF/SC) 

Secondary� 

107 
The chlorine dosage required to disinfect wastewater to 

any desired level is greatly influenced by the constituents present in the wastewater. Some of the interfering 

substances are: 

 Organic constituents, which consume the disinfectant 

 Particulate matter, which protects microorganisms 

from the action of the disinfectant 

 Ammonia, which reacts with chlorine to form chloramines, a much less effective disinfectant species than 

free chlorine 

In practice, the amount of chlorine added is determined 

empirically, based on desired residual and effluent quality. Chlorine, which in low concentrations is toxic to many 

aquatic organisms, is easily controlled in reclaimed water by dechlorination, typically with sulfur dioxide. 

Chlorine is a regulated substance with a threshold quantity of 2,500 pounds (1130 kg). If a chlorine system contains a larger quantity of chlorine than the threshold 

quantity, a Risk Management Plan (RMP) must be completed. Two main factors of the RMP that prompt many 

municipalities to switch to alternative disinfection systems are: (1) the RMP is not a one-time requirement, it 

has to be updated every 5 years; and (2) concern over 

public reaction to the RMP, which requires that a “kill 

zone” be geographically defined around the treatment 

facility. This “kill zone” may include residential areas near 

the treatment plant. Thus, RMP requirements and decreasing chemical costs for commercial grade sodium 

hypochlorite have resulted in many municipalities switching from chlorine gas to commercial grade sodium hypochlorite to provide disinfection of their wastewater. 

Ozone (O3

), is a powerful disinfecting agent and chemical oxidant in both inorganic and organic reactions. Due 

to the instability of ozone, it must be generated onsite 

from air or oxygen carrier gas. Ozone destroys bacteria 

and viruses by means of rapid oxidation of the protein 

mass, and disinfection is achieved in a matter of minutes. Ozone is a highly effective disinfectant for advanced 

wastewater treatment plant effluent, removing color, and 

contributing dissolved oxygen. Some disadvantages to 

using ozone for disinfection are: (1) the use of ozone is 

relatively expensive and energy intensive, (2) ozone systems are more complex to operate and maintain than 

chlorine systems, and (3) ozone does not maintain a residual in water. 

UV is a physical disinfecting agent. Radiation at a wavelength of 254 mm penetrates the cell wall and is absorbed 

by the cellular nucleic acids. This can prevent replication by eliminating the organism’s ability to cause infection. UV radiation is frequently used for wastewater treatment plants that discharge to surface waters to avoid 

the need for dechlorination prior to release of the effluent. UV is receiving increasing attention as a means of 

disinfecting reclaimed water for the following reasons: 

(1) UV may be less expensive than disinfecting with chlorine, (2) UV is safer to use than chlorine gas, (3) UV 

does not result in the formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons, and (4) UV is effective against Cryptosporidium 

and Giardia, while chlorine is not. 

The effectiveness of UV radiation as a disinfectant (where 

fecal coliform limits are on the order of 200/100 ml) has 

been well established, and is used at small- to mediumsized wastewater treatment plants throughout the U.S. 

Today, UV radiation to achieve high-level disinfection for 

reuse operations is acceptable in some states. In recognition of the possible harmful effects of chlorine, the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 

encourages the use of alternative disinfection methods 

(FDEP, 1996). The WERF published a final report entitled, “Disinfection Comparison of UV Irradiation to Chlorination: Guidance for Achieving Optimal UV Performance.” This report provides a broad-based discussion 

of the advantages and disadvantages of chlorine and UV, 

using an empirical model to determine the UV dose required for various levels of coliform inactivation. The report also includes cost information and a comparison of 

chlorination/dechlorination and UV systems (WERF, 

1995). Studies in San Francisco, California, indicated that 

suspended solids play a major role in UV efficiency. This 

included the finding that, as the concentration of particles 7 mm and larger increase, the ability to achieve 

acceptable disinfection with UV decreases. Thus, filtration must be optimized to manage this problem (Jolis et 

al., 1996). 

The goal of UV disinfection in reuse applications typically is to inactivate 99.999 percent or more of the target pathogens (Swift et al., 2002). The 2000 National 

Water Research Institute (NWRI) guidelines provide 

detailed guidance for the design of UV systems that will 

achieve high-level disinfection to meet some state standards for public access reuse. The 2000 NWRI guidelines also include a well-defined testing protocol and validation test as a means to provide reasonable assurance 

that the domestic wastewater treatment facility can meet 

the high-level disinfection criteria (NWRI and AWWA, 

2000). 

The Bethune Point WWTP in Daytona Beach, Florida, is 

the largest UV disinfection system in the state of Florida 

designed for reuse operations. This facility is also the 

108
first public access reuse facility in Florida with UV disinfection to be permitted for unrestricted public access 

(Elefritz, 2002). Placed into service in December 1999, 

the Bethune Point WWTP UV disinfection system is a 

medium pressure/high intensity system designed for a 

dose of 80mW-s/cm2

 (800 J/m2) to achieve the high-level 

disinfection standard. The City of Henderson, Nevada 

water reclamation facility conducted collimated beam 

studies of a low pressure/high intensity UV disinfection 

system. The studies demonstrated that the disinfection 

goal of 20 fecal coliforms per 100 ml was achievable 

with a minimum UV dose of 200 J/m2 (Smith and Brown, 

2002). 

Other disinfectants, such as onsite chlorine generation, 

gamma radiation, bromine, iodine, and hydrogen peroxide, have been considered for the disinfection of wastewater. These disinfectants are not generally used because of economical, technical, operational, or disinfection efficiency considerations. 

3.4.2.2 Advanced Wastewater Treatment 

Advanced wastewater treatment processes are those 

beyond traditional secondary treatment. These processes 

are generally used when high quality reclaimed water is 

needed. Examples include: (1) urban landscaping, (2) food 

crops eaten raw, (3) contact recreation, and (4) many 

industrial applications. Individual unit processes capable 

of removing the constituents of concern are shown in 

Figure 3-11. 

The principal advanced wastewater treatment processes 

for water reclamation are: 

 Filtration – Filtration is a common treatment process used to remove particulate matter prior to disinfection. Filtration involves the passing of wastewater through a bed of granular media or filter cloth, 

which retain the solids. Typical media include sand, 

anthracite, and garnet. Removal efficiencies can be 

improved through the addition of certain polymers 

and coagulants. 

 UV Treatment of NDMA – UV Treatment, considered an Advanced Oxidation Technology (AOT), is 

the only proven treatment to effectively reduce 

NDMA. The adsorption of ultraviolet light, even the 

UV portion of sunlight, by NDMA causes the molecule to disassociate into harmless fragments (Nagel 

et al., 2001). A study done at West Basin Municipal 

Water District in Carson, California proved NDMA 

concentrations were reduced by both low and medium pressure UV (Nagel et al., 2001). 

 Nitrification – Nitrification is the term generally given 

to any wastewater treatment process that biologically converts ammonia nitrogen sequentially to niFigure 3-11. Particle Size Separation Comparison Chart 

Adapted from AWWA, 1990 

109 
trite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen. Nitrification does 

not remove significant amounts of nitrogen from the 

effluent; it only converts nitrogen into another chemical form. Nitrification can be achieved in many suspended and attached growth treatment processes 

when the processes are designed to foster the growth 

of nitrifying bacteria. In the traditional activated sludge 

process, this is accomplished by designing the process to operate at a solids retention time (SRT) that 

is long enough to prevent slow-growing nitrifying bacteria from being wasted out of the system. Nitrification will also occur in trickling filters that operate at 

low BOD/TKN ratios either in combination with BOD 

removal, or as a separate advanced treatment process following any type of secondary treatment. A 

well-designed and -operated nitrification process will 

produce an effluent containing 1.0 mg/l or less of 

ammonia nitrogen. 

 Denitrification – Denitrification is any wastewater treatment method that completely removes total nitrogen. As with ammonia removal, denitrification is usually best achieved biologically, in which case it must 

be preceded by nitrification. In biological denitrification, nitrate nitrogen is used by a variety of heterotrophic bacteria as the terminal electron acceptor 

in the absence of dissolved oxygen. In the process, 

the nitrate nitrogen is converted to nitrogen gas, which 

escapes to the atmosphere. The bacteria in these 

processes also require a carbonaceous food source. 

Denitrification can be achieved using many alternative treatment processes including variations of many 

common suspended growth and some attached 

growth treatment processes, provided that the processes are designed to create the proper microbial 

environment. Biological denitrification processes can 

be designed to achieve effluent nitrogen concentrations between 2.0 and 12 mg/l of nitrate nitrogen. 

 Phosphorus Removal – Phosphorus can be removed 

from wastewater through chemical or biological methods, or a combination. The choice of methods will 

depend on site-specific conditions, including the 

amount of phosphorus to be removed and the desired effluent phosphorus concentration. Chemical 

phosphorus removal is achieved by precipitating the 

phosphorus from solution through the addition of iron, 

aluminum, or calcium salts. Biological phosphorus 

removal relies on the culturing of bacteria that will 

store excess amounts of phosphorus when exposed 

to anaerobic conditions, followed by aerobic conditions in the treatment process. In both cases, the 

phosphorus is removed from the treatment process 

with the waste sludge. Chemical phosphorus removal 

can attain effluent orthophosphorus concentrations 

of less than 0.1 mg/l, while biological phosphorus 

removal will usually produce an effluent phosphorus 

concentration between 1.0 and 2.0 mg/l. 

 Coagulation-Sedimentation – Chemical coagulation 

with lime, alum, or ferric chloride followed by sedimentation removes SS, heavy metals, trace substances, phosphorus, and turbidity. 

 Carbon Adsorption – One effective advanced wastewater treatment process for removing biodegradable 

and refractory organic constituents is granular activated carbon (GAC). Carbon adsorption can reduce 

the levels of synthetic organic chemicals in secondary effluent by 75 to 85 percent. The basic mechanism of removal is by adsorption of the organic compounds onto the carbon. Carbon adsorption proceeded 

by conventional secondary treatment and filtration 

can produce an effluent with a BOD of 0.1 to 5.0 mg/ 

l, a COD of 3 to 25 mg/l, and a TOC of 1 to 6 mg/l. 

Carbon adsorption treatment will also remove several metal ions, particularly cadmium, hexavalent 

chromium, silver, and selenium. Activated carbon 

has been used to remove uncharged species, such 

as arsenic and antimony, from an acidic stream. Carbon adsorption has also been reported as an effective means of removing endocrine disrupting compounds (Hunter and Long, 2002). 

 Membrane Processes – In recent years, the same 

factors that favor the use of membranes for potable 

water treatment (increasing demand, decreasing 

source water quality, and more stringent regulatory 

standards) are influencing their use in treating 

wastewaters prior to reuse. Improvements in membrane technologies which separate suspended solids, dissolved compounds, and human pathogens 

(protozoan cysts, bacteria and viruses) from reclaimed water have inspired greater confidence in 

the use of reclaimed water for purposes which include both direct and indirect human contact. 

Membrane filters became commercially available in 

1927 from the Sartorius Company in Germany. Until 

the mid-1940s, these filters were used primarily to 

remove microorganisms and particles from air and 

water. The first viable reverse osmosis membrane 

was developed in 1960 by researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The first 

commercial reverse osmosis (RO) treatment plant 

went into service in 1965 in Coalinga, California. The 

use of membrane filtration systems was initially limited to specialized applications including industrial 

separation processes and seawater desalination. By 

110
the 1980s, membrane technology was well established. 

For many years, membranes were not used for wastewater treatment due to rapid fouling. Prior to 1990, 

there were a few notable exceptions, including a highly 

publicized 5-mgd RO system at the Water Factory 

21 reclamation plant in Orange County, California. 

This system went into service in 1975. The plant 

used cellulose acetate membranes with lime clarification and multi-media filtration for pretreatment prior 

to the RO system. Another notable exception was a 

3.3-mgd (12 x 103

-m3/d) Petromin plant in Riyadh, 

Saudia Arabia. 

The large-scale use of membranes for wastewater 

reclamation did not become feasible until the1980s, 

when the Australian firm, Memtec, developed a hollow fiber microfiltration membrane system with an 

air backwash that could provide sustainable operation for wastewater. The Orange County Water District (California) began pilot testing in 1992 to investigate this new microfiltration system as pretreatment 

for reverse osmosis. The use of this new 

microfiltration system, followed by thin film composite RO membranes, proved to be a tremendous improvement over the then-conventional system of lime 

clarification, sand filtration, and cellulose acetate 

membranes. Between 1994 and 2000, over half a 

dozen new dual membrane water reclamation systems were constructed in California and Arizona. 

Pressure-driven membrane treatment systems are 

broadly categorized by the size particles rejected 

by the membrane, or by the molecular weight cut 

off (MWCO). These classifications include: 

Microfiltration (MF) 0.1 μ m or 500, 000 MWCO 

Ultrafiltration (UF) 0.01 μ m or 20,000 MWCO 

Nanofiltration (NF) 0.001 μm or 200 MWCO 

Reverse Osmosis (RO) 0.0001 μm or < 100 MWCO 

Figure 3-11 shows a particle size separation comparison chart for conventional filtration, microfiltration, 

ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis. Tables 3-13a and 

3-13b contain microfiltration and reverse osmosis removal data (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002). 

MF systems are used to remove relatively large suspended particles including particulates, large colloids, 

and oil. This includes providing about 3 to 6 log (99.9 

percent to 99.9999 percent) removal of bacteria. In 

wastewater treatment, MF systems can be used to 

replace secondary clarifiers and more conventional 

(sand) filters following biological treatment. UF membranes have smaller pore sizes than MF membranes 

and will provide complete removal of bacteria and 

protozoan cysts, and 4 to 6 log removal for viruses. 

Otherwise, UF membranes perform the same basic 

functions in wastewater applications as MF membranes. NF and RO, while retaining smaller particles 

including molecules and ions, require higher driving 

pressures, higher levels of pretreatment (prefiltration), 

and typically operate at lower recovery rates. 

For wastewater treatment, the main emphasis has been 

on MF, UF, and RO membranes. MF and UF have the 

ability to remove biological contaminants (e.g., bacteria 

and viruses), and to reduce fouling on downstream reverse osmosis membranes. NF or RO systems are 

needed where the removal of colloidal and/or dissolved 

materials is required. 

Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) 

MBRs typically consist of UF or MF membranes. These 

membranes are used to replace conventional gravity clarifiers, and return activated sludge systems in conventional activated sludge biological treatment systems. The 

membranes can be immersed directly into the aeration 

tanks, or the mixed liquor can be pumped to external 

pressure-driven membrane units. MBRs exhibit a number of unique advantages: 

 Sludge settling characteristics no longer affect final 

effluent quality. Biological processes can be operated at much higher suspended solids concentrations and thereby provide greater treatment capacity per unit volume. 

 MF and UF membranes provide nearly complete 

removal of protozoan cysts, suspended solids, and 

bacteria, as well as partial removal of viruses. In 

addition to removing suspended solids, UF membranes can retain large organic molecules, improving the biodegradation of otherwise resistant compounds such as grease or emulsified oils. 

 Longer sludge ages (as long as 30 to 45 days) are 

possible, improving the biodegradation of resistant 

compounds and improving nitrification performance 

under adverse conditions (such as low temperature). 

 Wasting occurs directly from the aeration basin, improving process control. 

 Submerged MBR systems are well suited to upgrade 

existing systems with minimum new construction 

required and low impact to ongoing operations. 

111
---

---

Table 3-13a. Microfiltration Removal Performance Data 

Constituent MF Influent 

(m g/l) 

MF Effluent 

(m g/l) 

Average 

Reduction (%) 

Reduction Reported in 

Literature (%) 

TOC 10-31 9-16 57 45-65 

BOD 11-32 <2-9.9 86 75-90 

COD 24-150 16-53 76 70-85 

TSS 8-46 <0.5 97 95-98 

TDS 498-622 498-622 0 0-2 

NH3-N 21-42 20-35 7 5-15 

NO3-N <1-5 <1-5 0 0-2 

PO4 

- 6-8 6-8 0 0-2 

SO4 

2- 90-120 90-120 0 0-1 

Cl - 93-115 93-115 0 0-1 

Turbidity 2-50 NTU 0.03-0.08 NTU >99 

1 Data collected from the Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District for the period from 

April 2000 through December, 2000. 

2 Typical flux rate during test period was 1600 l/m2

·d.

 Adapted from: Metcalf and Eddy, 2002 

Table 3-13b. Reverse Osmosis Performance Data 

Constituent RO Influent 

(m g/l) 

RO Effluent 

(m g/l) 

Average 

Reduction (%) 

Reduction Reporte d in 

Lite rature (%) 

TOC 9-16 <0.5 >94 85-95 

BOD <2-9.9 <2 >40 30-60 

COD 16-53 <2 >91 85-95 

TSS <0.5 ~0 >99 95-100 

TDS 498-622 9-19 90-98 

NH3-N 20-35 1-3 96 90-98 

NO3-N <1-5 0.08-3.2 96 65-85 

PO4 

- 8-Jun 0.1-1 ~99 95-99 

SO4 

2- 90-120 <0.5-0.7 99 95-99 

Cl- 93-115 0.9-5.0 97 90-98 

Turbidity 0.03-0.08 NTU 0.03 NTU 50 40-80 

1 Data collected from the Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District for the period from 

April 1999 through December, 1999. 

2 Typical flux rate during test period was 348 l/m2

·d. 

Adapted from: Metcalf and Eddy, 2002 

Submerged membrane assemblies, either MF or UF, 

are typically composed of bundles of hollow fiber or 

flat sheets of microporous membranes. Filtrate is 

drawn through the membrane assemblies by means 

of a vacuum applied to the product side of the membrane. Turbulence on the exterior (feed side) is maintained by diffused aeration to reduce fouling. 

Low-pressure membrane filtration (MF or UF) can be 

used following secondary clarification to provide a 

112
higher degree of solids removal. Operating in a conventional (pressurized) flow pattern, clarified effluent is further treated to remove particulate material 

(MF) or colloidal material (UF). Typical operating pressures range from 20 to 100 psi (100 to 700 KPa), and 

reject flows range from 2 to 50 percent. MF and UF 

membranes can be used to pre-treat flow prior to NF 

or RO treatment. 

Higher-pressure NF and RO systems are used to 

remove dissolved organic and inorganic compounds. 

The smaller pore size (lower MWCO) results in higher 

quality product water, which may meet primary and 

secondary drinking water standards. The higher rates 

of rejection also result in increasing problems for disposing of the concentrate streams. 

 Other Processes – Other advanced wastewater treatment processes of constituent removal include ammonia stripping, breakpoint chlorination for ammonia 

removal, and selective ion exchange for nitrogen removal. 

3.4.3 Reliability in Treatment 

A high standard of reliability, similar to water treatment 

plants, is required at wastewater reclamation plants. 

Because there is potential for harm (i.e., in the event 

that improperly treated reclaimed water is delivered to 

the use area), water reuse requires strict conformance 

to all applicable water quality parameters. The need for 

reclamation facilities to reliably and consistently produce 

and distribute reclaimed water of adequate quality and 

quantity is essential and dictates that careful attention 

be given to reliability features during the design, construction, and operation of the facilities. 

A number of fallible elements combine to make up an 

operating water reclamation system. These include the 

power supply, individual treatment units, mechanical 

equipment, the maintenance program, and the operating 

personnel. An array of design features and non-design 

provisions can be employed to improve the reliability of 

the separate elements and the system as a whole. Backup systems are important in maintaining reliability in the 

event of failure of vital components. Particularly critical 

units include the disinfection system, power supply, and 

various treatment unit processes. 

For reclaimed water production, EPA Class I reliability is 

recommended as a minimum criteria. Class I reliability 

requires redundant facilities to prevent treatment upsets 

during power and equipment failures, flooding, peak loads, 

and maintenance shutdowns. Reliability for water reuse 

should also consider: 

 Operator certification to ensure that qualified personnel operate the water reclamation and reclaimed water distribution systems 

 Instrumentation and control systems for on-line monitoring of treatment process performance and alarms 

for process malfunctions 

 A comprehensive quality assurance program to ensure accurate sampling and laboratory analysis protocol 

 Adequate emergency storage to retain reclaimed water of unacceptable quality for re-treatment or alternative disposal 

 Supplemental storage and/or water supply to ensure 

that the supply can match user demands 

 A strict industrial pretreatment program and strong 

enforcement of sewer use ordinances to prevent illicit dumping into the collection system of hazardous materials or other materials that may interfere 

with the intended use of the reclaimed water 

 A comprehensive operating protocol that defines the 

responsibilities and duties of the operations staff to 

ensure the reliable production and delivery of reclaimed water 

Many states have incorporated procedures and practices 

into their reuse rules and guidelines to enhance the reliability of reclaimed water systems. Florida requires the 

producer of reclaimed water to develop a detailed operating protocol for all public access systems. This protocol 

must identify critical monitoring and control equipment, 

set points for chlorine and turbidity, actions to be taken 

in the event of a failure to achieve these limits, and procedures to clear the substandard water and return to normal operations (FAC 62-610). Washington is in the process of developing Water Reclamation Facilities Reliability Assessment Guidance, which includes an alarm 

and reliability checklist. 

3.4.3.1 EPA Guidelines for Reliability 

More than 30 years ago, before the Federal Water Quality Administration evolved into the EPA, it recognized 

the importance of treatment reliability, issuing guidelines 

entitled, “Federal Guidelines: Design, Operation and 

Maintenance of Waste Water Treatment Facilities” (Federal Water Quality Administration, 1970). These guidelines provided an identification and description of various reliability provisions and included the following concepts or principles regarding treatment plant reliability: 

113
 All water pollution control facilities should be planned 

and designed to provide for maximum reliability at 

all times. 

 Each facility should be capable of operating satisfactorily during power failures, flooding, peak loads, 

equipment failure, and maintenance shutdowns. 

 Such reliability can be obtained through the use of 

various design techniques that will result in a facility that is virtually “fail-safe” (Federal Water Quality 

Administration, 1970). 

The following points highlight more specific subjects for 

consideration in preparing final construction plans and 

specifications to help accomplish the above principles: 

 Duplicate dual feed sources of electric power 

 Standby onsite power for essential plant elements 

 Multiple process units and equipment 

 Holding tanks or basins to provide for emergency storage of overflow and adequate pump-back facilities 

 Flexibility of piping and pumping facilities to permit 

rerouting of flows under emergency conditions 

 Provision for emergency storage or disposal of 

sludge (Federal Water Quality Administration, 1970) 

The non-design reliability features in the federal guidelines include provisions for qualified personnel, an effective monitoring program, and an effective maintenance and process control program. In addition to plans 

and specifications, the guidelines specify submission of 

a preliminary project planning and engineering report, 

which will clearly indicate compliance with the guideline 

principles. 

In summary, the federal guidelines identify the following 

8 design principles and 4 other significant factors that 

appear to be appropriate to consider for reuse operations: 

Design Factors 

Duplicate power sources 

Standby power 

Multiple units and equipment 

Emergency storage 

Piping and pumping flexibility 

Dual chlorination systems 

Automatic residual control 

Automatic alarms 

Other Factors 

Engineering report 

Qualified personnel 

Effective monitoring program 

Effective maintenance and process control 

program 

In 1974, EPA subsequently published a document entitled, “Design Requirements for Mechanical, Electric, 

and Fluid Systems and Component Reliability” (U.S. EPA, 

1974). While the purpose of that publication was to provide reliability design criteria for wastewater treatment 

facilities seeking federal financial assistance under PL 

92-500, the criteria are useful for the design and operation of all wastewater treatment plants. These requirements established minimum standards of reliability for 

wastewater treatment facilities. Other important reliability 

design features include on-line monitoring (e.g., turbidimeters and chlorine residual analyzers, and chemical 

feed facilities. 

Table 3-14 presents a summary of the equipment requirements under the EPA guidelines for Class I reliability treatment facilities. 

As shown in Table 3-14, the integrity of the treatment 

system is enhanced by providing redundant, or oversized 

unit processes. This reliability level was originally specified for treatment plants discharging into water bodies 

that could be permanently or unacceptably damaged by 

improperly treated effluent. Locations where Class I facilities might be necessary are indicated as facilities discharging near drinking water reservoirs, into shellfish 

waters, or in proximity to areas used for water contact 

sports (U.S. EPA, 1974). While over 30 years old, the 

definition of Class I Reliability given in Table 3-14 is still 

referenced in the regulations of many states as the minimum level of reliability required for water reclamation 

projects. 

114
Table 3-14. Summary of Class I Reliability Requirements 

Unit Clas s I Re quire m e nt 

Mechanically-Cleaned A back-up bar screen shall be provided (may be manually cleaned). 

Bar Screen 

Pumps A back-up pump shall be provided for each set of pumps which 

perform the same function. Design flow will be maintained with any 1 

pump out of service. 

Comminution Facilities If comminution is provided, an overflow bypass with bar screen shall 

be provided. 

Primary Sedimentation Basins There shall be sufficient capacity such that a design flow capacity of 

50 % of the total capacity will be maintained with the largest unit out 

of service. 

Filters There shall be a sufficient number of units of a size such that a 

design capacity of at least 75 % of the total flow will be maintained 

with 1 unit out of service. 

Aeration Basins At least 2 basins of equal volume will be provided. 

Mechanical Aerator At least 2 mechanical aerators shall be provided. Design oxygen 

transfer will be maintained with 1 unit out of service. 

Chemical Flash Mixer At least 2 basins or a back-up means of mixing chemicals separate 

from the basins shall be provided. 

Final Sedimentation Basins There shall be a sufficient number of units of a size such that 75% of 

the design capacity will be maintained with the largest unit out of 

service. 

Flocculation Basins At least 2 basins shall be provided. 

Disinfectant Contact Basins There shall be sufficient number of units of a size such that the 

capacity of 50% of the total design flow may be treated with the 

largest unit out of service. 

Source: Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974 

3.4.3.2 Additional Requirements for Reuse 

Applications 

Different degrees of hazard are posed by process failures. From a public health standpoint, it is logical that a 

greater assurance of reliability should be required for a 

system producing reclaimed water for uses where direct or indirect human contact with the water is likely, 

than for water produced for uses where the possibility of 

contact is remote. Similarly, where specific constituents 

in reclaimed water may affect the acceptability of the 

water for any use (e.g., industrial process water), reliability directed at those constituents is important. Standby 

units or multiple units should be encouraged for the major treatment elements at all reclamation facilities. For 

small installations, the cost may be prohibitive and provision for emergency storage or disposal is a suitable 

alternative. 

a. Piping and Pumping Flexibility 

Process piping, equipment arrangements, and unit structures should provide for efficiency, ease of operation and 

maintenance, and maximum flexibility of operation. Flexibility plans should permit the necessary degree of treatment to be obtained under varying conditions. All aspects of plant design should allow for routine maintenance of treatment units without deterioration of the plant 

effluent. 

No pipes or pumps should be installed that would circumvent critical treatment processes and possibly allow inadequately treated effluent to enter the reclaimed 

water distribution system. The facility should be capable 

of operating during power failures, peak loads, equipment failures, treatment plant upsets, and maintenance 

shutdowns. In some cases, it may be necessary to divert the wastewater to emergency storage facilities or 

115
discharge the wastewater to approved, non-reuse areas. 

During power failures or in the case of an equipment failure, standby portable diesel-driven pumps can also be 

used. 

b. Emergency Storage or Disposal 

The term “emergency storage or disposal” means to provide for the containment or alternative treatment and disposal of reclaimed water whenever the quality is not suitable for use. It refers to something other than normal 

operational or seasonal storage (e.g., storage that may 

be used to hold reclaimed water during wet weather times 

until it is needed for use). Provisions for emergency storage or disposal may be considered to be a basic reliability provision for some reclamation facilities. Where such 

provisions exist, they may substitute for multiple or 

standby units and other specific features. 

Provisions for emergency storage or disposal may 

include: 

 Holding ponds or tanks 

 Approved alternative disposal locations such as percolation areas, evaporation-percolation ponds, or 

spray disposal areas 

 Deep injection wells 

 Pond systems having an approved discharge to receiving waters or discharge to a reclaimed water use 

area for which lower quality water is acceptable 

 Provisions to return the wastewater to a sewer for 

subsequent treatment and disposal at the reclamation or other facility 

 Any other facility reserved for the purpose of emergency storage or disposal of untreated or partiallytreated wastewater 

Automatically-actuated emergency or disposal provisions 

should include all of the necessary sensors, instruments, 

valves, and other devices to enable fully automatic diversion of the wastewater in the event of failure of a treatment process, and a manual reset to prevent automatic 

restart until the failure is corrected. For either manual or 

automatic diversion, all of the equipment other than the 

pump-back equipment should either be independent of 

the normal power source or provided with a standby power 

source. Irvine Ranch Water District in California automatically diverts its effluent to a pond when it exceeds a 

turbidity of 2 NTU. The water is then recirculated into the 

reclamation plant influent. 

Where emergency storage is to be used as a reliability 

feature, storage capacity is an important consideration. 

This capacity should be based on estimates of how long 

it will take to return the facilities to normal operations 

and the penalties (regulatory or otherwise) associated 

with loss of treatment and discontinuation of reclaimed 

water service. 

c. Alarms 

Alarm systems should be installed at all water reclamation plants, particularly at plants that do not receive fulltime attention from trained operators. Minimum instrumentation should consist of alarms at critical treatment 

units to alert an operator of a malfunction. This concept 

requires that the plant either be constantly attended, or 

that an operator be on call whenever the reclamation plant 

is in operation. In the latter case, a remote sounding device would be needed. If conditions are such that rapid 

attention to failures cannot be assured, automatically 

actuated emergency control mechanisms should be installed and maintained. Supervisory control and data 

acquisition (SCADA) systems may be employed to accomplish this objective, so long as information is made 

available to locations that are staffed when operators are 

not on site at the remote reclaimed water facilities. If a 

critical process were to fail, the condition may go unnoticed for an extended time period, and unsatisfactory reclaimed water would be produced for use. An alarm system will effectively warn of an interruption in treatment. 

Requirements for warning systems may specify the measurement to be used as the control in determining a unit 

failure (e.g., dissolved oxygen) in an aeration chamber 

or the requirements could be more general in nature, 

merely specifying the units or processes that should be 

included in a warning system. The latter approach appears more desirable because it allows for more flexibility in the design. Alarms could be actuated in various 

ways, such as failure of power, high water level, failure 

of pumps or blowers, loss of dissolved oxygen, loss of 

coagulant feed, high head loss on filters, high effluent 

turbidity, or loss of disinfection. 

In addition to the alarm system, it is critical to have a 

means available to take corrective action for each situation, which has caused the alarm to be activated. As 

noted above, provisions must be available to otherwise 

treat, store, or dispose of the wastewater until the corrections have been made. Alternative or supplemental 

features for different situations might include an automatic switchover mechanism to emergency power and 

a self-starting generator, or an automatic diversion 

mechanism which discharges wastewater from the various treatment units to emergency storage or disposal. 

116
d. Instrumentation and Control 

Major considerations in developing an instrumentation/ 

control system for a reclamation facility include: 

 Ability to analyze appropriate parameters 

 Ability to maintain, calibrate, and verify accuracy of 

on-line instruments 

 Monitoring and control of treatment process performance 

 Monitoring and control of reclaimed water distribution 

 Methods of providing reliability 

 Operator interface and system maintenance 

The potential uses of the reclaimed water determine the 

degree of instrument sophistication and operator attention required in a water reuse system. For example, 

health risks may be insignificant for reclaimed water used 

for non-food crop irrigation. On the other hand, if wastewater is being treated for indirect potable reuse via 

groundwater recharge, risks are potentially high. Consequently, the instruments must be highly sensitive so 

that even minor discrepancies in water quality are detected rapidly. 

Selection of monitoring instrumentation is governed by 

the following factors: 

 Sensitivity 

 Accuracy 

 Effects of interferences 

 Frequency of analysis and detection 

 Laboratory or field application 

 Analysis time 

 Sampling limitations 

 Laboratory requirements 

 Acceptability of methods 

 Physical location 

 Ability to provide service and 

 Reliability 

Source: WPCF, 1989 

Each water reclamation plant is unique, with its own 

requirements for an integrated monitoring and control instrumentation system. The process of selecting monitoring instrumentation should address aspects such as frequency of reporting, parameters to be measured, sample 

point locations, sensing techniques, future requirements, 

availability of trained staff, frequency of maintenance, availability of spare parts, and instrument reliability (WPCF, 

1989). Such systems should be designed to detect operational problems during both routine and emergency 

operations. If an operating problem arises, activation of a 

signal or alarm permits personnel to correct the problem 

before an undesirable situation is created. 

System control methods should provide for varying degrees of manual and automatic operation. Functions of 

control include the maintenance of operating parameters 

within preset limits, sequencing of physical operations 

in response to operational commands and modes, and 

automatic adjustment of parameters to compensate for 

variations in quality or operating efficiency. 

System controls may be manual, automated, or a combination of manual and automated systems. For manual 

control, operations staff members are required to physically carry out all work tasks, such as closing and opening valves and starting and stopping pumps. For automated control, no operator input is required except for 

the initial input of operating parameters into the control 

system. In an automated control system, the system 

automatically performs operations such as the closing 

and opening of valves and the starting and stopping of 

pumps. These automated operations can be accomplished in a predefined sequence and timeframe and 

can also be initiated by a measured parameter. 

Automatic controls can vary from simple float switches 

that start and stop pumps to highly sophisticated computer systems that gather data from numerous sources, 

compare the data to predefined parameters, and initiate actions in order to maintain system performance 

within required criteria. For example, in the backwashing 

of a filter, instrumentation that monitors head loss across 

a filter signals the automated control system that a predefined head loss value has been exceeded. The control system, in turn, initiates the backwashing sequence 

through the opening of valves and starting of pumps. A 

simple, but effective, means of maintaining control in 

the event of a power failure might include a judicious se117
lection of how control valves respond to loss of power. 

For example, in a reuse system with a pair of control 

valves routing water either to customers or to a reject 

location, it is reasonable to expect that the valve to the 

customers should fail to the closed position, while the 

valve to reject would fail to the open position. 

3.4.3.3 Operator Training and Competence 

Regardless of the automation built into a plant, mechanical equipment is subject to breakdown, and qualified, 

well-trained operators are essential to ensure that the 

reclaimed water produced will be acceptable for its intended use. The facilities operation should be based on 

detailed process control with recording and monitoring 

facilities, a strict preventive maintenance schedule, and 

standard operating procedure contingency plans all 

structured to provide reliable product water quality. 

The plant operator is considered to be the most critical 

reliability factor in the wastewater treatment system. All 

available mechanical reliability devices and the best 

possible plant design are to no avail if the operator is 

not capable and conscientious. Three operations personnel considerations influence reliability of treatment: 

operator attendance, operator competence, and operator training. The knowledge, skills, and abilities that an 

operator must possess varies, depending on the complexity of the plant. Most regulatory agencies require 

operator certification as a reasonable means to expect 

competent operation. Frequent training via continuing 

education courses or other means enhances operator 

competence. 

Actions of the system operator have the potential to adversely affect water quality and public perception of the 

reclaimed water system. Therefore, a knowledgeable, 

attentive operator is critical to avoid potential threats to 

water quality. Consideration should be given to provide 

special training and certification for reclaimed water 

operations staff. 

3.4.3.4 Quality Assurance in Monitoring 

Quality assurance (QA) in monitoring of a reclamation 

program includes: (1) selecting the appropriate parameters to monitor, and (2) handling the necessary sampling and analysis in an acceptable manner. Sampling 

techniques, frequency, and location are critical elements 

of monitoring and quality assurance. Standard procedures for sample analysis may be found in the following 

references: 

 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and 

Wastewater (American Public Health Association, 

1989) 

 Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and 

Wastewater Laboratories (U.S. EPA, 1979a) 

 Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes 

(U.S. EPA, 1983)

 Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal 

and Industrial Wastewater (U.S. EPA, 1996) 

 Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation of 

Water and Wastewater (U.S. EPA, 1982) 

Typically, the QA plan associated with sampling and 

analysis is a defined protocol that sets forth data quality 

objectives and the means to develop quality control data. 

This serves to quantify precision, bias, and other reliability factors in a monitoring program. Strict adherence 

to written procedures ensures that the results are comparable, and that the level of uncertainty is verifiable. 

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plans and 

procedures are well documented in referenced texts. 

QA/QC measures should be dictated by the severity of 

the consequences of acting on the “wrong answer” or 

on an “uncertain” answer. QA/QC procedures are often 

dictated by regulatory agencies, and do constitute necessary operating overhead. For reuse projects, this overhead may be greater than for wastewater treatment and 

disposal. 

Sampling parameters required for reclamation extend 

beyond those common to wastewater treatment. For 

example, turbidity measurements are sometimes required 

for reclamation, but not for wastewater treatment and disposal. Monitoring for chlorides may be necessary for reuse in coastal communities. 

Adequate record keeping of reclaimed water system operations is essential to the overall monitoring program. 

Many facilities find it reasonable and compatible with 

their usual practice and requirements to include routine 

reporting of plant operations and immediate notification 

of emergency conditions. 

3.5 Seasonal Storage Requirements 

Managing and allocating reclaimed water supplies may 

be significantly different from the management of traditional sources of water. Traditionally, a water utility drawing from groundwater or surface impoundments uses the 

resource as a source and as a storage facility. If the 

118
entire yield of the source is not required, the water is 

simply left for use at a later date. Yet in the case of 

reuse, reclaimed water is continuously generated, and 

what cannot be used immediately must be stored or disposed of in some manner. 

Depending on the volume and pattern of projected reuse 

demands, seasonal surface storage requirements may 

become a significant design consideration and have a 

substantial impact on the capital cost of the system. 

Seasonal storage systems will also impact operational 

expenses. This is particularly true if the quality of the 

water is degraded in storage by algae growth and requires re-treatment to maintain the desired or required 

water quality. Pilot studies in California investigated the 

use of clarifiers with coagulation and continuous backwash filtration versus the use of dissolved air flotation 

with clarification and filtration. The estimated present 

worth costs of these 2 strategies for treating reclaimed 

water returned from storage ponds were calculated at 

$1.92/gal ($0.51/l) and $2.17/gal ($0.57/l), respectively 

(Fraser and Pan, 1998). 

The need for seasonal storage in reclaimed water programs generally results from 1 of 2 requirements. First, 

storage may be required during periods of low demand 

for subsequent use during peak demand periods. Second, storage may be required to reduce or eliminate the 

discharge of excess reclaimed water into surface water 

or groundwater. These 2 needs for storage are not mutually exclusive, but different parameters are considered 

in developing an appropriate design for each one. In fact, 

projects where both water conservation and effluent disposal are important are more likely to be implemented 

than those with a single driver. Drivers for the creation of 

an urban reuse system in Tampa, Florida included water 

conservation as well as the fact that any reclaimed water diverted to beneficial reuse helped the City to meet 

its obligations to reduce nitrogen loadings to area surface waters (Grosh et al., 2002). At the outset, it must be 

recognized that the use of traditional storage methods 

with finite capacities (e.g., tanks, ponds, and reservoirs) 

must be very large in comparison to the design flows in 

order to provide 100 percent equalization of seasonal 

supplies and demands. With an average flow of 18 mgd 

(68 x 103 m3

/d) and a storage volume of 1,600 million 

gallons (6 x 106 m3), the City of Santa Rosa, California, 

still required a seasonal discharge to surface water to 

operate successfully (Cort et al., 1998). After attempting 

to operate a 3.0 mgd (11 x 103 m3/d) agricultural reuse 

system with 100 mg (0.4 x 106 m3) of storage, Brevard 

County, Florida, decided to add manmade wetlands with 

a permitted surface water discharge as part of its wet 

weather management system (Martens et al., 1998). 

ASR of reclaimed water involves the injection of reclaimed 

water into a subsurface formation for storage, and recovery for beneficial use at a later time. ASR can be an effective and environmentally-sound approach by providing storage for reclaimed water used to irrigate areas accessible to the public, such as residential lawns and edible crops. These systems can minimize the seasonal 

fluctuations inherent to all reclaimed water systems by 

allowing storage of reclaimed water during the wet season when demand is low, and recovery of the stored water 

during dry periods when demand is high. Because the 

potential storage volume of an ASR system is essentially unlimited, it is expected that these systems will 

offer a solution to the shortcomings of the traditional storage techniques discussed above. 

The use of ASR was also considered as part of the 

Monterey County, California reuse program in order to 

overcome seasonal storage issues associated with an 

irrigation-based project (Jaques and Williams, 1996). 

Where water reuse is being implemented to reduce or 

eliminate wastewater discharges to surface waters, state 

or local regulations usually require that adequate storage be provided to retain excess wastewater under a 

specific return period of low demand. In some cold climate states, storage volumes may be specified according to projected non-application days due to freezing 

temperatures. Failure to retain reclaimed water under 

the prescribed weather conditions may constitute a violation of an NPDES permit and result in penalties. A 

method for preparing storage calculations under low 

demand conditions is provided in the EPA Process Design Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater 

(U.S. EPA, 1981 and 1984). In many cases, state regulations will also include a discussion about the methods 

to be used for calculating the storage that is required to 

retain water under a given rainfall or low demand return 

interval. In almost all cases, these methods will be aimed 

at demonstrating sites with hydrogeologic storage capacity to receive wastewater effluent for the purposes 

of disposal. In this regard, significant attention is paid to 

subsurface conditions as they apply to the percolation 

of effluent into the groundwater with specific concerns 

as to how the groundwater mound will respond to effluent 

loading. 

The remainder of this section discusses the design considerations for seasonal storage systems. For the purpose of discussion, the projected irrigation demands of 

turf grass in a hot, humid location (Florida) and a hot, arid 

location (California) are used to illustrate storage calculations. Irrigation demands were selected for illustration 

because irrigation is a common use of reclaimed water, 

and irrigation demands exhibit the largest seasonal fluc119
tuations, which can affect system reliability. However, 

the general methodologies described in this section can 

also be applied to other uses of reclaimed water and other 

locations as long as the appropriate parameters are defined. 

3.5.1 Identifying the Operating Parameters 

In many cases, a water reuse system will provide reclaimed water to a diverse customer base. Urban reuse 

customers typically include golf courses and parks and 

may also include commercial and industrial customers. 

Such is the case in both the City of St. Petersburg, 

Florida, and Irvine Ranch Water District, California, reuse programs. These programs provide water for cooling, washdown, and toilet flushing as well as for irrigation. Each water use has a distinctive seasonal demand 

pattern and, thereby, impacts the need for storage. 

Reuse systems have significant differences with traditional land application systems starting with the fundamental objectives of each. Land application systems 

seek to maximize hydraulic loadings while reuse systems provide nonpotable waters for uses where a higher 

quality of water is not required. Historical water use patterns should be used where available. Methodologies 

developed for land application systems are generally 

poorly suited to define expected demands of an irrigation-based reuse system and should be replaced with 

methodologies expressly developed to estimate irrigation needs. This point was illustrated well by calculations of storage required to prevent a discharge based 

on: (1) actual golf course irrigation use over a 5-year 

period and (2) use of traditional land application water 

balance methods using site-specific hydrogeological information and temperature and rainfall corresponding to 

the 5-year record of actual use. Use of historical records 

estimated a required storage volume of 89 days of flow, 

while traditional land application methods estimated a 

required storage volume of 196 days (Ammerman et al., 

1997). It should also be noted that, like potable water, 

the use of reclaimed water is subject to the customer’s 

perceived need for water. 

The primary factors controlling the need for supplemental irrigation are evapotranspiration and rainfall. Evapotranspiration is strongly influenced by temperature and 

will be lowest in the winter months and highest in midsummer. Water use for irrigation will also be strongly 

affected by the end user and their attention to the need 

for supplemental water. Where uses other than irrigation are being investigated, other factors will be the driving force for demand. For example, demand for reclaimed 

water for industrial reuse will depend on the needs of the 

specific industrial facility. These demands could be estimated based on past water use records, if data are available, or a review of the water use practices of a given 

industry. When considering the demand for water in a 

manmade wetland, the system must receive water at the 

necessary time and rate to ensure that the appropriate 

hydroperiod is simulated. If multiple uses of reclaimed 

water are planned from a single source, the factors affecting the demand of each should be identified and integrated into a composite system demand. 

Figure 3-12 presents the average monthly potential 

evaporation and average monthly rainfall in southwest 

Florida and Davis, California (Pettygrove and Asano, 

Figure 3-12. Average Monthly Rainfall and Pan Evaporation 

120 
1985). The average annual rainfall is approximately 52 

inches (132 cm) per year, with an average annual potential evaporation of 71 inches (180 cm) per year in Florida. 

The average annual rainfall in Davis is approximately 17 

inches (43 cm) per year with a total annual average potential evaporation rate of approximately 52 inches (132 

cm) per year. 

In both locations, the shape of the potential evaporation 

curve is similar over the course of the year; however, the 

distribution of rainfall at the sites differs significantly. In 

California, rainfall is restricted to the late fall, winter, and 

early spring, with little rainfall expected in the summer 

months when evaporation rates are the greatest. The 

converse is true for the Florida location, where the major 

portion of the total annual rainfall occurs between June 

and September. 

3.5.2 Storage to Meet Irrigation Demands 

Once seasonal evapotranspiration and rainfall have been 

identified, reclaimed water irrigation demands throughout the seasons can be estimated. The expected fluctuations in the monthly need for irrigation of grass in Florida 

and California are presented in Figure 3-13. The figure 

also illustrates the seasonal variation in wastewater flows 

and the potential supply of irrigation water for both locations. In both locations, the potential monthly supply and 

demand are expressed as a fraction of the average monthly 

supply and demand. 

To define the expected fluctuations in Florida’s reclaimed 

water supply, historic flow data are averaged for each 

month. The reclaimed water supply for the Florida example indicates elevated flows in the late winter and early 

spring with less than average flows in the summer 

months, reflecting the region’s seasonal influx of tourists. The seasonal irrigation demand for reclaimed water 

in Florida was calculated using the Thornthwaite equation. (Withers and Vipond, 1980). It is interesting to note 

that even in months where rainfall is almost equal to the 

potential evapotranspiration, a significant amount of 

supplemental irrigation may still be required. This occurs 

as a result of high intensity, short duration, rainfalls in 

Florida coupled with the relatively poor water-holding capacity of the surficial soils. 

The average monthly irrigation demand for California, 

shown in Figure 3-12, is based on data developed by 

Pruitt and Snyder (Pettygrove and Asano, 1985). Because significant rainfall is absent throughout most of 

the growing season, the seasonal pattern of supplemental irrigation for the California site is notably different from 

that of Florida. For the California example, it has been 

assumed that there is very little seasonal fluctuation in 

the potential supply of reclaimed water. If the expected 

annual average demands of a reclaimed water system 

are approximately equal to the average annual available 

supply, storage is required to hold water for peak demand months. Using monthly supply and demand factors, the required storage can be obtained from the cumulative supply and demand. The results of this analysis suggest that, to make beneficial use of all available 

water under average conditions, the Florida reuse program will require approximately 90 days of storage, while 

California will need approximately 150 days. 

These calculations are based on the estimated consumptive demand of the turf grass. In actual practice, the estimate would be refined, based on site-specific conditions. Such conditions may include the need to leach 

Figure 3-13. Average Pasture Irrigation Demand and Potential Supply 

121 
salts from the root zone or to intentionally over-apply 

water as a means of disposal. The vegetative cover receiving irrigation will also impact the condition under which 

supplemental water will be required. Drought conditions 

will result in an increased need for irrigation. The requirements of a system to accommodate annual irrigation 

demands under drought conditions should also be examined. 

3.5.3 Operating without Seasonal Storage 

Given the challenges of using storage to equalize seasonal supplies and demands, it is not surprising that many 

utilities choose to commit only a portion of the available 

reclaimed water flow to beneficial reuse. 

A partial commitment of reclaimed water may also have 

applications in the following situations: 

 The cost of providing storage for the entire flow is 

prohibitive 

 Sufficient demand for the total flow is not available 

 The cost of developing transmission facilities for the 

entire flow is prohibitive 

 Total abandonment of existing disposal facilities is 

not cost-effective 

Systems designed to use only a portion of the reclaimed 

water supply are plentiful. It should be noted that a partial commitment of reclaimed water may be able to achieve 

significant benefits in terms of environmental impacts. 

Specifically, many surface water discharge permits are 

based on the 7-day, 10-year (7Q10) low flow expected in 

the receiving water body. Such events invariably coincide with extended periods of low rainfall, which, in turn, 

tend to increase the amount of water diverted away from 

disposal and into the reuse system. 

3.6 Supplemental Water Reuse 

System Facilities 

3.6.1 Conveyance and Distribution

Facilities 

The distribution network includes pipelines, pump stations, and storage facilities. No single factor is likely to 

influence the cost of water reclamation more than the 

conveyance or distribution of reclaimed water from its 

source to its point of use. The design requirements of 

reclaimed water conveyance systems vary according to 

the needs of the users. Water quality is, of course, a 

consideration as well. Reclaimed water systems may 

present more challenges for both internal and external 

corrosion than typically experienced in the potable water 

system. Generally, reclaimed water is more mineralized 

with a higher conductance and chloride content and lower 

pH, enhancing the potential for corrosion on the interior 

of the pipe. Because reclaimed water lines are often the 

last pipe installed, there is an increased opportunity for 

stray current electrolysis or coating damage (Ryder, 

1996). Design requirements will also be affected by the 

policies governing the reclamation system (e.g., what level 

of shortfall, if any, can be tolerated?). Where a dual distribution system is created, the design will be similar to 

that of a potable system in terms of pressure and volume requirements. However, if the reclaimed water distribution system does not provide for an essential service such as fire protection or sanitary uses, the reliability of the reclamation system need not be as stringent. 

This, in turn, reduces the need for backup systems, 

thereby reducing the cost of the system. In addition, an 

urban reuse program designed primarily for irrigation will 

experience diurnal and seasonal flows and peak demands 

that have different design parameters than the fire protection requirements generally used in the design of potable water systems. 

The target customer for many reuse programs may be 

an entity that is not traditionally part of municipal water/ 

wastewater systems. Such is the case with agricultural 

and large green space areas, such as golf courses, that 

often rely on wells to provide for nonpotable water uses. 

Even when these sites are not directly connected to 

municipal water supplies, reclaimed water service to 

these customers may be desirable for the following reasons: 

 The potential user currently draws water from the 

same source as that used for potable water, creating 

an indirect demand on the potable system. 

 The potential user has a significant demand for 

nonpotable water and reuse may provide a cost-effective means to reduce or eliminate reliance on existing effluent disposal methods. 

 The potential user is seeking reclaimed water service to enhance the quality or quantity (or both) of 

the water available. 

 A municipal supplier is seeking an exchange of 

nonpotable reclaimed water for raw water sources 

currently controlled by the prospective customer. 

The conveyance and distribution needs of these sites 

may vary widely and be unfamiliar to a municipality. For 

example, a golf course may require flows of 500 gpm (38 

122
l/s) at pressures of 120 psi (830 kPa). However, if the 

golf course has the ability to store and repump irrigation 

water, as is often the case, reclaimed water can be delivered at atmospheric pressure to a pond at approximately one-third the instantaneous demand. Where frostsensitive crops are served, an agricultural customer may 

wish to provide freeze protection through the irrigation 

system. Accommodating this may increase peak flows 

by an order of magnitude. Where customers that have no 

history of usage on the potable system are to be served 

with reclaimed water, detailed investigations are warranted 

to ensure that the service provided would be compatible 

with the user needs. These investigations should include 

an interview with the system operator as well as an inspection of the existing facilities. 

Figure 3-14 provides a schematic of the multiple reuse 

conveyance and distribution systems that may be encountered. The actual requirements of a system will be 

dictated by the final customer base and are discussed 

in Chapter 2. The remainder of this section discusses 

issues pertinent to all reclaimed water conveyance and 

distribution systems. 

A concentration or cluster of users results in lower customer costs for both capital and O&M expenses than a 

delivery system to dispersed users. Initially, a primary 

skeletal system is generally designed to serve large institutional users who are clustered and closest to the 

treatment plant. A second phase may then expand the 

system to more scattered and smaller users, which receive nonpotable water from the central arteries of the 

nonpotable system. Such an approach was successfully implemented in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida. 

The initial customers were institutional (e.g., schools, 

golf courses, urban green space, and commercial). However, the lines were sized to make allowance for future 

service to residential customers. 

As illustrated in St. Petersburg and elsewhere, once reclaimed water is made available to large users, a secondary customer base of smaller users often request 

service. To ensure that expansion can occur to the projected future markets, the initial system design should 

model sizing of pipes to satisfy future customers within 

any given zone within the service area. At points in the 

system, where a future network of connections is anticipated, such as a neighborhood, turnouts should be installed. Pump stations and other major facilities involved 

in conveyance should be designed to allow for planned 

expansion. Space should be provided for additional pumps, 

or the capacities of the pumps may be expanded by 

changes to impellers and/or motor size. Increasing a pipe 

diameter by one size is economically justified since over 

half the initial cost of installing a pipeline is for excavation, backfill, and pavement. 

A potable water supply system is designed to provide 

round-the-clock, “on-demand” service. Some nonpotable 

systems allow for unrestricted use, while others place 

limits on the hours when service is available. A decision 

on how the system will be operated will significantly affect system design. Restricted hours for irrigation (i.e., 

only evening hours) may shift peak demand and require 

greater pumping capacity than if the water was used over 

an entire day or may necessitate a programmed irrigation cycle to reduce peak demand. The Irvine Ranch Water 

District, California, though it is an “on-demand” system, 

restricts landscape irrigation to the hours of 9 p.m. to 6 

a.m. to limit public exposure. Due to the automatic timing used in most applications, the peak hour demand 

was found to be 6 times the average daily demand and 

triple that of the domestic water distribution system (Young 

et al., 1987). The San Antonio Water System (Texas) 

established a requirement for onsite storage for all users 

with a demand greater than 100 acre-feet per year as a 

means of managing peak demands. As noted previously, 

attributes such as freeze protection may result in similar 

increases in peak demands of agricultural systems. 

System pressure should be adequate to meet the user’s 

needs within the reliability limits specified in a user agreement or by local ordinance. The Irvine Ranch Water District, California runs its system at a minimum of 90 psi 

(600 kPa). The City of St. Petersburg, Florida currently 

operates its system at a minimum pressure of 60 psi 

(400 kPa). However, the City of St. Petersburg is recommending that users install low-pressure irrigation devices, 

which operate at 50 psi (340 kPa) as a way of transferring to a lower pressure system in the future to reduce 

operating costs. The City of Orlando, Florida is designing a regional urban reuse system with a target minimum 

pressure in the transmission main of 50 psi (350 KPa) at 

peak hour conditions (CDM, 2001). 

When significant differences in elevations exist within 

the service area, the system should be divided into pressure zones. Within each zone, a maximum and minimum delivery pressure is established. Minimum delivery 

pressures may be as low as 10 psi (70 kPa) and maximum delivery pressures may be as high as 150 psi (1,000 

kPa), depending on the primary uses of the water. 

Several existing guidelines recommend operating the 

nonpotable system at pressures lower than the potable 

system (i.e., 10 psi, 70 kPa lower) in order to mitigate 

any cross-connections. However, experience in the field 

indicates that this is difficult to achieve at all times 

throughout the distribution system. 

123
Figure 3-14. Example of a Multiple Reuse Distribution System 

 Establish that public health is the overriding concern 

 Devise procedures and regulations to prevent crossconnections 

 Develop a uniform system to mark all nonpotable 

components of the system 

 Prevent improper or unintended use of nonpotable 

water through a proactive public information program 

 Provide for routine monitoring and surveillance of the 

nonpotable system 

 Establish and train special staff members to be responsible for operations, maintenance, inspection, 

and approval of reuse connections 

 Develop construction and design standards 

3.6.1.1 Public Health Safeguards 

The major concern guiding design, construction, and operation of a reclaimed water distribution system is the 

prevention of cross-connections. A cross-connection is 

a physical connection between a potable water system 

used to supply water for drinking purposes, and any 

source containing nonpotable water through which potable water could be contaminated. 

Another major concern is to prevent improper use or 

inadvertent use of reclaimed water as potable water. 

To protect public health from the outset, a reclaimed water 

distribution system should be accompanied by health 

codes, procedures for approval (and disconnection) of 

service, regulations governing design and construction 

specifications, inspections, and operation and maintenance staffing. Public health protection measures that 

should be addressed in the planning phase are identified 

below. 

124
 Provide for the physical separation of the potable 

water, reclaimed water, sewer lines and appurtenances 

Successful methods for implementing these measures 

are outlined below. 

a. Identification of Pipes and Appurtenances 

All components and appurtenances of the nonpotable 

system should be clearly and consistently identified 

throughout the system. Identification should be through 

color coding and marking. The nonpotable system (i.e., 

pipes, pumps, outlets, and valve boxes) should be distinctly set apart from the potable system. The methods 

most commonly used are unique colorings, labeling, and 

markings. 

Nonpotable piping and appurtenances are painted purple 

or can be integrally stamped or marked, “CAUTION 

NONPOTABLE WATER – DO NOT DRINK” or “CAUTION: RECLAIMED WATER – DO NOT DRINK,” or the 

pipe may be wrapped in purple polyethylene vinyl wrap. 

Another identification method is to mark pipe with colored marking tape or adhesive vinyl tape. When tape is 

used, the words (“CAUTION: RECLAIMED WATER – DO 

NOT DRINK”) should be equal to the diameter of the pipe 

and placed longitudinally at 3-feet (0.9-meters) intervals. 

Other methods of identification and warning are: stenciled pipe with 2- to 3-inch (5- to 8-cm) letters on opposite sides, placed every 3 to 4 feet (0.9 to 1.2 meters); 

for pipe less than 2 inches (5 cm), lettering should be at 

least 5/8-inch (1.6 cm) at 1-foot (30-cm) intervals; plastic marking tape (with or without metallic tracer) with lettering equal to the diameter of pipe, continuous over the 

length of pipe at no more than 5-foot (1.5-meter) intervals; vinyl adhesive tape may be placed at the top of the 

pipe for diameters 2.5 to 3 inches (6 to 8 cm) and along 

opposite sides of the pipe for diameters 6 to 16 inches 

(15 to 40 cm), and along both sides and on top of the 

pipe for diameters of 20 inches (51 cm) or greater (AWWA, 

1994). 

The FDEP requires all new advisory signs and labels on 

vaults, service boxes, or compartments that house hose 

bibs, along with all labels on hose bibs, valves, and outlets, to bear the words, “do not drink” and “no beber,” 

along with the equivalent standard international symbol. In addition to the words, “do not drink” and “no 

beber,” advisory signs posted at storage ponds and decorative water features also bear the words, “do not swim” 

and “no nadar,” along with the equivalent standard international symbols. Figure 3-15 shows a typical reclaimed 

water advisory sign. Existing advisory signs and labels 

will be retrofitted, modified, or replaced in order to comply with the revised wording requirements as part of the 

permit renewal process for FDEP (FDEP, 1999). 

Figure 3-15. Reclaimed Water Advisory Sign 

Valve boxes for hydraulic and electrical components 

should be colored and warnings should be stamped on 

the cover. The valve covers for nonpotable transmission 

lines should not be interchangeable with potable water 

covers. For example, the City of Altamonte Springs, 

Florida uses square valve covers for reclaimed water and 

round valve covers for potable water. Blow-off valves 

should be painted and carry markings similar to other 

system piping. Irrigation and other control devices should 

be marked both inside and outside. Any constraints or 

special instructions should be clearly noted and placed 

in a suitable cabinet. If fire hydrants are part of the system, they should be painted or marked and the stem 

should require a special wrench for opening. 

b. Horizontal and Vertical Separation of Potable 

from Nonpotable Pipes 

The general rule is that a 10-foot (3-meter) horizontal 

interval and a 1-foot (0.3-meter) vertical distance should 

be maintained between potable (or sewer) lines and 

nonpotable lines that are parallel to each other. When 

these distances cannot be maintained, special authorization may be required, though a minimum lateral distance of 4 feet (1.2 meters) (St. Petersburg) is generally 

mandatory. The State of Florida specifies a 5-foot (1.5-

meter) separation between reclaimed water lines and 

water lines or force mains, with a minimum of 3-foot (0.9-

meter) separation from pipe wall to pipe wall (FDEP, 

1999). This arrangement allows for the installation of reclaimed water lines between water and force mains that 

are separated by 10 feet (3 meters). The potable water 

should be placed above the nonpotable, if possible. Un125
der some circumstances, using a reclaimed water main 

of a different depth than that of potable or force mains 

might be considered to provide further protection from 

having an inadvertent cross–connection occur. 

Nonpotable lines are usually required to be at least 3 feet 

(90 cm) below ground. Figure 3-16 illustrates Florida’s 

separation requirements for nonpotable lines. 

c. Prevent Onsite Ability to Tie into Reclaimed 

Water Lines 

The Irvine Ranch Water District, California has regulations mandating the use of special quick coupling valves 

for onsite irrigation connections. For reclaimed water, 

these valves are operated by a key with an Acme thread. 

This thread is not allowed for the potable system. The 

cover on the reclaimed water coupler is different in color 

and material from that used on the potable system. Hose 

bibs are generally not permitted on nonpotable systems 

because of the potential for incidental use and possible 

human contact with the reclaimed water. Below-ground 

bibs placed inside a locking box or that require a special 

tool to operate are allowed by Florida regulations (FDEP, 

1999). 

d. Backflow Prevention 

Where the possibility of cross-connection between potable and reclaimed water lines exists, backflow prevention devices should be installed onsite when both potable and reclaimed water services are provided to a user. 

The backflow prevention device is placed on the potable 

water service line to prevent potential backflow from the 

reclaimed water system into the potable water system if 

the 2 systems are illegally interconnected. Accepted 

methods of backflow prevention include: 

 Air gap 

 Reduced-pressure principal backflow prevention assembly 

 Double-check valve assembly 

 Pressure vacuum breaker 

 Atmospheric vacuum breaker 

The AWWA recommends the use of a reduced-pressure 

principal backflow prevention assembly where reclaimed 

water systems are present. However, many communities have successfully used double-check valve assemblies. The backflow prevention device will prevent water 

expansion into the water distribution system. At some 

residences, the tightly closed residential water system 

can create a pressure buildup that causes the safety relief on a water heater to periodically discharge. This problem was solved by the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, by 

providing separate pressure release valves, which allow 

for the release of water through an outdoor hose bibb. 

If potable water is used as make-up water for lakes or 

reservoirs, there should be a physical break between the 

potable water supply pipe and receiving reservoir. The 

air gap separating the potable water from the reservoir 

containing nonpotable water should be at least 2 pipe 

diameters. There should never be any permanent connection between nonpotable and potable lines in the system. 

In most cases, backflow prevention devices are not provided on a reclaimed water system. However, the San 

Antonio Water System (Texas) requires a reduced-presFigure 3-16. Florida Separation Requirements for Reclaimed Water Mains 

126 
sure principal backflow preventer on the potable supply 

to properties using reclaimed water. In addition, the City 

requires customers to use a double-check assembly or 

air gap on the reclaimed water supply. This provision is 

basic to maintaining a consistent water quality in the San 

Antonio reclaimed water supply. It is prudent to periodically inspect the potable system to confirm that crossconnections do not exist. The City of San Antonio alternately shuts down the potable and reclaimed water at a 

site. The inactive system is then checked for residual 

pressure, indicating a cross- connection. Where possible, 

dye tests are also conducted (Baird, 2000). The City of 

Altamonte Springs, Florida takes its entire reuse system 

off line for 2 days each year as part of its cross-connection control program. 

e. Safeguards when Converting Existing Potable 

Lines to Nonpotable Use 

In cases where parts of the system are being upgraded 

and some of the abandoned potable water lines are being transferred to the nonpotable system, care must be 

taken to prevent any cross-connections from occurring. 

As each section is completed, the new system should 

be shutdown and drained and each water user checked 

to ensure that there are no improper connections. Additionally, a tracer, such as potassium permanganate, may 

be introduced into the nonpotable system to test whether 

any of it shows up at any potable fixture. 

In existing developments where an in-place irrigation 

system is being converted to carry reclaimed water, the 

new installation must be inspected and tested with tracers or some other method to ensure separation of the 

potable from the nonpotable supply. It may warrant providing a new potable service line to isolated potable facilities. For example, if a park is converting to reclaimed 

water, rather than performing an exhaustive evaluation 

to determine how a water fountain was connected to the 

existing irrigation system, it could be simpler to supply a 

new service lateral from the new water main. 

3.6.1.2 Operations and Maintenance 

Maintenance requirements for the nonpotable components 

of the reclaimed water distribution system should be the 

same as those for potable. As the system matures, any 

disruption of service due to operational failures will upset 

the users. From the outset, such items as isolation 

valves, which allow for repair to parts of the system without affecting a large area, should be designed into the 

nonpotable system. Flushing the line after construction 

should be mandatory to prevent sediment from accumulating, hardening, and becoming a serious future maintenance problem. 

Differences in maintenance procedures for potable and 

nonpotable systems cannot generally be forecast prior 

to the operation of each system. For instance, the City 

of St. Petersburg, Florida flushes its nonpotable lines 

twice a year during the off-season months. The amount 

of water used in the flushing is equal to a day’s demand 

of reclaimed water. The Irvine Ranch Water District (California) reports no significant difference in the 2 lines, 

though the reclaimed lines are flushed more frequently 

(every 2 to 3 years versus every 5 to 10 years for potable) due to suspended matter and sediment picked up 

during lake storage. Verification that adequate disinfection has occurred as part of treatment prior to distribution 

to reclaimed water customers is always required. However, maintenance of a residual in the transmission/distribution system is not required. Florida requires a 1-mg/ 

l chlorine residual at the discharge of the chlorine contact basin, but no minimum residual is required in the 

reclaimed water piping system. The State of Washington 

is an exception in that it does require a minimum of 0.5-

mg/l-chlorine residual in the distribution lines. 

a. Blow-Offs/Flushing Hydrants 

Even with sufficient chlorination, residual organics and 

bacteria may grow at dead spots in the system, which 

may lead to odor and clogging problems. Flushing and 

periodic maintenance of the system can significantly 

allay the problem. In most cases, the flushing flow is 

directed into the sewage system. 

b. Flow Recording 

Even when a system is unmetered, accurate flow recording is essential to manage the growth of the system. Flow data are needed to confirm total system use 

and spatial distribution of water supplied. Such data allow for efficient management of the reclaimed water 

pump stations and formulations of policies to guide system growth. Meters placed at the treatment facility may 

record total flow and flow-monitoring devices may be 

placed along the system, particularly in high consumption areas. 

c. Permitting and Inspection 

The permitting process includes plan and field reviews 

followed by periodic inspections of facilities. This oversight includes inspection of both onsite and offsite facilities. Onsite facilities are the user’s nonpotable water facilities downstream from the reclaimed water meter. 

Offsite facilities are the agency’s nonpotable water facilities up to and including the reclaimed water meter. 

127
Though inspection and review regulations vary from system to system, the basic procedures are essentially the 

same. These steps are described below. 

(1) Plan Review – A contractor (or resident) must

request service and sign an agreement with the 

agency or department responsible for permitting 

reclaimed water service. Dimensioned plans and 

specifications for onsite facilities must conform 

to regulations. Usually, the only differences from 

normal irrigation equipment will be identification 

requirements and special appurtenances to prevent cross-connections. Some systems, however, require that special strainer screens be 

placed before the pressure regulator for protection against slime growths fouling the sprinkler 

system, meter, or pressure regulator. 

The plans are reviewed and the agency works 

with the contractor to make sure that the system meets all requirements. Systems with crossconnections to potable water systems must be 

denied. Temporary systems should not be considered. Devices for any purpose other than irrigation should be approved through special procedures. 

Installation procedures called out on the plan 

notes are also reviewed because they provide 

the binding direction to the landscape contractor. All points of connection are reviewed for 

safety and compatibility. The approved record 

drawings (“as-builts”) are kept on file. The “asbuilts” include all onsite and offsite nonpotable 

water facilities as constructed or modified, and 

all potable water and sewer lines. 

(2) Field Review – Field review is generally conducted by the same staff involved in the plan 

review. Staff looks for improper connections, 

unclear markings, and insufficient depths of pipe 

installation. A cross-connection control test is 

performed, followed by operation of the actual 

onsite irrigation system to ensure that 

overspraying and overwatering are not occurring. 

Any problems identified are then corrected. Follow-up inspections are routine, and in some 

cases, fixed interval (e.g. semi-annual) inspections and random inspections are planned. 

(3) Monitoring – A number of items should be carefully monitored or verified, including: 

 Requiring that landscape contractors or irrigation contractors provide at least minimal education to their personnel so that these 

contractors are familiar with the regulations 

governing reclaimed water installations 

 Submitting all modifications to approved facilities to the responsible agencies 

 Detecting and recording any breaks in the 

transmission main 

 Randomly inspecting user sites to detect 

any faulty equipment or unauthorized use 

 Installing monitoring stations throughout the 

system to test pressure, chlorine residual, 

and other water quality parameters 

A reclaimed water supplier should reserve the right to 

withdraw service for any offending condition subject to 

correction of the problem. Such rights are often established as part of a user agreement or a reuse ordinance. 

Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the legal issues associated with reclaimed water projects. 

3.6.2 Operational Storage 

As with potable water distribution systems, a reclaimed 

water system must provide sufficient operational storage to accommodate diurnal fluctuations in demand and 

supply. The volume required to accommodate this task 

will depend on the interaction of the supply and demand 

over a 24-hour period. 

Designs are dependent on assessments of the diurnal 

demand for reclaimed water. Such assessments, in most 

cases, require a detailed investigation of the proposed 

user or users. When possible, records of actual historical use should be examined as a means to develop 

demand requirements. Where records are absent, sitespecific investigations are in order. In some cases, pilot 

studies may be warranted prior to initiating a full-scale 

reuse program. 

Figure 3-17 presents the anticipated diurnal fluctuation 

of supply and urban irrigation demand for a proposed reclaimed water system in Boca Raton, Florida (CDM, 1991). 

This information was developed based on the historic 

fluctuations in wastewater flow experienced in Boca Raton 

and the approximate fluctuations in the reclaimed water 

urban irrigation demand experienced in the St. Petersburg, Florida urban reuse program. 

Operational storage may be provided at the reclamation 

facility, as remote storage out in the system, or as a 

combination of both. For example, the City of Altamonte 

128
Figure 3-17. Anticipated Daily Reclaimed Water Demand Curve vs. Diurnal Reclaimed Water Flow 

Curve 

Springs, Florida, maintains ground storage facilities at 

the reclamation plant and elevated storage tanks out in 

the reclaimed water system. Large sites, such as golf 

courses, commonly have onsite ponds capable of receiving water throughout the day. Such onsite facilities 

reduce operational storage requirements that need to 

be provided by the utility. In the City of Naples, Florida 

where reclaimed water is provided to 9 golf courses, remote booster pump stations deliver reclaimed water to 

users from a covered storage tank located at the reclamation plant. 

Operational storage facilities are generally covered tanks 

or open ponds. Covered storage in ground or elevated 

tanks is used for unrestricted urban reuse where aesthetic considerations are important. Ponds are less 

costly, in most cases, but generally require more land 

per gallon stored. Where property costs are high or sufficient property is not available, ponds may not be feasible. Open ponds also result in water quality degradation from biological growth, and chlorine residual is difficult to maintain. Ponds are appropriate for onsite applications such as agricultural and golf course irrigation. 

In general, ponds that are already being used as a 

source for irrigation are also appropriate for reclaimed 

water storage. In addition to the biological aspects of 

storing reclaimed water in onsite impoundments, the concentration of various constituents due to surface evaporation may present a problem. Reclaimed water often has 

a more elevated concentration of TDS than other available sources of water. Where evaporation rates are high 

and rainfall is low, the configuration of onsite storage 

ponds was found to have significant impacts on water 

quality in terms of TDS (Chapman and French, 1991). 

Shallow ponds with a high area-to-volume ratio experience greater concentrations of dissolved solids due to 

surface evaporation. Dissolved solids increase in all 

ponds, but deeper ponds can mitigate the problem. Figure 3-18 summarizes the expected concentration levels 

of TDS with varying pond depth for reclaimed water with 

an influent concentration of 1,112 and 1,500 mg/l of TDS, 

assuming water is lost from storage through evaporation 

only. 

3.6.3 Alternative Disposal Facilities 

Beneficial water reclamation and reuse can effectively 

augment existing water supplies and reduce the water 

quality impacts of effluent discharge. Yet 100 percent 

reuse of the effluent may not always be feasible. In such 

cases, some form of alternative use or disposal of the 

excess water is necessary. For the purposes of this section, the discharge of reclaimed water will be considered 

“disposal,” regardless of whether it is for subsequent reuse or permanent disposal. 

Where reclamation programs incorporate existing wastewater treatment facilities, an existing disposal system 

will likely be in place and can continue to be used for 

partial or intermittent disposal. Common alternative disposal systems include surface water discharge, injection wells, land application, and wetlands application. 

129
Figure 3-18. TDS Increase Due to Evaporation 

for One Year as a Function of Pond 

Depth 

These methods are described below. 

3.6.3.1 Surface Water Discharge 

Intermittent surface water discharge may provide an acceptable method for the periodic disposal of excess reclaimed water. While demand for reclaimed water normally declines during wet weather periods, it is during 

wet weather periods that surface waters are generally 

more able to assimilate the nutrients in reclaimed water 

without adverse water quality impacts. Conversely, during the warm summer months when surface water bodies are often most susceptible to the water quality impacts of effluent discharges, the demand for irrigation 

water is high and an excess of reclaimed water is less 

likely. Thus, the development of a water reuse program 

with intermittent discharges can reduce or eliminate 

wastewater discharges during periods when waters are 

most sensitive to nutrient concentrations while allowing 

for discharges at times when adverse impacts are less 

likely. By eliminating discharges for a portion of the year 

through water reuse, a municipality may also be able to 

avoid the need for costly advanced wastewater treatment 

nutrient removal processes often required for a continuous discharge. The New York City’s investigation into 

water reclamation included a comparison of the reduction in nitrogen loadings that could be achieved through 

BNR treatment or beneficial reuse. Table 3-15 provides 

a summary of this effort and indicates the volume of 

water that must be diverted to reuse in order to equal the 

nutrient reduction that would be realized from a given 

level of BNR treatment. 

In the City of Petaluma, California the ability to protect 

the downstream habitat by eliminating surface water discharges from May through September played a major 

role in considering reuse. (Putnam, 2002). 

3.6.3.2 Injection Wells 

Injection wells, which convey reclaimed water into subsurface formations, are also used as an alternative means 

of disposal, including eventual reuse via groundwater 

recharge. Thus, the purpose of the disposal (permanent 

or for future reuse) will typically determine the type and 

regulatory framework of the injection wells. The EPA 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) program has categorized injection wells into 5 classes, only 2 of which (Class 

I and V) apply to reclaimed water disposal. 

Class I injection wells are technologically sophisticated 

and inject hazardous and non-hazardous wastes below 

the lowermost underground source of drinking water 

(USDW). Injection occurs into deep, isolated rock formations that are separated from the lowermost USDW by 

layers of impermeable clay and rock. In general, owners 

and operators of most new Class I injection wells are 

required to: 

 Site the injection wells in a location that is free of 

faults and other adverse geological features. Drill to 

a depth that allows the injection into formations that 

do not contain water that can potentially be used as 

a source of drinking water. These injection zones 

are confined from any formation that may contain 

water that may potentially be used as a source of 

drinking water. 

 Inject through an internal pipe (tubing) that is located 

inside another pipe (casing). This outer pipe has cement on the outside to fill any voids occurring between the outside pipe and the hole that was bored 

for the well (borehole). This allows for multiple layers 

of containment of the potentially contaminating injection fluids. 

 Test for integrity at the time of completion and every 

5 years thereafter (more frequently for hazardous 

waste wells). 

 Monitor continuously to assure the integrity of the 

well. 

Class V injection wells will likely include nearly all reclaimed water injection wells that are not permitted as 

Class I injection wells. Under the existing federal regulations, Class V injection wells are “authorized by rule” (40 

CFR 144), which means they do not require a federal 

130
permit if they do not endanger underground sources of 

drinking water and comply with other UIC program requirements. However, individual states may require specific treatment, well construction, and water quality monitoring standards compliance before permitting any injection of reclaimed water into aquifers that are currently or 

could potentially be used for potable supply. A discussion about potential reclaimed water indirect potable reuse guidelines is contained in Chapter 4. 

Injection wells are a key component of the urban reuse 

program in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida. The city 

operates 10 wells, which inject excess reclaimed water 

into a saltwater aquifer at depths between 700 and 1,000 

feet (210 and 300 meters) below the land surface. Approximately 50 percent of the available reclaimed water 

is disposed of through injection. When originally installed, 

the wells were permitted as Class I injection wells with 

the primary use for the management of excess reclaimed 

water, but also were employed to dispose of any reclaimed 

water not meeting water quality standards. The City is in 

the permitting process to convert the wells to Class V 

injection wells, for primary use as an ASR system. 

Under suitable circumstances, excess reclaimed water 

can be stored in aquifers for subsequent reuse. In Orange County, California injection of reclaimed water into 

potable supply aquifers has been conducted for seawater intrusion control and groundwater recharge since 1976 

and has expanded in recent years to Los Angeles County, 

California. New advanced water treatment and injection 

projects are underway in both counties to supply the 

majority of coastal injection wells in Orange and Los 

Angeles counties with reclaimed water to reduce dependence on imported water from the Colorado River and 

northern California. Additional discussion about reclaimed 

water recharge can be found in Chapter 2. 

3.6.3.3 Land Application 

In water reuse irrigation systems, reclaimed water is applied in quantities to meet an existing water demand. In 

land treatment systems, effluent may be applied in excess of the needs of the crop. Land application systems 

can provide reuse benefits, such as irrigation and/or 

groundwater recharge. However, in many cases, the main 

focus of land application systems is to avoid detrimental 

impacts to groundwater that can result from the application of nutrients or toxic compounds. 

In some cases, a site may be amenable to both reuse 

and “land application”. Such are the conditions of a Tallahassee, Florida sprayfield system. This system is located on a sand ridge, where only drought-tolerant flora 

can survive without irrigation. By providing reclaimed 

water for irrigation, the site became suitable for agricultural production of multiple crop types. However, because of the extreme infiltration and percolation rates, 

it is possible to apply up to 3 inches per week (8 cm per 

week) of reclaimed water without significant detrimental 

impacts to the crop (Allhands and Overman, 1989). 

The use of land application as an alternative means of 

disposal is subject to hydrogeological considerations. 

The EPA manual Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater (U.S. EPA, 1981) provides a complete discussion 

of the design requirements for such systems. 

The use of land application systems for wet weather disposal is limited unless high infiltration and percolation 

rates can be achieved. This can be accomplished through 

the use of rapid infiltration basins or manmade wetlands. 

In cases where manmade wetlands are created, damaged wetlands are restored, or existing wetlands are enTable 3-15. Nitrogen Mass Removal Strategies: Nutrient Removal vs. Water Reuse 

Wate r Pollution 

Control Facility 

1998 Total 

Flow 

(m gd) 

1998 

Efflue nt 

TN (lbs /d) 

Step Feed 

BNR Proje cte d 

TN Dis charge 

(lbs /d) 

Equivale nt 

Wate r 

Reuse 

(m gd) 

Enhance d Ste p 

Fe e d BNR & 

Se parate 

Ce ntrate 

Tre atm ent 

(lbs /d) 

Equivale nt 

Wate r 

Reuse 

(m gd) 

Wards Island 224 29,000 24,000 39 12,500 128 

Hunts Point 134 19,000 16,000 22 9,500 67 

Tallman Island 59 7,700 3,500 33 3,500 33 

Bowery Bay 126 19,700 11,000 56 6,500 85 

26th Ward 69 15,500 7,500 36 5,000 48 

131 
3.7 

hanced, wetlands application may be considered a form 

of water reuse, as discussed in Section 2.5.1. Partial or 

intermittent discharges to wetlands systems have also 

been incorporated as alternative disposal means in water reuse systems, with the wetlands providing additional 

treatment through filtration and nutrient uptake. 

A wetlands discharge is used in Orange County, Florida, 

where a portion of the reclaimed water generated by 

the Eastern Service Area WWTF is reused for power 

plant cooling, and the remainder is discharged by overland flow to a system of manmade and natural wetlands. 

Figure 3-19 shows the redistribution construction wetlands system. Application rates are managed to simulate natural hydroperiods of the wetland systems 

(Schanze and Voss, 1989). 

Environmental Impacts 

Elimination or reduction of a surface water discharge by 

reclamation and reuse generally reduces adverse water 

Figure 3-19. Orange County, Florida, 

Redistribution Constructed 

Wetland 

quality impacts to the receiving water. However, moving 

the discharge from a disposal site to a reuse system 

may have secondary environmental impacts. An environmental assessment may be required to meet state or 

local regulations and is required whenever federal funds 

are used. Development of water reuse systems may have 

unintended environmental impacts related to land use, 

stream flow, and groundwater quality. Formal guidelines 

for the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS) have been established by the EPA. Such 

studies are generally associated with projects receiving 

federal funding or new NPDES permits and are not specifically associated with reuse programs. Where an investigation of environmental impacts is required, it may 

be subject to state policies. 

The following conditions are given as those that would 

induce an EIS in a federally-funded project: 

 The project may significantly alter land use. 

 The project is in conflict with any land use plans or 

policies. 

 Wetlands will be adversely impacted. 

 Endangered species or their habitat will be affected. 

 The project is expected to displace populations or 

alter existing residential areas. 

 The project may adversely affect a flood plain or 

important farmlands. 

 The project may adversely affect parklands, preserves, or other public lands designated to be of 

scenic, recreational, archaeological, or historical 

value. 

 The project may have a significant adverse impact 

upon ambient air quality, noise levels, surface or 

groundwater quality or quantity. 

 The project may have adverse impacts on water 

supply, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and their actual habitats. 

The types of activities associated with federal EIS requirements are outlined below. Many of the same requirements are incorporated into environmental assessments 

required under state laws. 

3.7.1 Land Use Impacts 

Water reuse can induce significant land use changes, 

either directly or indirectly. Direct changes include shifts 

in vegetation or ecosystem characteristics induced by 

alterations in water balance in an area. Indirect changes 

include land use alterations associated with industrial, 

residential, or other development made possible by the 

added supply of water from reuse. Two cases from Florida 

illustrate this point. 

 A study in the Palm Beach County, Florida area determined that reuse could provide water supply sufficient to directly and substantially change the 

hydroperiod in the area. This change was significant 

enough to materially improve the potential for sus132
taining a wetlands ecosystem and for controlling the 

extent and spread of invasive species. In short, the 

added reuse water directly affected the nature of land 

cover in the area. 

 Indirect changes were also experienced in agricultural land use in the Orange County, Florida area. 

Agricultural use patterns were found to be materially 

influenced by water reuse associated with the Water 

Conserv II project. Commercial orange groves were 

sustained and aided in recovery from frost damage 

to crops by the plentiful supply of affordable water 

generated by reuse. The added reuse water affected 

the viability of agriculture, and therefore, indirectly 

affected land use in the area. 

Other examples of changes in land use as a result of 

available reuse water include the potential for urban or 

industrial development in areas where natural water availability limits the potential for growth. For example, if the 

supply of potable water can be increased through recharge 

using reuse supply, then restrictions to development 

might be reduced or eliminated. Even nonpotable supplies, made available for uses such as residential irrigation, can affect the character and desirability of developed land in an area. Similar effects can also happen on 

a larger scale, as municipalities in areas where development options are constrained by water supply might find 

that nonpotable reuse enables the development of parks 

or other amenities that were previously considered to be 

too costly or difficult to implement. Commercial users 

such as golf courses, garden parks, or plant nurseries 

have similar potential for development given the presence of reuse supplies. 

The potential interactions associated with land use 

changes are complex, and in some cases the conclusion that impacts are beneficial is subjective. An increase 

in urban land use, for example, is not universally viewed 

as a positive change. For this reason, the decision-making process involved in implementing a reclamation program should result from a careful consideration of stakeholder goals. 

3.7.2 Stream Flow Impacts 

Instream flows can either increase or decrease as a consequence of reuse projects. In each situation where reuse is considered, there is the potential to shift water 

balances and effectively alter the prevailing hydrologic 

regime in an area. Two examples of the way flows can 

increase as a result of a reuse project are as follows: 

 In streams where dry weather base flows are groundwater dependant, land application of reclaimed water 

for irrigation or other purposes can cause an increase 

in base flows, if the prevailing groundwater elevation 

is raised. (Groundwater effects are discussed further in Section 3.7.3.) 

 Increases in stream flows during wet periods can 

result from reduced soil moisture capacity in a tributary watershed, if there is pervasive use of recharge 

on the land surface during dry periods. In such a 

case, antecedent conditions are wetter, and runoff 

greater, for a given rainstorm. The instream system 

bears the consequences of this change. 

It is important to note that the concurrent effects of land 

use changes discussed in Section 3.7.1 can exacerbate 

either of the above effects. 

Instream flow reduction is also possible, and can be 

more directly evident. For example, the Trinity River in 

Texas, in the reaches near the City of Dallas, maintains 

a continuous flow of several hundred cubic feet per second during dry periods. This flow is almost entirely composed of treated effluent from discharges further upstream. If extensive reuse programs were to be implemented at the upstream facilities, dry weather flows in 

this river would be jeopardized and plans for urban development downstream could be severely impacted due 

to lack of available water. 

In addition to water quantity issues, reuse programs can 

potentially impact aesthetics or recreational use and damage ecosystems associated with streams where hydrologic behavior is significantly affected. Where wastewater discharges have occurred over an extended period of 

time, the flora and fauna can adapt and even become 

dependent on that water. A new or altered ecosystem 

can arise, and a reuse program implemented without consideration of this fact could have an adverse impact on 

such a community. In some cases, water reuse projects 

have been directly affected by concerns for instream flow 

reduction that could result from a reuse program. The 

San Antonio Water System (SAWS) in Texas defined 

the historic spring flow at the San Antonio River headwaters during development of their reclaimed water system. In cooperation with downstream users and the San 

Antonio River Authority, SAWS agreed to maintain a release of 55,000 acre-feet per year (68 x 106

 m3 per year) 

from its water reclamation facilities. This policy protects 

and enhances downstream water quality and provides 

35,000 acre-feet per year (43 x 106 m3 per year) of reclaimed water for local use. 

In the State of Washington, reuse water can be discharged to a stream as stream flow augmentation. Un133
der this provision, reclaimed water can be discharged to 

surface water for purposeful uses such as: 

 If the flow is to maintain adequate flows for aquatic 

life 

 If the reclaimed water is going to be used downstream 

and therefore the stream is acting as a conduit 

In the City of Sequim, Washington 0.1 cfs (2.8 l/s) of 

reclaimed water is discharged into the Bell Stream to 

keep the benthic layer wet. The flow is not intended to 

maintain an environment for fish, but instead to maintain other small species that live in the streambed. To 

date, no studies have been conducted to show the effects to the ecosystem. 

The implication of these considerations is that a careful 

analysis of the entire hydrologic system is an appropriate consideration in a reuse project if instream impacts 

are to be understood. This is particularly the case when 

the magnitude of the flows impacted by the reuse program is large, relative to the quantities involved in the 

hydrologic system that will be directly impacted by the 

reuse program. 

3.7.3 Hydrogeological Impacts 

As a final environmental consideration of water reuse, 

the groundwater quality effects of the reclaimed water for 

the intended use must be reviewed. The exact concerns 

of any project are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

One of the better-known sources of potential groundwater pollution is nitrate, which may be found in, or result 

from, the application of reclaimed water. However, additional physical, chemical, and biological constituents 

found in reclaimed water may pose an environmental risk. 

In general, these concerns increase when there are significant industrial wastewater discharges to the water 

reclamation facility. 

Impacts of these constituents are influenced by the 

hydrogeology of the reuse application site. Where karst 

conditions exist, for example, constituents may potentially exist within the reclaimed water that will ultimately 

reach the aquifer. In many reclaimed water irrigation 

programs, a groundwater-monitoring program is required to detect the impacts of reclaimed water constituents. 

3.8 Case Studies 

3.8.1 Code of Good Practices for Water 

Reuse 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) and the Florida Water Environment Association’s 

(FWEA) Water Reuse committee have developed the 

Code of Good Practices for Water Reuse in Florida 

(FDEP, 2002). The Code of Good Practices includes 16 

principles and is designed to aid reuse utilities as they 

implement quality water reuse programs. 

Protection of Public Health and Environmental Quality 

Public Health Significance – To recognize that distribution of reclaimed water for nonpotable purposes 

offers potential for public contact and that such contact has significance related to the public health. 

Compliance – To comply with all applicable state, 

federal, and local requirements for water reclamation, storage, transmission, distribution, and reuse 

of reclaimed water. 

Product – To provide reclaimed water that meets 

state treatment and disinfection requirements and that 

is safe and acceptable for the intended uses when 

delivered to the end users. 

Quality Monitoring and Process Control – To continuously monitor the reclaimed water being produced 

and rigorously enforce the approved operating protocol such that only high-quality reclaimed water is 

delivered to the end users. 

Effective Filtration – To optimize performance of 

the filtration process in order to maximize the effectiveness of the disinfection process in the inactivation of viruses and to effectively remove protozoan 

pathogens. 

Cross-Connection Control – To ensure that effective cross-connection control programs are rigorously 

enforced in areas served with reclaimed water. 

Inspections – To provide thorough, routine inspections of reclaimed water facilities, including facilities located on the property of end users, to ensure 

that reclaimed water is used in accordance with state 

and local requirements and that cross-connections 

do not occur. 

134
Reuse System Management 

Water Supply Philosophy – To adopt a “water supply” philosophy oriented towards reliable delivery of 

a high-quality reclaimed water product to the end 

users. 

Conservation – To recognize that reclaimed water 

is a valuable water resource, which should be used 

efficiently and effectively to promote conservation 

of the resource. 

Partnerships – To enter into partnerships with the 

Department of Environmental Protection, the end 

users, the public, the drinking water utility, other local and regional agencies, the water management 

district, and the county health department to follow 

and promote these practices. 

Communications – To provide effective and open 

communication with the public, end users, the drinking water utility, other local and regional agencies, 

the Department of Environmental Protection, the 

water management district, and the county health 

department. 

Contingency Plans – To develop response plans 

for unanticipated events, such as inclement weather, 

hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, supply shortfalls, equipment failure, and power disruptions. 

Preventative Maintenance – To prepare and implement a plan for preventative maintenance for equipment and facilities to treat wastewater and to store, 

convey, and distribute reclaimed water. 

Continual Improvement – To continually improve 

all aspects of water reclamation and reuse. 

Public Awareness 

Public Notification – To provide effective signage 

advising the public about the use of reclaimed water 

and to provide effective written notification to end 

users of reclaimed water about the origin of, the nature of, and proper use of reclaimed water. 

Education – To educate the public, children, and 

other agencies about the need for water conservation and reuse, reuse activities in the state and local area, and environmentally sound wastewater 

management and water reuse practices. 

3.8.2 Examples of Potable Water 

Separation Standards from the State

of Washington 

Efforts to control cross-connections invariably increase 

as part of the implementation of dual distribution systems involving potable and nonpotable lines. A fundamental element of these cross-connection control elements is the maintenance of a separation between potable and nonpotable pipelines. While the specific requirements often vary from state to state, common elements 

typically include color-coding requirements as well as 

minimum vertical and horizontal separations. Excerpts 

from the State of Washington, “Reclaimed Water – Potable Water Separation Standards,” are provided below 

as an example of these requirements. 

Policy Requirements: Potable water lines require protection from any nonpotable water supply, including all 

classes of reclaimed water. For buried pipelines, proper 

pipe separation must be provided. 

General Requirements: Standard potable-nonpotable 

pipe separation standards should be observed at: 

1. Parallel Installations: Minimum horizontal 

separation of 10 feet (3 meters) pipe-to-pipe. 

2. Pipe Crossings: Minimum vertical separation of 

18 inches (0.5 meters) pipe-to-pipe, with potable 

lines crossing above nonpotable. 

Special Conditions: Special laying conditions where the 

required separations cannot be maintained may be addressed as shown in the following examples. 

Figure 3-20. A Minimum 5-foot (1.5-meter) 

Horizontal Pipe Separation 

Coupled with an 18-inch (46-cm) 

Vertical Separation 

135 
Figure 3-21. Irrigation Lateral Separation 

Pipeline Separation: Minimum pipeline separation between any potable water line and reclaimed water irrigation laterals shall be 48 inches (1.2 meters) pipe-to-pipe 

separation. 

Special Condition Number 1- Irrigation Lateral Crossings: Reclaimed water irrigation laterals will commonly 

cross above potable water lines due to normal depths of 

bury. To provide adequate protection, the reclaimed water irrigation lateral shall be cased in pressure-rated pipe 

to a minimum distance of 4 feet (1.2 meters) on each 

side of the potable water line. 

Figure 3-22. Lateral Crossing Requirements 

Special Condition Number 2 - Inadequate Horizontal Separation: Site limitations will likely result in parallel pipe installations with less than 48 inches (1.2 meters) 

of pipe-to-pipe separation. In these instances, a minimum pipe-to-pipe separation of 18 inches (46 cm) shall 

be provided, and the reclaimed water irrigation lateral shall 

be installed a minimum of 18 inches (46 cm) above the 

potable water pipeline. An impervious barrier, such as 

PVC sheeting, installed between the irrigation lateral and 

the waterline for the length of the run is recommended. 

Figure 3-23. Parallel Water - Lateral Installation 

3.8.3 An Example of Using Risk

Assessment to Establish Reclaimed 

Water Quality 

Historically, the microbiological quality of both wastewater effluents and reclaimed water has been based on indicator organisms. This practice has proved to be effective and will likely continue into the foreseeable future. 

However, given uncertainties in the use of indicator organisms to control pathogens in reclaimed water and in 

other waters, regulatory agencies could consider developing a number of guidelines or standards for selected 

pathogens using microbiological risk assessment. Development of risk-based guidelines or standards could 

include: 

1. Selection of appropriate pathogens 

2. Selection of microbial risk models 

3. Structuring of exposure scenarios 

136 
4. Selection of acceptable risk levels 

5. Calculation of the concentration of the 

pathogen that would result in a risk equal to the 

acceptable level of risk 

As an example, York and Walker-Coleman (York and 

Walker-Coleman, 1999, 2000) used a risk assessment 

approach to evaluate guidelines for nonpotable reuse 

activities. These investigations developed guidelines for 

Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and enteroviruses using the 

following models: 

Organism Model Used Parameters 

Echovirus 12 

(moderately infective) 

Pi

 = 1 - (1 + N/β) -α

(beta-Poisson) 

α = 0.374 

β = 186.7 

Rotavirus 

(highly infective) 

Pi

 = 1 - (1 + N/β) -α

(beta-Poisson) 

α = 0.26 

β = 0.42 

Cryptosporidium Pi

 = 1 – e-rN 

(exponential) 

r = 0.00467 

Giardia Pi

 = 1 – e-rN 

r = 0.0198 

(exponential) 

Source: Rose and Carnahan, 1992, Rose et al., 1996 

Since specific types of viruses typically are not quantified when assessing viruses in reclaimed water, assumptions about the type of viruses present were required. 

For the purpose of developing a risk assessment model, 

it was assumed that all viruses would be highly infective 

rotaviruses. Helminths were not evaluated, since data 

from St. Petersburg, Florida showed that helminths were 

consistently removed in the secondary clarifiers of a water reclamation facility (Rose and Carnahan, 1992, Rose 

et al., 1996). 

In this analysis, an annual risk of infection of 1x10-4 was 

used as the “acceptable level of risk.” Two exposure 

scenarios were evaluated. Average conditions were evaluated based on the assumption that an individual would 

ingest 1.0 ml of reclaimed water (or its residue) on each 

of 365 days during the year. In addition, a worst-case 

scenario involving ingestion of 100 ml of reclaimed water 

on a single day during the year was evaluated. These 

exposure scenarios were judged representative of the 

use of reclaimed water to irrigate a residential lawn. The 

exposure scenarios could be adjusted to fit other reuse 

activities, such as irrigation of a golf course, park, or 

school. The results of this exercise are summarized in 

Table 3-16. 

It is important to note that, particularly for the protozoan 

pathogens, the calculations assume that all pathogens 

present in reclaimed water are intact, viable, and fully 

capable of causing infection. A Giardia infectivity study 

conducted by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (Garcia et al., 2002) demonstrated that Giardia cysts 

passing through a water reclamation facility were not infectious. This basic approach could be applied to other 

waters and could be used to establish consistency among 

the various water programs. 

3.9 References 

When a National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

number is cited in a reference, that reference is available 

from: 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

(703) 487-4650 

Adams, A.P. and B.G. Lewis. Undated. “Bacterial Aerosols Generated by Cooling Towers of Electrical Generating Plants.” Paper No. TP-191-A, U.S. Army Dugway 

Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah. 

Adams, D.L. 1990. “Reclaimed Water Use in Southern 

California: Metropolitan Water District’s Role.” 1990 Biennial Conference Proceedings, National Water Supply 

Improvement Association, Volume 2. August 19-23, 

1990. Buena Vista, Florida. 

Table 3-16. Average and Maximum Conditions for Exposure 

Organism Units Calculated Allowable Concentrations 

Average Maximum 

Giardia Viable, infectious cysts/100 l 1.4 5 

Cryptosporidium Viable, infectious oocysts/100 l 5.8 22 

Enterovirus (a) PFU/100 l 0.044 0.165 

Note: (a) Assumes all viruses are highly infective Rotavirus. 

Source: York and Walker-Coleman, 1999, 2000 

137 
Ahel M., W. Giger W., and M. Koch. 1994. “Behavior of 

Alkylphenol Polyethoxylate Surfactants in the Aquatic 

Environment 1. Occurrence and Transformation in Sewage-Treatment.” Water Research, 28(5), 1131-1142. 

Allhands, M.N. and A.R. Overman. 1989. Effects of Municipal Effluent Irrigation on Agricultural Production and 

Environmental Quality. Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. 

American Public Health Association. 1989. Standard 

Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 

17th Edition. [Clesceri, L.S.; A.E. Greenberg; and R.R. 

Trussell (eds.)], Washington D.C. 

American Water Works Association Website, 

www.awwa.org 2003. 

American Water Works Association. 1994. Dual Water 

Systems. McGraw-Hill. New York. 

American Water Works Association. 1990. Water Quality and Treatment 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill. New York. 

Ammerman, D.K., M.G. Heyl, and R.C. Dent. 1997. “Statistical Analysis of Reclaimed Water Use at the 

Loxahatchee River District Reuse System.” Proceedings 

for the Water Environment Federation, 70th Annual Conference and Exposition. October 18-22, 1997. Chicago, 

Illinois. 

Armon, R. G., Oron, D. Gold, R. Sheinman, and U. 

Zuckerman. 2002. “Isolation and Identification of the 

Waterborne Protozoan Parasites Cryptosporidium spp and 

Giardia spp., and Their Presence on Restricted and Unrestricted Irrigated Vegetables in Israel.”: Perserving the 

Quality of Our Water Resources. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 

Asano, T, Leong, L.Y.C, M. G. Rigby, and R. H. Sakaji. 

1992. “Evaluation of the California Wastewater Reclamation Criteria Using Enteric Virus Monitoring Data.” Water 

Science Technology 26 7/8: 1513-1522. 

Asano, T. and R.H. Sakaji. 1990. “Virus Risk Analysis in 

Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse.” Chemical Water 

and Wastewater Treatment. pp. 483-496.Springer-Verlay, 

Berlin. 

Bailey, J., R. Raines, and E. Rosenblum. 1998. “The 

Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program – A Partnership to Maximize San Francisco Bay Area Water Recycling.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October 3-7, 

1998. Orlando, Florida. 

Baird, F. 2000. “Protecting San Antonio’s Potable Water 

Supply from Cross Connections Associated with Recycled/Reclaimed Water.” 2000 Water Reuse Conference 

Proceedings. January 30-February 2, 2000. San Antonio, Texas. 

Berkett, J.W., and J.N. Lester. 2003. Endocrine Disrupters in Wastewater and Sludge Treatment Processes. 

Lewis Publishers. IWA Publishing. Boca Raton, Florida. 

Bryan, R.T. 1995. “Microsporidiosis as an AIDS-related 

Opportunistic Infection.” Clin. Infect. Dis. 21, 62-65. 

California Department of Health Services. 1990. Guidelines Requiring Backflow Protection for Reclaimed Water Use Areas. California Department of Health Services, 

Office of Drinking Water. Sacramento, California. 

Camann, D.E., R.J. Graham, M.N. Guentzel, H.J. 

Harding, K.T. Kimball, B.E. Moore, R.L. Northrop, N.L. 

Altman, R.B. Harrist, A. H. Holguin, R.L. Mason, C.B. 

Popescu, and C.A. Sorber. 1986. The Lubbock Land 

Treatment System Research and Demonstration Project: 

Volume IV. Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study. EPA600/2-86-027d, NTIS No. PB86-173622. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Research 

Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

Camann, D.E. and M.N. Guentzel. 1985. “The Distribution of Bacterial Infections in the Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study of Wastewater Spray Irrigation.” Future 

of Water Reuse, Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium III. pp. 1470-1495. AWWA Research Foundation. Denver, Colorado. 

Camann, D.E., D.E. Johnson, H.J. Harding, and C.A. 

Sorber. 1980. “Wastewater Aerosol and School Attendance Monitoring at an Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility: Durham Plant, Tigard, Oregon.” Wastewater Aerosols and Disease. pp. 160-179.EPA-600/9-

80-028, NTIS No. PB81-169864. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Camann, D.E., and B.E. Moore. 1988. “Viral Infections 

Based on Clinical Sampling at a Spray Irrigation Site.” 

Implementing Water Reuse, Proceedings of Water Reuse Symposium IV. pp. 847-863. AWWA Research Foundation. Denver, Colorado. 

CDM. 2001. “City of Orlando Phase I Eastern Regional 

Reclaimed Water Distribution System Expansion.” Orlando, Florida. 

CDM. 1997. “Reclaimed Water and Wastewater Reuse 

Program, Final Report.” Town of Cary, North Carolina. 

138
CDM. 1991. “Boca Raton Reuse Master Plan.” Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. 

Casson, L.W., M.O.D. Ritter, L.M. Cossentino; and P. 

Gupta. 1997. “Survival and Recovery of Seeded HIV in 

Water and Wastewater.” Wat. Environ. Res. 69(2):174-

179. 

Casson, L.W., C.A. Sorber, R.H. Palmer, A. Enrico, and 

P. Gupta. 1992. “HIV in Wastewater.” Water Environment Research. 64(3): 213-215. 

Chapman, J.B., and R.H. French. 1991. “Salinity Problems Associated with Reuse Water Irrigation of Southwestern Golf Courses.” Proceedings of the 1991 Specialty Conference Sponsored by Environmental Engineering Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 

Clara, M., B. Strenn, and N. Kreuzinger. 2004. 

“Carbamezepine as a Possible Anthropogenic Marker in 

the Aquatic Environment.” Investigations on the Behavior 

of Carbamezepine in Wastewater Treatment and during 

Groundwater Infiltration, Water Research 38, 947-954. 

Codex Alimentarius, Codex Alimentarious Commission, 

http://www.codexalimentarius.net. 

Cooper, R.C., A.W. Olivieri, R.E. Danielson, P.G. Badger, R.C. Spear, and S. Selvin. 1986. Evaluation of Military Field-Water Quality: Volume 5: Infectious Organisms 

of Military Concern Associated with Consumption: Assessment of Health Risks and Recommendations for 

Establishing Related Standards. Report No. UCRL-21008 

Vol. 5. Environmental Sciences Division, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, 

Livermore, California. 

Cort, R.P., A.J. Hauge, and D. Carlson. 1998. “How Much 

Can Santa Rosa Expand Its Water Reuse Program?” 

Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water 

Works Association. Denver, Colorado. 

Cotte L., Rabodonirina M., Chapuis F., Bailly F., Bissuel 

F., Raynal C., Gelas P., Persat F., Piens MA., and Trepo 

C. 1999. Waterborne Outbreak of Intestinal

Microsporidiosis in Persons with and without Human 

Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. J Infect Dis.; 180(6): 

Crook, J. 1998. “Water Reclamation and Reuse Criteria.” 

Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. pp. 627-703, 

Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 

Crook, J. 1990. “Water Reclamation.” Encyclopedia of 

Physical Science and Technology. Academic Press, Inc. 

pp. 157-187. San Diego, California. 

Crook, J., and W.D. Johnson. 1991. “Health and Water 

Quality Considerations with a Dual Water System.” Water Environment and Technology. 3(8): 13:14. 

Dacko, B., and B. Emerson. 1997. “Reclaimed Water 

and High Salts – Designing Around the Problem.” Proceedings for the Water Environment Federation, 70th 

Annual Conference and Exposition. October 18-22, 

1997. Chicago, Illinois. 

Desbrow C., E.J. Routledge, G.C. Brighty, J.P. Sumpter, 

and M. Waldock. 1998. “Identification of Estrogenic 

Chemicals in STW Effluent. 1. Chemical Tractionation 

and in vitro biological screening.” Environ Sci Technol . 

32: 1549-1558.

Dowd, S.E. and S.D. Pillai, 1998. “Groundwater Sampling for Microbial Analysis.” In S.D. Pillai (ed.) Chapter 

2: Microbial Pathogens within Aquifers - Principles & Protocols. Springer-Verlag. 

Dowd, S.E., C.P. Gerba, M. Kamper, and I. Pepper. 1999. 

“Evaluation of methodologies including Immunofluorescent Assay (IFA) and the Polymerase Chain Reaction 

(PCR) for Detection of Human Pathogenic Microsporidia 

in Water.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 35, 43-52. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District. 1979. Wastewater 

Reclamation Project Report. Water Resources Planning 

Division, Oakland, California. 

Elefritz, R. 2002. “Designing for Non-Detectable Fecal 

Coliform...Our Experience With UV Light.” Proceedings 

of the Florida Water Resources Conference. March 2002. 

Orlando, Florida. 

EOA, Inc. 1995. Microbial Risk Assessment for Reclaimed Water. Report prepared for Irvine Ranch Water 

District. Oakland, California. 

Fannin, K.F., K.W. Cochran, D.E. Lamphiear, and A.S. 

Monto. 1980. “Acute Illness Differences with Regard to 

Distance from the Tecumseh, Michigan Wastewater Treatment Plant.” Wastewater Aerosols and Disease.pp. 117-

135.EPA-600/9-80-028. NTIS No. PB81-169864. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Feachem, R.G, D.J. Bradley, H. Garelick, and D.D. Mara. 

1983. Sanitation and Disease-Health Aspects of Excreta 

and Wastewater Management. Published for the World 

Bank, John Wiley & Sons. Chicester, Great Britain. 

139

2003-8 
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1970. Federal 

Guidelines: Design, Operation and Maintenance of 

Waste Water Treatment Facilities. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration. Washington, D.C. 

Ferguson P.L., C.R. Iden, A.E. McElroy, and B.J. 

Brownawell. 2001. “Determination of Steroid Estrogens 

in Wastewater by Immunoaffinity Extraction Coupled with 

HPLC-Electrospray-MS.” Anal. Chem.73(16), 3890­

3895. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. 

Reuse Coordinating Committee and the Water Reuse 

Work Group. “Water Reuse for Florida: Strategies for 

Effective Use of Reclaimed Water.” Tallahassee, Florida. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. 

Code of Good Practices for Water Reuse in Florida. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. 

Florida Water Conservation Initiative. Tallahassee, 

Florida. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. 

Water Reuse Work Group. Using Reclaimed Water to 

Conserve Florida’s Water Resources. A report to the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection as part 

of the Water Conservation Initiative. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. 

“Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application.” Chapter 62-610, Florida Administrative Code. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. 

Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection for Domestic Wastewater. 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. 

Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application. Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. Tallahassee, 

Florida. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1996. 

Domestic Wastewater Facilities. Chapter 62-610, Florida 

Administrative Code. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Forest, G., J. Peters, and K. Rombeck. 1998. “Reclaimed 

Water Conservation: A Project APRICOT Update.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October 3-7, 1998. Orlando, Florida. 

“Critical Period Operation of the Santa Rosa Municipal 

Reuse System.” Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium IV. August 2 - 7, 1987. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado. 

Fraser, J., and N. Pan. 1998. “Algae Laden Pond Effluents – Tough Duty for Reclamation Filters.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water Works 

Association. Denver, Colorado. 

Fujita Y., W.H. Ding, and M. Reinhard. 1996. “Identification of Wastewater Dissolved Organic Carbon Characteristics in Reclaimed Wastewater and Recharged 

Groundwater.” Water Environment Research. 68(5), 867­

876. 

Gale, Paul. 2002. “Using Risk Assessment to Identify 

Future Research Requirements.” Journal of American 

Water Works Association, Volume 94, No. 9. September, 2002. 

Garcia, A., W. Yanko, G. Batzer, and G. Widmer. 2002. 

“Giardia cysts in Tertiary-Treated Wastewater Effluents: 

Are they Infective?” Water Environment Research. 

74:541-544. 

Genneccaro, Angela L., Molly R. McLaughlin, Walter 

Quintero-Betancourt, Debra E. Huffman, and Jean B. 

Rose. 2003. “Infectious Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts 

in Final Reclaimed Effluent,” Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology, 69(8): 4983-4984 August, 2003, p.4983-

4984. 

Gerba, C.P. 2000. “Assessment of Enteric Pathogen 

Shedding by Bathers during Recreational Activity and 

its Impact on Water Quality.” Quant. Micrbiol. 2: 55-68. 

Gerba, C.P, and S.M. Goyal. 1985. “Pathogen Removal 

from Wastewater during Groundwater Recharge.” Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. pp. 283-317. Butterworth 

Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts. 

Gerba, C.P., and C.N. Haas. 1988. “Assessment of Risks 

Associated with Enteric Viruses in Contaminated Drinking Water.” Chemical and Biological Characterization of 

Sludges, Sediments, Dredge Spoils, and Drilling Muds. 

ASTM STP 976. pp. 489-494, American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Grisham, A., and W.M. Fleming. 1989. “Long-Term Options for Municipal Water Conservation.” Journal AWWA, 

81:34-42. 

Grosh, E.L., R.L. Metcalf, and D.H. Twachtmann. 2002. 

Fox, D.R., G.S. Nuss, D.L. Smith, and J. Nosecchi. 1987. 

140
“Recognizing Reclaimed Water as a Valuable Resource: 

The City of Tampa’s First Residential Reuse Project.” 

2002 WateReuse Annual Symposium, Orlando, Florida. 

September 8-11, 2002. 

Harries J.E., D.A. Sheahan, S. Jobling, P. Mattiessen, 

P. Neall, E.J. Routledge, R. Rycroft, J.P. Sumpter, and

T. Tylor. 1997. “Estrogenic Activity in Five United Kingdom Rivers Detected by Measurement of Vitellogenesis 

in Caged Male Trout.” Environ Toxicol Chem. 16: 534­

542. 

Harries J.E., D.A. Sheahan, S. Jobling, P. Mattiessen, P. 

Neall, E.J. Routledge, R. Rycroft, J.P. Sumpter, and T. 

Tylor. 1996. “A Survey of Estrogenic Activity in United 

Kingdom Inland Waters.” Environ Toxicol Chem. 15: 1993­

2002. 

Haas, C.N. A. Thayyat-Madabusi, J.B. Rose, and C.P. 

Gerba. 2000. “Development of a Dose-response Relationship for Escherichia coli.” 0157:H7. Intern. J. Food 

Microbiol.1:1-7. 

Haas, C.H., J.B. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. (eds) 1999. 

Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment. John Wiley and 

Sons, New York, New York. 

Hayes T.B., A. Collins, M. Lee, M. Mendoza, N. Noriega, 

A.A. Stuart, and A. Vonk. 2002. “Hermaphroditic, Demasculinized Frogs After Eexposure to the Herbicide Atrazine at Low Ecologically Relevant Doses.” Proc. Nat. 

Acad. Sci. 99(8) 5476-5480. 

Hench, K. R., G.K. Bissonnette, A.J. Sexstone, J.G. 

Coleman, K. Garbutt, and J.G. Skousen. 2003. “Fate of 

Physical, Chemical and Microbila Contaminants in Domestic Wastewater Following Treatment by Small Constructed Wetlands.” Wat. Res. 37: 921-927. 

Hirsekorn, R.A., and R.A. Ellison, Jr. 1987. “Sea Pines 

Public Service District Implements a Comprehensive 

Reclaimed Water System.” Proceedings of the Water 

Reuse Symposium IV, August 2-7, 1987. AWWA Research Foundation. Denver, Colorado. 

Hoeller, C. S. Koschinsky, and D. Whitthuhn. 1999. “Isolation of Enterohaemorragic Escherchia coli from Municipal Sewage.” Lancet 353. (9169):2039. 

Huang, C.H., and D.L. Sedlak. 2001. “Analysis of Estrogenic Hormones in Municipal Wastewater Effluent and 

Surface Water using ELISA and GC/MS/MS.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 20, 133-139. 

Huffman, Debra E., Theresa R. Slifko, and Joan B. Rose. 

1998. “Efficacy of Pulsed White Light to Inactivate Microorganisms.” Proceedings, AWWA WQTC, San Diego, 

CA. November 1-5. 

Hunter, G., and B. Long. 2002. “Endocrine Disrupters in 

Reclaimed Water Effective Removal from Disinfection 

Technologies.” 2002 Annual Symposium – WateReuse 

Symposium. Orlando, Florida. September 8-11, 2002. 

Hurst, C.J., W.H. Benton, and R.E. Stetler. 1989. “Detecting Viruses in Water.” Journal AWWA.81(9): 71-80. 

Irvine Ranch Water District. 2002. Water Resource Master Plan. Irvine, California. 

Jaques, R.S., and D. Williams. 1996. “Enhance the Feasibility of Reclamation Projects through Aquifer Storage 

and Recovery.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. 

American Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado. 

Jansons, J., L.W. Edmonds, B. Speight, and M.R. 

Bucens. 1989. “Survival of Viruses in Groundwater.” 

Water Research, 23(3):301-306. 

Jenks, J.H. 1991. “Eliminating Summer Wastewater Discharge.” Water Environment & Technology, 3(4): 9. 

Johnson, W.D. 1998. “Innovative Augmentation of a 

Community’s Water Supply – The St. Petersburg, Florida 

Experience.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October 

3-7, 1998. Orlando, Florida. 

Johnson, W.D., and J.R. Parnell. 1987. “The Unique Benefits/Problems When Using Reclaimed Water in a Coastal 

Community.” Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium IV, pp. 259-270. August 2-7, 1987. AWWA Research 

Foundation. Denver, Colorado. 

Jolis, D., C. Lan, P. Pitt, and R. Hirano. 1996. “Particle 

Size Effects on UV Light Disinfection of Filtered Reclaimed Wastewater.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado. 

Keller, W. 2002. “Reuse of Stormwater and Wastewater 

in the City of Calgary.” Presentation at CCME Workshop. 

Calgary, Alberta, Canada. May 30-31, 2002. 

Keswick, B.H., C.P. Gerba, S.L. Secor, and I. Sech. 

1982. “Survival of Enteric Viruses and Indicator Bacteria 

in Groundwater.” Jour. Environ. Sci. Health, A17: 903­

912. 

141
Klingel, K., C. Hohenadl, A. Canu, M. Albrecht, M. 

Seemann, G. Mall, and R. Kandolf. 1992. “Ongoing Enterovirus-induced Myocarditis is Associated with Persistent Heart Muscle Infection: Quantitative Analysis of Virus Replication, Tissue Damage and Inflammation.” Proceeding of the National Academy of Science. 89, 314­

318. 

Koivunen, J., A. Siitonen, and H. Heinonen-Tanski. 2003. 

“Elimination of Enteric Bacteria in Biological-Chemical 

Wastewater Treatment and Tertiary Filtration Units.” 

Wat. Res. 37:690-698. 

Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, 

S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. “Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater 

Contaminants in U.S. Stream, 1999-2000 - A National 

Reconnaissance.” Env. Sci. and Tech., v. 36, no. 6, p. 

1202-1211. 

Lund, E. 1980. “Health Problems Associated with the 

Re-Use of Sewage: I. Bacteria, II. Viruses, III. Protozoa 

and Helminths.” Working papers prepared for WHO 

Seminar on Health Aspects of Treated Sewage Re-Use. 

1-5 June 1980. Algiers. 

Mahmoud. A.A. 2000. “Diseases Due to Helminths.” Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 5th Ed. pp. 

2937-2986. Churchill Livingstone. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Maier, R.N., Ian L. Pepper, and Charles P. Gerba. 2000. 

“Environmental Microbiology.” 1st Ed. Eds. R.M. Maier, 

I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerba. Academic Press. Pp. 546-547.

San Diego, CA. 

Mara, D., and S. Cairncross. 1989. Guidelines for the 

Safe Use of Wastewater and Excreta in Agriculture and 

Aquaculture: Measures for Public Health Protection. 

World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. 

Martens, R.H., R.A. Morrell, J. Jackson, and C.A. 

Ferguson. 1998. “Managing Flows During Low Reclaimed 

Water Demand Periods at Brevard County, Florida’s South 

Central Regional Wastewater System.” Proceedings of 

the Water Environment Federation, 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October 3-7, 1998. Orlando, Florida. 

McGovern, P., and H.S. McDonald. 2003. “Endocrine 

Disruptors.” Water Environment & Technology Journal. 

Water Environment Federation. January 2003. 

Metcalf & Eddy. 2002. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 

New York, New York. 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 

2002.”Report on Metropolitan’s Water Supplies.” 

www.mwd.dst.ca.us. 

Michino, I.K., H. Araki, S. Minami, N. Takaya, M. Sakai, 

A. Oho Miyazaki, and H. Yanagawa. 1999. “Massive

Outbreak of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 Infection in School 

Children in Sakai City, Japan, Associated with consumption of White Radish Sprouts.” Am. J. Epidemiol. 150, 

787-796 

Miller, D.G. “West Basin Municipal Water District: 5 Designer (Recycled) Waters to Meet Customer’s Needs.” 

West Basin Municipal Water District. 

Mitch, William, and David L. Sedlak. 2003. “Fate of Nnitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) Precursors during Municipal Wastewater Treatment.” Proceedings of the American Water Works Association Annaul Conference. Anaheim, California. American Water Works Association, 

2003. 

Modifi, A.A., E. A. Meyer, P.M. Wallis, C.I. Chou, B.P. 

Meyer, S. Ramalingam, and B.M. Coffey. 2002. “The 

effect of UV light on the Inactivation of Giardia lamblia 

and Giardia muris cysts as determined by Animal Infectivity Assay.” Water Research. 36:2098-2108. 

Murphy, D.F.. and G.E. Lee. 1979. “East Bay Dischargers Authority Reuse Survey.” Proceedings of the Water 

Reuse Symposium. Volume 2. pp. 1086-1098. March 25­

30, 1979. AWWA Research Foundation. Denver, Colorado. 

Murphy, W.H.. and J.T. Syverton. 1958. “Absorption and 

Translocation of Mammalian Viruses by Plants. II. Recovery and Distribution of Viruses in Plants.” Virology, 

6(3), 623. 

Nagel, R.A., L.M. McGovern, P. Shields, G. Oelker, and 

J.R. Bolton. 2001. “Using Ultraviolet (UV) Light to Remove N-Nitrosodimethylamine from Recycled Water.” 

WateReuse 2001 Symposium. 

National Academy of Sciences. 1983. Drinking Water 

and Health. Volume 5. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 

National Communicable Disease Center. 1975. Morbidity and Mortality, Weekly Report. National Communicable 

Disease Center. 24(31): 261. 

National Research Council. 1998. “Issues in Potable Reuse: The Viability of Augmenting Drinking Water Supplies with Reclaimed Water.” National Academy Press. 

142
National Research Council. Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 1996. Use of Reclaimed Water 

and Sludge in Food Crop Irrigation. National Academy 

Press. Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 1994. Ground Water Recharge 

Using Waters of Impaired Quality. National Academy 

Press. Washington, D.C. 

National Water Research Institute and American Water 

Works Association. 2000. Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidelines for Drinking Water and Water Reuse. Fountain 

Valley, California. 

Nellor, M.H., R.B. Baird, and J.R. Smyth. 1984. Health 

Effects Study – Final Report. County Sanitation Districts 

of Los Angeles County. Whittier, California. 

Olivieri, A. 2002. “Evaluation of Microbial Risk Assessment Methodologies for Nonpotable Reuse Applications.” WEFTEC 2002 Seminar #112. Water Environment 

Research Foundation. 

Olivieri, A.W., R.C. Cooper, R.C. Spear, R.E. Danielson, 

D.E. Block, and P.G. Badger. 1986. “Risk Assessment

of Waterborne Infectious Agents.” ENVIRONMENT 86: 

Proceedings of the International Conference on Development and Application of Computer Techniques to 

Environmental Studies. Los Angeles, California 

Ortega, Y.R., C.R. Sterling, R.H. Gilman, M.A. Cama, 

and F. Diaz. 1993. “Cyclospora species – A New Protozoan Pathogen of Humans.” N. Engl. J. Med. 328, 1308­

1312. 

Pai, P., G. Grinnell, A. Richardson, and R. Janga. 1996. 

“Water Reclamation in Clark County Sanitation District 

Service Area.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. 

American Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado. 

Patterson, S.R., N.J. Ashbolt, and A. Sharma. 2001. “Microbial Risks from Wastewater Irrigation of Salad Crops: 

A Screening-Level Risk Assessment.” Wat. Environ. Res. 

72:667-671. 

Payment, P. 1997. “Cultivation and Assay of Viruses.” 

Manual of Environmental Microbiology pp. 72-78. ASM 

Press. Washington, D.C. 

Pettygrove, G.S., and T. Asano. (ed.). 1985. Irrigation 

with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater - A Guidance 

Manual. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan. 

Pruss, A., and A. Havelaar.2001. “The Global Burden of 

Disease Study and Applications in Water, Sanitation and 

Hygiene.” Water Quality: Standards, and Health IWA Publishing. Pp. 43-59. London, UK. 

Purdom C.E., P.A. Hardiman, V.J. Bye, C.N. Eno, C.R. 

Tyler, and J.P. Sumpter. 1994. “Estrogenic Effects from 

Sewage Treatment Works.” Chem Ecol 8: 275-285. 

Putnam, L.B. 2002. “Integrated Water Resource Planning: Balancing Wastewater, Water and Recycled Water Requirements.” 2002 Annual Symposium – 

WateReuse Symposium. Orlando, Florida. September 

8-11, 2002. 

Quintero-Betancourt, W., A.L. Gennaccaro, T.M. Scott, 

and J.B. Rose. 2003. “Assessment of Methods for Detection of Infected Cryptosporidium Oocysts and Giardia 

Cysts in Reclaimed Effluent.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, p. 5380-5388. September 2003. 

Regli, S., J.B. Rose, C.N. Haas, and C.P. Gerba. 1991. 

“Modeling the Risk from Giardia and Viruses in Drinking Water.” Journal AWWA. 83(11): 76-84. 

Riggs, J.L. 1989. “AIDS Transmission in Drinking Water: No Threat.” Journal AWWA. 81(9): 69-70. 

Rose, J.B. 1986. “Microbial Aspects of Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation.” CRC Critical Reviews in Environ. Control. 16(3): 231-256. 

Rose, J.B., and R.P. Carnahan. 1992. Pathogen Removal 

by Full Scale Wastewater Treatment. A Report to the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. University of South Florida. Tampa, Florida. 

Rose, J.B., and C.P. Gerba. 1991. “Assessing Potential 

Health Risks from Viruses and Parasites in Reclaimed 

Water in Arizona and Florida, U.S.A.” Water Science 

Technology. 23: 2091-2098. 

Rose, J.B., C.N. Haas, and S. Regli. 1991. “Risk Assessment and Control of Waterborne Giardiasis.” American Journal of Public Health. 81(6): 709-713. 

Rose, J.B., D.E. Huffman, K. Riley, S.R. Farrah, J.O. 

Lukasik, and C.L. Hamann. 2001. “Reduction of Enteric 

Microorganisms at the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority Water Reclamation Plant.” Water Environment Research. 73(6): 711-720. 

Rose, J.B., and W. Quintero-Betancourt. 2002. Monitoring for Enteric Viruses, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and 

Indicator Organisms in the Key Colony Beach Wastewa143
ter Treatment Plant Effluent. University of South Florida. 

St. Petersburg, Florida. 

Rose J.B., L. Dickson, S. Farrah, and R. Carnahan. 1996. 

“Removal of Pathogenic and Indicator Microorganisms 

by a Full-scale Water Reclamation Facility.” Wat. Res. 

30(11): 2785-2797. 

Rose, J.B., and T.R. Slifko. 1999. “Giardia, 

Cryptosoridium, and Cyclospora and their Impact on 

Foods: a Review.” J. of Food Protect. 62(9):1059-1070. 

Rose, J.B., S. Daeschner, D.R. Deasterling, F.C. Curriero, 

S. Lele, and J. Patz. 2000. “Climate and Waterborne Disease Outbreaks.” J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 92:77-

87. 

Rose, J.B., D.E. Huffman, K. Riley, S.R. Farrah, J.O. 

Lukasik, and C.L. Harman. 2001. “Reduction of Enteric 

Microorganisms at the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority Water Reclamation Plant.” Wat. Environ. Res. 

73(6):711-720. 

Routledge, E.J., D. Sheahan, C. Desbrow, G.C. Brighty, 

M. Waldock, and J.P. Sumpter. 1998. “Identification of

Estrogenic Chemicals in STW Effluent.2. In Vivo Responses in Trout and Roach.” Environmental Science 

and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 11. 

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. 

Sagik, B.P., B.E. Moore, and C.A. Sorber. 1978. “Infectious Disease Potential of Land Application of Wastewater.” State of Knowledge in Land Treatment of Wastewater. Volume 1, pp. 35-46. Proceedings of an International Symposium. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Cold 

Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, 

New Hampshire. 

Sanders, W., and C. Thurow. Undated. Water Conservation in Residential Development: Land-Use Tech-niques. 

American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 373. 

Schanze, T., and C.J. Voss. 1989. “Experimental Wetlands Application System Research Program.” Presented at the 62nd Annual Conference of the Water 

Pollution Control Federation. San Francisco, California. 

Sepp, E. 1971. The Use of Sewage for Irrigation – A 

Literature Review. California Department of Public Health. 

Bureau of Sanitary Engineering. Berkeley, California. 

Shadduck, J.A. 1989. Human Microsporidiosis and AIDS. 

Rev. Infect Dis. Mar-Apr, 11:203-7. 

Shadduck, J.A., and M. B. Polley. 1978. Some Factors 

Influencing the in vitro infectivity and Replication on Encephalitozoon cuniculi. Protozoology 25:491-496. 

Sheikh, B., and E. Rosenblum. 2002. “Economic Impacts 

of Salt from Industrial and Residential Sources.” Proceedings of the Water Sources Conference, Reuse, Resources, Conservation. January 27-30, 2002. Las Vegas, 

Nevada. 

Sheikh, B., R.C. Cooper, and K.E. Israel. 1999. “Hygienic 

Evaluation of Reclaimed Water used to Irrigate Food 

Crops – a case study.” Water Science Technology 40:261-

267. 

Sheikh, B., and R.C. Cooper. 1998. Recycled Water Food 

Safety Study. Report to Monterey County Water Resources Agency and Monterey Reg. Water Pollution Cont. 

Agency. 

Sheikh, B., E. Rosenblum, S. Kosower, and E. Hartling. 

1998. “Accounting for the Benefits of Water Reuse.” Water 

Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water Works 

Association. Denver, Colorado. 

Sheikh, B., C. Weeks, T.G. Cole, and R. Von Dohren. 

1997. “Resolving Water Quality Concerns in Irrigation of 

Pebble Beach Golf Course Greens with Recycled Water.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 

70th Annual Conference and Exposition. October 18-22, 

1997. Chicago, Illinois. 

Shuval, H.I., A. Adin, B. Fattal, E. Rawitz, and P. Yekutiel. 

1986. “Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries Ð 

Health Effects and Technical Solutions.” World Bank 

Technical Paper Number 51. The World Bank. Washington, D.C. 

Slifko, Theresa R. Invited – Verbal. 2002. “New Irradiation 

Technologies for the Water Industry: Efficacy and Application of High-energy Disinfection using Electron Beams. 

Emerging Contaminants Roundtable,” Florida Water Resources Annual Conference, Orlando, FL. March 24-26 

Slifko, T.R. May 2001. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of 

South Florida, College of Marine Science, St. Petersburg, FL. Development and Evaluation of a Quantitative Cell Culture Assay for Cryptosporidium Disinfection 

Studies (this shows both UV and ebeam inactivation for 

Crypto). 

144
Slifko, T.R., H.V. Smith, and J.B. Rose. 2000. Emerging 

Parasite Zoonoses associated with Water and Food. International Journal for Parasitology. 30:1379-1393. 

Smith H.V., and J.B. Rose. 1998. “Waterborne 

Cryptosporidiosis Current Status.” Parasitology Today. 

14(1):14-22. 

Smith, T., and D. Brown. 2002. “Ultraviolet Treatment 

Technology for the Henderson Water Reclamation Facility.” Proceedings of the Water Sources Conference, 

Reuse, Resources, Conservation. January 27-30, 2002. 

Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Snyder S.A., D.L. Villeneuve, E.M. Snyder, and J.P. 

Giesy. 2001. “Identification and Quantification of Estrogen Receptor Agonists in Wastewater Effluents.” Environ. 

Sci. Technol. 35(18), 3620-3625. 

Sobsey, M. 1978. Public Health Aspects of Human Enteric Viruses in Cooling Waters. Report to NUS Corporation. Pittsburgh, PA. 

Solley, W.B., R.R. Pierce, and H.A. Perlman, 1998. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995. U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1200. Denver, Colorado. 

Sorber, C.A., and K.J. Guter. 1975. “Health and Hygiene 

Aspects of Spray Irrigation.” American Jour. Public 

Health, 65(1): 57-62. 

State of California. 1987. Report of the Scientific Advisory Panel on Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed 

Water. Prepared for the State of California, State Water 

Resources Control Board. Department of Water Resources, and Department of Health Services. Sacramento, 

California. 

State of California. 1978. Wastewater Reclamation Criteria. Title 22, Division 4, California Code of Regulations. State of California, Department of Health Services. 

Sanitary Engineering Section. Berkeley, California. 

Stecchini, M.L., and C. Domenis. 1994. “Incidence of 

Aeromonas Species in Influent and Effluent of Urban 

Wastewater Purification Plants.” Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 

19:237-239. 

Swift, J., R. Emerick, F. Soroushian, L.B. Putnam, and 

R. Sakaji. 2002. “Treat, Disinfect, Reuse.” Water Environment & Technology, 14 (11): 21-25. 

Tanaka, H., T. Asano. E.D. Schroeder, and G. 

Tchobanoglous. 1998. “Estimation of the Safety of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Using Enteric Virus Monitoring Data.” Water Environmental Research, Vol. 70, No. 

1, pp. 39-51. 

Teltsch, B., and E. Katzenelson. 1978. “Airborne Enteric 

Bacteria and Viruses from Spray Irrigation with Wastewater.” Applied Environ. Microbiol., 32:290-296. 

Teltsch, B., S. Kidmi, L. Bonnet, Y. Borenzstajn-Roten, 

and E. Katzenelson. 1980. “Isolation and Identification 

of Pathogenic Microorganisms at Wastewater-Irrigated 

Fields: Ratios in Air and Wastewater.” Applied Environ. 

Microbiol., 39: 1184-1195. 

Ternes T.A., M. Stumpf, J. Mueller, K. Haberer, R.D. 

Wilken, and M. Servos. 1999. “Behavior and Occurrence 

of Estrogens in Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants – I. 

Investigations in Germany, Canada and Brazil.” Sci Total 

Environ 225: 81-90. 

Tomowich, D. 2002. “UV Disinfection for the Protection 

and Use of Resource Waters.” Proceedings of the Florida 

Water Resources Conference. March 2002. Orlando, 

Florida. 

USDA, http://www.foodsafty.gov. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. “Perchlorate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological Review 

and Risk Characterization.” USEPA Office of Research 

and Development. January 16, 2002. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Methods 

for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Effluent Quantities by State. 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Rainfall 

Induced Infiltration Into Sewer Systems, Report to Congress. EPA 430/09-90-005. EPA Office of Water (WH595). Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Process 

Design Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow, 

EPA 625/1-81-013a EPA Center for Environmental Research Information. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Handbook 

for Sampling and Sample Preservation of Water and 

Wastewater. EPA/600/4-82/029, NTIS No. PB83­

145
124503. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Process 

Design Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. EPA 625/1-81-013. EPA Center for Environmental 

Research Information. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980b. Wastewater Aerosols and Disease. Proceedings of Symposium. September 19-21, 1979. EPA-600/9-80-028, NTIS 

No. PB81-169864. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Health Effects Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories. EPA-600/4-79-019. Environmental 

Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Methods 

for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/ 

4-79-020, NTIS No. PB84-128677. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality 

Criteria for Water. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Design 

Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid Systems and 

Component Reliability. EPA-430-99-74-01. EPA Office 

of Water Program Operations, Municipal Construction 

Division. Washington, D.C. 

University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 1985. Turfgrass Water Conservation 

Projects: Summary Report. Washington, D.C. 

Vickers, A., 2001. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. Waterplow Press. Amherst, Massachusetts. 

Walker-Coleman, L.; D.W. York; and P. Menendez. 2002. 

“Protozoan Pathogen Monitoring Results for Florida’s 

Reuse Systems.” Proceedings of Symposium XVII. 

WateReuse Association. Orlando, Florida. 

Waller, T. 1980. Sensitivity of Encephalitozoon cuniculi 

to Various Temperatures, Disinfectants and Drugs. Lab. 

Anim. Sci. 13:277-285. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2003. “Water Reclamation and Reuse Program General Sewer and 

Facility Plan Development Reliability Assessment Guidance.” 

Water Environment Federation. 2003. Summary of WERF 

Workshop on Indicators for Pathogens in Wastewater, 

Stormwater and Biosolids, San Antonio, TX, December 

11-12, 2003. 

Water Environment Federation. 1998. Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. WEF Manual of Practice No. 8, Fourth Edition, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia. 

Water Environment Federation. 1996. Wastewater Disinfection Manual of Practice FD-10. Water Environment 

Federation. Alexandria, Virginia. 

Water Environment Research Foundation. 2003. Summary of WERF Workshop on Indicators for Pathogens in 

Wastewater, Stormwater, and Biosolids. San Antonio, 

Texas. December 11-12, 2003. www.werf.org 

Water Environment Research Foundation. 1995. Disinfection Comparison of UV Irradiation to Chlorination: 

Guidance for Achieving Optimal UV Performance (Final 

Report). Project 91-WWD-1. Water Environment Research 

Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia. 

Water Pollution Control Federation. 1989. Water Reuse 

(Second Edition). Manual of Practice SM-3. Water Pollution Control Federation. Alexandria, Virginia. 

Withers, B., and S. Vipond. 1980 Irrigation Design and 

Practice. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. 

Wolk, D.M., C.H. Johnson, E.W. Rice, M.M. Marshall, 

K.F. Grahn, C.B. Plummer, and C.R. Sterling. 2000. “A

Spore Counting Method and Cell Culture Model for Chlorine Disinfection Studies of Encephalitozoon syn. Septata 

intestinali.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 

66:1266-1273. 

Woodside, G.D., and Wehner, M.P. 2002. “Lessons 

Learned from the Occurrence of 1,4-dioxane at Water 

Factory 21 in Orange County Califorina.” Proceedings of 

the 2002 Water Reuse Annual Symposium. Alexandria, 

Virginia. WateReuse Association, 202: CD-ROM. 

York, D.W., and L. Walker-Coleman. 1999. “Is it Time for 

Pathogen Standards?” Proceedings of the 1999 Florida 

Water Resources Conference. AWWA, FPCA, and 

FW&PCOA. Tallahassee, Florida. 

146
York, D.W., L. Walker-Coleman, and P. Menendez. 2002. 

“Pathogens in Reclaimed Water: The Florida Experience.” 

Proceedings of Water Sources 2002. AWWA and WEF. 

Las Vegas, NV. 

York, D.W., and L. Walker-Coleman. 2000. “Pathogen 

Standards for Reclaimed Water.” Water Environment & 

Technology. 12(1): 58. 

York, D.W., and L. Walker-Coleman. 1999. “Is it Time for 

Pathogen Standards?” Proceedings of the 1999 Florida 

Water Resources Conference. AWWA, FPCA and 

FW&PCOA. April 25-28, 1999. Tallahassee, Florida. 

York, D.W., and N.R. Burg. 1998. “Protozoan Pathogens: 

A Comparison of Reclaimed Water and Other Irrigation 

Waters.” Proceedings of Water Reuse 98. AWWA and 

WEF. Lake Buena Vista, Florida. 

Young, R., K. Thompson, and C. Kinner. 1997. “Managing Water Quality Objectives in a Large Reclaimed Water Distribution System.” Proceedings for the Water Environment Federation, 70th Annual Conference and Exposition. October 18-22, 1997. Chicago, Illinois.3 

Young, R.E., K. Lewinger, and R. Zenik. 1987. “Wastewater Reclamation – Is it Cost Effective? Irvine Ranch 

Water District – A Case Study.” Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium IV. August 2-7, 1987. AWWA Research Foundation. Denver, Colorado. 

147 
148
CHAPTER 4

Water Reuse Regulations and Guidelines in the U.S.

Most reuse programs operate within a framework of regulations that must be addressed in the earliest stages of 

planning. A thorough understanding of all applicable regulations is required to plan the most effective design and 

operation of a water reuse program and to streamline 

implementation. 

Regulations refer to actual rules that have been enacted 

and are enforceable by government agencies. Guidelines, 

on the other hand, are not enforceable but can be used in 

the development of a reuse program. Currently, there are 

no federal regulations directly governing water reuse practices in the U.S. Water reuse regulations and guidelines 

have, however, been developed by many individual 

states. As of November 2002, 25 states had adopted 

regulations regarding the reuse of reclaimed water, 16 

states had guidelines or design standards, and 9 states 

had no regulations or guidelines. In states with no specific regulations or guidelines on water reclamation and 

reuse, programs may still be permitted on a case-bycase basis. 

Regulations and guidelines vary considerably from state 

to state. States such as Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New 

Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, 

Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming have developed regulations or guidelines that strongly encourage 

water reuse as a water resources conservation strategy. These states have developed comprehensive regulations or guidelines specifying water quality requirements, treatment processes, or both, for the full spectrum of reuse applications. The objective in these states 

is to derive the maximum resource benefits of the reclaimed water while protecting the environment and public health. Other states have developed water reuse regulations with the primary intent of providing a disposal alternative to discharge to surface waters, without considering the management of reclaimed water as a resource. 

This section provides an inventory of the various state 

water reuse regulations throughout the U.S. and updates 

recommended guidelines that may aid in the development of more comprehensive state or even federal standards for water reuse. Water reuse outside the U.S. is 

discussed in Chapter 8. 

4.1 Inventory of Existing State

Regulations and Guidelines 

The following inventory of state reuse regulations and 

guidelines is based on a survey of all states conducted 

specifically for this document. Regulatory agencies in 

all 50 states were contacted and information was obtained concerning their regulations governing water reuse. All of the information presented in this section is 

considered current as of November 2002. 

California and Florida compile comprehensive inventories of reuse projects by type of reuse application. These 

inventories are compiled by the California Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB) in Sacramento and 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) in Tallahassee, respectively. The inventories are 

available for viewing or downloading from each agency’s 

website. Florida’s 2001 Reuse Inventory shows a total 

of 461 domestic wastewater treatment facilities with 

permitted capacities of 0.1 mgd (4.4 l/s) or more that 

produce reclaimed water. These treatment facilities serve 

431 reuse systems and provide 584 mgd (25,600 l/s) of 

reclaimed water for beneficial purposes. The total reuse 

capacity associated with these systems is 1,151 mgd 

(50,400 l/s) (FDEP, 2002). California’s May 2000 Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey, estimated a total of 

358 mgd (14,800 l/s) treated municipal wastewater was 

being reused. This represents a 50 percent increase from 

the survey undertaken by CWRCB in 1987. The wastewater is treated at 234 treatment plants and is being reused at approximately 4,840 sites (CWRCB, 2000). Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the types of reuse occurring in 

California and Florida, respectively. 

149
Figure 4-1. California Water Reuse by Type 

(Total 358 mgd) 

Source: Adapted from California Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Figure 4-2. Florida Water Reuse by Type

 (Total 584 mgd) 

Source: 2001 Florida Water Reuse Inventory 

Every 5 years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) compiles an estimate of national reclaimed water use that is 

entered in a national database system and publishes its 

findings in a national circular, Estimated Use of Water in 

the United States. The 1995 publication estimated that 

approximately 983 mgd (43,060 l/s) of the effluent discharged in the U.S. was released for beneficial reuse, an 

increase of 55 mgd (2,410 l/s) from the 1990 estimate 

(Perlman et al., 1998). More current estimates were not 

available from the USGS at the time of this update, but it 

is anticipated that the 2000 publication will be available 

at the time these guidelines are published. 

Most states do not have regulations that cover all potential uses of reclaimed water. Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, 

Texas, Utah, and Washington have extensive regulations 

or guidelines that prescribe requirements for a wide range 

of end uses of the reclaimed water. Other states have 

regulations or guidelines that focus upon land treatment 

of wastewater effluent, emphasizing additional treatment 

or effluent disposal rather than beneficial reuse, even 

though the effluent may be used for irrigation of agricultural sites, golf courses, or public access lands. 

Based on the inventory, current regulations and guidelines may be divided into the following reuse categories: 

 Unrestricted urban reuse – irrigation of areas in which 

public access is not restricted, such as parks, playgrounds, school yards, and residences; toilet flushing, air conditioning, fire protection, construction, ornamental fountains, and aesthetic impoundments. 

 Restricted urban reuse – irrigation of areas in which 

public access can be controlled, such as golf 

courses, cemeteries, and highway medians. 

 Agricultural reuse on food crops – irrigation of food 

crops which are intended for direct human consumption, often further classified as to whether the food 

crop is to be processed or consumed raw. 

 Agricultural reuse on non-food crops – irrigation of 

fodder, fiber, and seed crops, pasture land, commercial nurseries, and sod farms. 

 Unrestricted recreational reuse – an impoundment 

of water in which no limitations are imposed on bodycontact water recreation activities. 

 Restricted recreational reuse – an impoundment of 

reclaimed water in which recreation is limited to fishing, boating, and other non-contact recreational activities. 

 Environmental reuse – reclaimed water used to create manmade wetlands, enhance natural wetlands, 

and sustain or augment stream flows. 

 Industrial reuse – reclaimed water used in industrial 

facilities primarily for cooling system make-up water, boiler-feed water, process water, and general 

washdown. 

150
 Groundwater recharge – using either infiltration basins, percolation ponds, or injection wells to recharge 

aquifers. 

 Indirect potable reuse – the intentional discharge of 

highly treated reclaimed water into surface waters 

or groundwater that are or will be used as a source 

of potable water. 

Table 4-1 (on the following page) provides an overview 

of the current water reuse regulations and guidelines 

by state and by reuse category. The table identifies those 

states that have regulations, those with guidelines, and 

those states that currently do not have either. Regulations refer to actual rules that have been enacted and 

are enforceable by government agencies. Guidelines, on 

the other hand, are not enforceable but can be used in 

the development of a reuse program. 

The majority of current state regulations and guidelines 

pertain to the use of reclaimed water for urban and agricultural irrigation. At the time of the survey, the only 

states that had specific regulations or guidelines regarding the use of reclaimed water for purposes other than 

irrigation were Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, 

Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, North 

Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and 

Washington. The 1995 Substitute Senate Bill 5605, “Reclaimed Water Act,” passed in the State of Washington, 

states that reclaimed water is no longer considered 

wastewater (Van Riper et al., 1998). 

Table 4-2 shows the number of states with regulations 

or guidelines for each type of reuse. The category of 

unrestricted urban reuse has been subdivided to indicate the number of states that have regulations pertaining to urban reuse not involving irrigation. 

States with regulations or guidelines pertaining to the 

use of reclaimed water for the following unrestricted urban reuse categories are: 

 Toilet Flushing – Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, 

Texas, Utah, and Washington 

 Fire Protection – Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and 

Washington 

 Construction Purposes – Arizona, California, Florida, 

Hawaii, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, 

and Washington 

 Landscape or Aesthetic Impoundments – Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New 

Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Washington 

 Street Cleaning – Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, North Carolina, and Washington 

Table 4-2. Number of States with Regulations or Guidelines for Each Type of Reuse Application 

Type of Reuse Number of States 

Unrestricted Urban 28

 Irrigation 28

 Toilet Flushing 10

 Fire Protection 9

 Construction 9

 Landscape Impoundment 11

 Street Cleaning 6 

Restricted Urban 34 

Agricultural (Food Crops) 21 

Agricultural (Non-food Crops) 40 

Unrestricted Recreational 7 

Restricted Recreational 9 

Environmental (Wetlands) 3 

Industrial 9 

Groundwater Recharge (Nonpotable Aquifer) 5 

Indirect Potable Reuse 5 

151 
Table 4-1. Summary of State Reuse Regulations and Guidelines 

State 

Regulations 

Guidelines 

No Regulations or 

Guidelines (1) 

Change from 1992 

Guidelines for 

Water Reuse (2) 

Unrestricted Urban 

Reuse

Restricted Urban 

Reuse 

Agricultural Reuse 

Food Crops 

Agricultural Reuse 

Non-Food Crops 

Unrestricted 

Recreational 

Reuse

Restricted 

Recreational 

Reuse

Environmental 

Reuse

Industrial Reuse 

Groundwater 

Recharge 

Indirect Potable 

Reuse 

Alabama z N z z

Alaska z NR z

Arizona z U z z z z z

Arkansas z N z z z z

California (3) z U z z z z z z z z z

Colorado z (4) GR z z z z z z

Connecticut z N 

Delaware z GR z z z

Florida z U z z z z z z z z

Georgia z U z z z

Hawaii z U z z z z z z z z

Idaho z N z z z z

Illinois z U z z z

Indiana z U z z z z

Iowa z NR z z

Kansas z N z z z z

Kentucky z N 

Louisiana z N 

Maine z N 

Maryland z N z z

Massachusetts z NG z z z z z

Michigan z N z z

Minnesota z N 

Mississippi z N 

Missouri z N z z

Montana z GR z z z z

Nebraska z GR z z

Nevada z GR z z z z z z

New Hampshire z N 

New Jersey z RG z z z z z

New Mexico z N z z z z

New York z N z

North Carolina z U z z z

North Dakota z U z z z

Ohio z NG z z z

Oklahoma z GR z z z

Oregon z N z z z z z z z

Pennsylvania z NG z

Rhode Island z N 

South Carolina z GR z z z

South Dakota z N z z z z

Tennessee z N z z z

Texas z U z z z z z z z

Utah z U z z z z z z z

Vermont z N z

Virginia z N 

Washington z U z z z z z z z z z z

West Virginia z N z z

Wisconsin z N z

Wyoming z U z z z z

(1) Specific regulations on reuse not adopted: however, reclamation may be approved on a

 case-by-case basis 

(2) N - no change NR - no guidelines or regulations to 

regulations

 U - updated guidelines or regulations NG - no guidelines or regulations to 

guidelines

 GR - guidelines to regulations RG - regulations to guidelines 

(3) Has regulations for landscape irrigation excluding residential irrigation; guidelines cover

 all other uses 

152
It is important to understand that because a state does 

not have specific guidelines or regulations for a particular type of reuse as defined in this chapter, it does not 

mean that the state does not allow that type of reuse 

under other uses. Also, some states allow consideration 

of reuse options that are not addressed within their existing guidelines or regulations. For example, Florida’s 

rules governing water reuse enable the state to permit 

other uses, if the applicant demonstrates that public 

health will be protected. 

4.1.1 Reclaimed Water Quality and 

Treatment Requirements 

Requirements for water quality and treatment receive 

the most attention in state reuse regulations. States that 

have water reuse regulations or guidelines have set standards for reclaimed water quality and/or specified minimum treatment requirements. Generally, where unrestricted public exposure is likely in the reuse application, wastewater must be treated to a high degree prior 

to its application. Where exposure is not likely, however, a lower level of treatment is usually accepted. The 

most common parameters for which water quality limits 

are imposed are biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), 

total suspended solids (TSS), and total or fecal coliform 

counts. Total and fecal coliform counts are generally used 

as indicators to determine the degree of disinfection. A 

Table 4-3. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

limit on turbidity is usually specified to monitor the performance of the treatment facility. 

This discussion on reclaimed water quality and treatment 

requirements is based on the regulations from the following states: Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, 

Texas, and Washington. These regulations were chosen 

because these states provide a collective wisdom of successful reuse programs and long-term experience. 

4.1.1.1 Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

Unrestricted urban reuse involves the use of reclaimed 

water where public exposure is likely in the reuse application, thereby necessitating a high degree of treatment. 

In general, all states that specify a treatment process 

require a minimum of secondary treatment and treatment with disinfection prior to unrestricted urban reuse. 

However, the majority of states require additional levels of treatment that may include oxidation, coagulation, and filtration. Texas does not specify the type of 

treatment processes required and only sets limits on 

the reclaimed water quality. Table 4-3 shows the reclaimed water quality and treatment requirements for 

unrestricted urban reuse. 

Where specified, limits on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30 

mg/l. Texas requires that BOD not exceed 5 mg/l (monthly 

Arizona California Florida Haw aii Ne vada Te xas Was hington 

Treatm ent 

Secondary 

treatment, 

filtration, and 

disinfection 

Oxidized, 

coagulated, 

filtered, and 

disinfected 

Secondary 

treatment, 

filtration, and 

high- level 

disinfection 

Oxidized, 

filtered, and 

disinfected 

Secondary 

treatment and 

disinfection 

NS (1) 

Oxidized, 

coagulated, 

filtered, and 

disinfected 

BOD5 NS NS 20 mg/l 

CBOD5 

NS 30 mg/l 5 mg/l 30 mg/l 

TSS NS NS 5.0 mg/l NS NS NS 30 mg/l 

Turbidity 

2 NTU (Avg) 2 NTU (Avg) 

NS 2 NTU (Max) NS 3 NTU 

2 NTU (Avg) 

5 NTU (Max) 5 NTU (Max) 5 NTU (Max) 

Fe cal Total Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Total 

Coliform 

None 

detectable 

(Avg) 

2.2/100 ml 

(Avg) 

75% of 

samples below 

detection 

2.2/100 ml 

(Avg) 

2.2/100 ml 

(Avg) 

20/100 ml 

(Avg) 

2.2/100 ml 

(Avg) 

23/100 ml 

(Max) 

23/100 ml 

(Max in 30 

days) 

25/100 ml 

(Max) 

23/100 ml 

(Max in 30 

days) 

23/100 ml 

(Max) 

75/100 ml 

(Max) 

23/100 ml 

(Max) 

(1) NS - Not specified by state regulations 

153 
average) except when reclaimed water is used for landscape impoundments. In that case, BOD is limited to 10 

mg/l. Nevada, on the other hand, requires that BOD not 

exceed 30 mg/l prior to unrestricted urban reuse. Limits 

on TSS vary from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida requires a 

TSS limit of 5.0 mg/l prior to disinfection and Washington requires that TSS not exceed 30 mg/l. 

Average fecal and total coliform limits range from nondetectable to 20/100 ml. Higher single sample fecal and 

total coliform limits are allowed in several state regulations. Florida requires that 75 percent of the fecal coliform 

samples taken over a 30-day period be below detectable 

levels, with no single sample in excess of 25/100 ml, 

while Texas requires that no single fecal coliform count 

exceed 75/100 ml. 

In general and where specified, limits on turbidity range 

from 2 to 5 NTU. Most of the states require an average 

turbidity limit of 2 NTU and a not-to-exceed limit of 5 

NTU, although Hawaii’s guidelines identify a not-to-exceed limit of 2 NTU. Florida requires continuous on-line 

monitoring of turbidity as an indicator that the TSS limit 

of 5.0 mg/l is being met. No limit is specified but turbidity setpoints used in Florida generally range from 2 to 

2.5 NTU. California specifies different turbidity requirements for wastewater that has been coagulated and 

passed through natural and undisturbed soils or a bed of 

filter media, as well as wastewater passed through membranes. For the first, turbidity is not to exceed 5 NTU for 

Table 4-4. Restricted Urban Reuse 

more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period 

and not to exceed 10 NTU at any time. For the latter, 

turbidity is not to exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of 

the time within a 24-hour period and not to exceed 0.5 

NTU at any time. 

At this time, no states have set limits on certain pathogenic organisms for unrestricted urban reuse. However, 

Florida does require monitoring of Giardia and 

Cryptosporidium with sampling frequency based on 

treatment plant capacity. For systems less than 1 mgd 

(44 l/s), sampling is required one time during each 5-year 

period. For systems equal to or greater than 1 mgd (44 l/ 

s), sampling is required one time during each 2-year period. Samples are to be taken following the disinfection 

process. 

4.1.1.2 Restricted Urban Reuse 

Restricted urban reuse involves the use of reclaimed 

water where public exposure to the reclaimed water is 

controlled; therefore, treatment requirements may not 

be as strict as for unrestricted urban reuse. Six states, 

which regulate both unrestricted and restricted urban 

reuse, adjusted requirements downward for the restricted 

category. Florida imposes the same requirements on 

both unrestricted and restricted urban access reuse. 

Table 4-4 shows the reclaimed water quality and treatment requirements for restricted urban reuse. 

Arizona California Florida Haw aii Ne vada Te xas Was hington 

Secondary 

Treatm ent 

Secondary 

treatment and 

disinfection 

Secondary – 

23, oxidized, 

and disinfected 

treatment, 

filtration, and 

high-level 

O x idiz ed and 

disinfected 

Secondary 

treatment and 

disinfection 

NS (1) O x idiz ed and 

disinfected 

disinfection 

BOD5 NS NS 20 mg/l 

CBOD5 

NS 30 mg/l 20 mg/l 30 mg/l 

TSS NS NS 5 mg/l NS NS NS 30 mg/l 

Turbidity NS NS NS 2 NTU (Max) NS 3 NTU 

2 NTU (Avg) 

5 NTU (Max) 

Fe cal Total Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Total 

Coliform 

200/100 ml 

(Avg) 

23/100 ml 

(Avg) 

75% of 

samples below 

detection 

23/100 ml 

(Avg) 

23/100 ml 

(Avg) 

200/100 ml 

(Avg) 

23/100 ml 

(Avg) 

800/100 ml 

(Max) 

240/100 ml 

(Max in 30 

days) 

25/100 ml 

(Max) 

200/100 ml 

(Max) 

240/100 ml 

(Max) 

800/100 ml 

(Max) 

240/100 ml 

(Max) 

(1) NS - Not specified by state regulations 

154 
Table 4-5. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops 

Ariz ona California Flor ida Haw aii Ne vada Te xas Was hington 

T r e atm e n t 

Secondary 

treatm ent, 

filtration, and 

dis infec tion 

O x idiz ed, 

c oagulated, 

filtered, and 

dis infec ted 

Sec ondary 

treatm ent, 

filtration, and 

high-lev el 

dis infec tion 

O x idiz ed, 

filtered, and 

dis infec ted 

Sec ondary 

treatm ent and 

dis infec tion 

NS (1) 

O x idiz ed, 

c oagulated, 

filtered, and 

dis infec ted 

BOD5 NS NS 20 m g/l 

CBO D 5 

N S 30 m g/l 5 m g/l 30 m g/l 

TSS NS NS 5 m g/l NS NS N S 30 m g/l 

Turbidity 

2 NTU (Avg) 2 N TU (Avg) 

NS 2 N T U (M ax ) N S 3 N T U 

2 NTU (Avg) 

5 N T U (M ax ) 5 N T U (M ax ) 5 N T U (M ax ) 

Fe cal T o tal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Total 

Colifor m 

N one 

detec table 

(Av g) 

2.2/100 m l 

(Av g) 

75% of 

sam ples below 

detec tion 

2.2/100 m l 

(Av g) 

200/100 m l 

(Av g) 

20/100 m l 

(Av g) 

2.2/100 m l 

(Av g) 

23/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

23/100 m l 

(M ax in 30 

days) 

25/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

23/100 m l 

(M ax in 30 

day s ) 

400/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

75/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

23/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

(1) NS - Not specified by state regulations 

In general, the states require a minimum of secondary or 

biological treatment followed by disinfection prior to restricted urban reuse. Florida requires additional levels of 

treatment with filtration and possibly coagulation prior to 

restricted urban reuse. As in unrestricted urban reuse, 

Texas does not specify the type of treatment processes 

required and only sets limits on the reclaimed water quality. 

Where specified, limits on average BOD range from 20 

mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida and Texas require that BOD not 

exceed 20 mg/l, while Nevada and Washington require 

that BOD not exceed 30 mg/l prior to restricted urban 

reuse. Limits on TSS vary from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida 

requires that TSS not exceed 5.0 mg/l, while Washington requires that TSS not exceed 30 mg/l. As in unrestricted urban reuse, for those states that do not specify 

limitations on BOD or TSS, a particular level of treatment is usually specified. 

Average fecal coliform limits range from non-detectable 

to 200/100 ml, with some states allowing higher single 

sample fecal coliform limits. As for unrestricted urban 

reuse, Florida requires that 75 percent of the fecal coliform 

samples taken over a 30-day period be below detectable 

levels, with no single sample in excess of 25/100 ml. 

Arizona and Texas require that no single fecal coliform 

count exceed 800/100 ml. 

Washington is the only state that sets a limit on turbidity 

for restricted urban reuse with an average turbidity limit 

of 2 NTU and a not-to-exceed at any time limit of 5 NTU. 

At this time, no states have set limits on certain pathogenic organisms for restricted urban reuse. However, 

Florida does require monitoring of Giardia and 

Cryptosporidium with sampling frequency as noted in 

Section 4.1.1.1. 

4.1.1.3 Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops 

The use of reclaimed water for irrigation of food crops is 

prohibited in some states, while others allow irrigation 

of food crops with reclaimed water only if the crop is to 

be processed and not eaten raw. Nevada allows only 

surface irrigation of fruit or nut bearing trees. Treatment 

requirements range from secondary treatment in Nevada for irrigation of processed food crops, to oxidation, coagulation, filtration, and disinfection in Arizona, 

California, Florida, Hawaii, and Washington. Table 4-5 

shows the reclaimed water quality and treatment requirements for irrigation of food crops. 

Most states require a high level of treatment when reclaimed water is used for edible crops, especially those 

that are to be consumed raw. As in other reuse applications, however, existing regulations on treatment and 

155
water quality requirements vary from state to state and 

depend largely on the type of irrigation employed and 

the type of food crop being irrigated. For example, for 

foods consumed raw, Washington requires that the reclaimed water be oxidized and disinfected when surface irrigation is used, with the mean total coliform count 

not to exceed 2.2/100 ml. When spray irrigation is utilized, Washington requires that the reclaimed water be 

oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected, with the 

mean total coliform count not to exceed 2.2/100 ml. For 

processed foods, Washington requires only oxidation 

and disinfection regardless of the type of irrigation, with 

a 7-day mean total coliform count of 240/100 ml. 

Where specified, limits on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30 

mg/l. Texas requires a monthly average BOD limit of 5 

mg/l when reclaimed water will be used to irrigate unprocessed food crops. In Texas, spray irrigation is not 

permitted on foods that may be consumed raw, and only 

irrigation types that avoid reclaimed water contact with 

edible portions of food crops are acceptable. Florida 

requires that the annual average CBOD not exceed 20 

mg/l after secondary treatment with filtration and highlevel disinfection, while Texas requires that the BOD not 

exceed 30 mg/l (monthly average) when the reclaimed 

water is treated using a pond system and is to be used 

to irrigate food crops undergoing processing. 

Limits on TSS vary from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida requires that TSS not exceed 5.0 mg/l in any one sample 

prior to disinfection, while Washington requires that the 

TSS not exceed 30 mg/l (monthly average). In Florida, 

direct contact (spray) irrigation of edible crops that will 

not be peeled, skinned, cooked, or thermally-processed 

before consumption is not allowed except for tobacco 

and citrus. Indirect contact methods (ridge and furrow, 

drip, subsurface application system) can be used on 

any type of edible crop. California allows for direct contact irrigation with the edible portion of the crop. 

Average fecal and total coliform limits range from nondetectable to 200/100 ml. Arizona requires no detectable limit for fecal coliform when reclaimed water will be 

used for spray irrigation of food crops. Florida requires 

that 75 percent of the fecal coliform samples taken over 

a 30-day period be below detectable levels, with no 

single sample in excess of 25/100 ml. Conversely, Nevada requires a maximum fecal coliform count of less 

than 400/100 ml with only surface irrigation of fruit and 

nut bearing trees. Again, some states allow higher single 

sample coliform counts. 

Limits on turbidity range from 2 to 10 NTU. For example, 

California requires that turbidity not exceed 2 NTU within 

a 24-hour period, not exceed 5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time, and not exceed a maximum of 10 NTU 

at any time for reclaimed water that has been coagulated and passed through natural undisturbed soils or a 

bed of filter media and is irrigated on food crops to be 

consumed raw. California requires that the turbidity not 

exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time and not 

exceed a maximum of 0.5 NTU at any time for reclaimed 

water that has been passed through a membrane and is 

irrigated on food crops to be consumed raw. Hawaii requires that the detectable turbidity not exceed 5 NTU for 

more than 15 minutes and never exceed 10 NTU prior to 

filtration for reclaimed water used for spray irrigation of 

food crops. 

At this time, no states have set limits on certain pathogenic organisms for agricultural reuse on food crops. 

Florida does require monitoring of Giardia and 

Cryptosporidium with sampling frequency as noted in 

Section 4.1.1.1. 

4.1.1.4 Agricultural Reuse – Non-food Crops 

The use of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation of 

non-food crops presents a reduced opportunity of human exposure to the water, resulting in less stringent 

treatment and water quality requirements than other 

forms of reuse. In the majority of the states, secondary 

treatment followed by disinfection is required, although 

Hawaii also requires filtration. Table 4-6 shows the reclaimed water quality and treatment requirements for 

irrigation of non-food crops. 

Where specified, limits on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30 

mg/l. Texas requires that BOD not exceed 5 mg/l 

(monthly average) except when reclaimed water is used 

for landscape impoundments, in which case BOD is limited to 10 mg/l. Florida requires that the annual average 

CBOD not exceed 20 mg/l after secondary treatment and 

basic disinfection. Washington and Nevada require that 

BOD not exceed 30 mg/l as a monthly average. Limits on 

TSS vary from 20 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida requires that 

the annual average TSS not exceed 20 mg/l except when 

a subsurface application is used, in which case the single 

sample TSS limit is 10 mg/l. Washington requires a 

monthly mean of 30 mg/l TSS. 

Average fecal and total coliform limits range from 2.2/100 

ml for Hawaii to 200/100 ml for Arizona and Florida. There 

are several states that do not require disinfection if certain buffer requirements are met. For example, Nevada 

requires no disinfection with a minimum buffer zone of 

800 feet for spray irrigation of non-food crops. Some states 

allow higher single sample coliform counts. For example, 

Arizona requires that no single fecal coliform count ex156
Table 4-6. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops 

Ariz ona California Flor ida Haw aii Ne vada Te xas Was hington 

T r e atm e nt 

Secondary 

treatm ent and 

dis infec tion 

Sec ondary -23, 

O x idiz ed, and 

dis infec ted 

Sec ondary 

treatm ent, 

basic 

dis infec tion 

O x idiz ed, 

filtered, and 

dis infec ted 

Sec ondary 

treatm ent and 

dis infec tion 

NS (1 ) O x id iz e d and 

dis infec ted 

BOD5 NS NS 20 m g/l 

CBO D 5 

N S 30 m g/l 5 m g/l 30 m g/l 

TSS NS NS 20 mg/l NS NS N S 30 m g/l 

Turbidity NS NS NS 2 N T U (M ax ) N S 3 NT U 

2 N T U (Av g) 

5 N T U (M ax ) 

Fe cal T o tal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal T o tal 

Colifor m 

200/100 m l 

(Av g) 

23/100 m l 

(Av g) 

200/100 m l 

(Av g) 

2.2/100 m l 

(Av g) 

200/100 m l 

(Av g) 

20/100 m l 

(Av g) 

23/100 m l 

(Av g) 

800/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

240/100 m l 

(M ax in 30 

days) 

800/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

23/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

400/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

75/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

240/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

(1) NS - Not specified by state regulations 

ceed 4,000/100 ml when reclaimed water will be used for 

irrigation of pasture for non-dairy animals. 

At this time, Hawaii, Texas, and Washington require limits on turbidity for reclaimed water used for agricultural 

reuse on non-food crops. Washington requires that the 

turbidity not exceed 2 NTU as an average and not exceed 5 NTU at any time. Texas requires a turbidity limit 

of 3 NTU for reclaimed water that will be used for irrigation of pastures for milking animals. Hawaii, on the other 

hand, requires the detectable turbidity not exceed 5 NTU 

for more than 15 minutes and never exceed 10 NTU 

prior to filtration for reclaimed water used for spray irrigation of pastures for milking and other animals. 

At this time, no states have set limits on certain pathogenic organisms for agricultural reuse on non-food 

crops. 

4.1.1.5 Unrestricted Recreational Reuse 

As with unrestricted urban reuse, unrestricted recreational reuse involves the use of reclaimed water where 

public exposure is likely, thereby necessitating a high 

degree of treatment. Only 4 of the 7 states (California, 

Nevada, Texas, and Washington) have regulations or 

guidelines pertaining to unrestricted recreational reuse. 

Table 4-7 shows the reclaimed water quality and treatment requirements for unrestricted recreational reuse. 

Nevada requires secondary treatment with disinfection, 

while California requires oxidation, coagulation, clarification, filtration, and disinfection. Where specified, limits 

on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Texas requires 

that BOD not exceed 5 mg/l as a monthly average, while 

Washington requires that BOD not exceed 30 mg/l prior 

to unrestricted recreational reuse. Washington is the only 

state to set a limit on TSS and requires 30 mg/l or less 

as a monthly average. All states, except Texas, require 

that the median total coliform count not exceed 2.2/100 

ml, with no single sample to exceed 23/100 ml. Texas 

requires that the median fecal coliform count not exceed 20/100 ml, with no single sample to exceed 75/ 

100 ml. 

Limits on turbidity generally range from 2 NTU to 5 NTU. 

Most of the states require an average turbidity limit of 2 

NTU and a not-to-exceed limit of 5 NTU. California specifies different turbidity requirements for wastewater that 

has been coagulated and passed through natural and 

undisturbed soils or a bed of filter media as well as 

wastewater passed through membranes. For the first, 

turbidity is not to exceed 5 NTU for more than 5 percent 

of the time within a 24-hour period and not to exceed 10 

NTU at any time. For the latter, turbidity is not to exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 

24-hour period and not to exceed 0.5 NTU at any time. 

Texas requires a turbidity limit of 3 NTU, and Nevada 

does not specify a limit on turbidity. 

157
Table 4-7. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse 

A r iz o n a C alifo r n ia Flo r ida Haw aii Ne vad a Te xas Was hing ton 

Tr e atm e n t NR (1 ) 

O x idiz e d, 

c oag ulate d, 

c la rified , 

filter ed , an d 

dis in fec ted 

NR N R 

Se c on dar y 

tr eatm en t an d 

dis infe c tion 

NS 

O x idiz e d, 

c oag ulate d, 

filter ed , an d 

dis in fec ted 

BOD5 NR NS(2 ) N R N R 30 mg/l 5 mg/l 3 0 m g /l 

TSS NR N S NR N R NS NS 3 0 m g/l 

Turbidity NR 2 N T U (Av g ) NR N R NS 3 NT U 2 N T U (Av g ) 

5 NT U ( M a x ) 5 NT U ( M a x ) 

T o tal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal 

C o lifor m NR 

2 .2/1 00 m l 

(Av g) NR N R 

2.2 /10 0 m l 

(Av g ) 2 0 /1 0 0 m l ( A v g ) 2 .2/1 00 m l 

(Av g) 

23/100 m l (M ax 23/100 m l 75 /10 0 m l 2 3 /1 0 0 m l 

in 3 0 da y s ) (M ax ) (M ax ) (M ax ) 

(1) NR - Not regulated by the state 

(2) NS - Not specified by state regulations 

Table 4-8. Restricted Recreational Reuse 

(1) NR - Not regulated by the state 

(2) NS - Not specified by state regulations 

At this time, no states have set limits on certain pathogenic organisms for unrestricted recreational reuse. 

4.1.1.6 Restricted Recreational Reuse 

State regulations and guidelines regarding treatment and 

water quality requirements for restricted recreational reuse are generally less stringent than for unrestricted recArizona California Florida Haw aii Ne vada Te xas Was hington 

Tre atm e nt 

Sec ondary 

treatment, 

filtration, and 

dis infec tion 

Sec ondary -23, 

ox idiz ed, and 

dis infec ted 

NR (1 ) 

O x idiz ed, 

filtered, and 

dis infec ted 

Sec ondary 

treatment and 

dis infec tion 

NS O x idiz ed and 

dis infec ted 

BOD5 NS(2 ) NS NR NS 30 mg/l 20 mg/l 30 mg/l 

TSS NS NS NR NS NS NS 30 mg/l 

Turbidity 2 NT U (Av g) 

NS NR 2 NT U (Max ) NS NS 

2 NT U (Av g) 

5 NT U (Max ) 5 N T U (Max ) 

Fe cal Total Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Total 

Coliform 

None 

detec table 

(Avg) 

2.2/100 ml (Av g) NR 

2.2/100 ml 

(Av g) 

200/100 ml 

(Av g) 

200/100 ml 

(Av g) 2.2/100 ml (Av g) 

23/100 ml 

(Max ) 

23/100 ml (Max in 

30 day s ) 

23/100 ml 

(Max) 

23/100 ml 

(Max ) 

800/100 ml 

(Max ) 23/100 ml (Max ) 

reational reuse since the public exposure to the reclaimed 

water is less likely. Six of the 7 states (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Texas, and Washington) have regulations pertaining to restricted recreational reuse. With 

the exception of Arizona and Hawaii, which require filtration, the remaining states require secondary treatment 

with disinfection. Texas does not specify treatment process requirements. Table 4-8 shows the reclaimed wa158
ter quality and treatment requirements for restricted recreational reuse. 

Nevada, Texas, and Washington have set limits on BOD 

ranging from 20 mg/l to 30 mg/l as a monthly average. 

Only Washington has set limits on TSS of 30 mg/l as a 

monthly average. Arizona requires no detectable fecal 

coliform in 4 of the last 7 daily samples and a single 

sample maximum of 23/100 ml. California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Washington require that the median total 

coliform count not exceed 2.2/100 ml. Texas, on the 

other hand, requires that the median fecal coliform count 

not exceed 200/100 ml and that a single sample not 

exceed 800/100 ml. 

Limits on turbidity are specified for Arizona, Hawaii, and 

Washington. Arizona and Washington require a turbidity of less than 2 NTU as an average and a not-to-exceed 

maximum of 5 NTU. Hawaii specifies an effluent turbidity requirement of 2 NTU. California, Nevada, and Texas 

have not specified turbidity requirements for restricted 

recreational reuse. 

At this time, no states have set limits on certain pathogenic organisms for restricted recreational reuse. 

4.1.1.7 Environmental - Wetlands 

A review of existing reuse regulations shows only 2 of 

the 7 states (Florida and Washington) have regulations 

Table 4-9. Environmental Reuse - Wetlands 

pertaining to the use of reclaimed water for creation of 

artificial wetlands and/or the enhancement of natural 

wetlands. Table 4-9 shows the reclaimed water quality 

and treatment requirements for environmental reuse. 

Florida has comprehensive and complex rules governing 

the discharge of reclaimed water to wetlands. Treatment 

and disinfection levels are established for different types 

of wetlands, different types of uses, and the degree of 

public access. Most wetland systems in Florida are used 

for tertiary wastewater treatment; and wetland creation, 

restoration, and enhancement projects can be considered reuse. Washington also specifies different treatment 

requirements for different types of wetlands and based 

on the degree of public access. General compliance requirements of 20 mg/l BOD and TSS, 3 mg/l total Kjeldahl 

nitrogen (TKN), and 1 mg/l total phosphorus must be met 

for all categories. 

4.1.1.8 Industrial Reuse 

Five of the 7 states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Texas, 

and Washington) have regulations or guidelines pertaining to industrial reuse of reclaimed water. Table 4-10 

shows the reclaimed water quality and treatment requirements for industrial reuse. 

Reclaimed water quality and treatment requirements vary 

based on the final use of the reclaimed water and exposure potential (see Appendix A, Table A-8 for a sumA r iz o n a C alif o r n ia Flo r id a(1 ) Haw aii Ne vad a T e xas W as h in g to n 

T r e atm e n t NR (2) NR Ad v an c ed 

treatm ent NR NR NR 

O x idiz ed , 

c oagulated, 

and dis infec ted 

BOD5 NR N R 5 m g/l CBO D 5 NR NR NR 20 m g/l 

TSS NR N R 5 m g/l NR NR NR 20 m g/l 

Fe cal 

Colifo r m NR N R NS (3) NR NR NR 

2.2/100 m l 

(Av g) 

23/100 m l 

(M ax ) 

To t al 

A m m onia NR N R 2 m g/l NR NR NR 

N ot to ex c eed 

chr onic 

s tandards for 

fres hw ater 

To t al 

Phos pho r us NR N R 1 m g/l NR NR NR 1 m g/l 

(1) Florida requirements are for discharge of reclaimed water to receiving wetlands 

(2) NR - Not regulated by the state 

(3) NS - Not specified by state regulations 

159 
---

Table 4-10. Industrial Reuse(1) 

Ar izona California Florida Haw aii Ne vada Te xas Was hington 

Tr e atm e nt NR (2) 

O xidiz ed 

and 

disinfec ted 

Sec ondary 

treatment 

and basic 

dis infec tion 

O xidiz ed 

and 

disinfec ted 

NR NS O xidiz ed and 

dis infec ted 

BOD5 NR NS (3) 20 mg/l NS NR 20 mg/l NS 

TSS NR NS 20 mg/l NS NR NS 

Tur bidity NR NS NS NS NR 3 NTU NS 

Total Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Total 

Colifor m NR 

23/100 ml 

(Av g) 

200/100 ml 

(Av g) 

23/100 ml 

(Av g) NR 

200/100 ml 

(Av g) 23/100 ml (Av g) 

240/100 ml 

(Max in 30 

days) 

800/100 ml 

(Max ) 

200/100 ml 

(Max ) 

800/100 ml 

(Av g) 

240/100 ml 

(Av g) 

(1) All state requirements are minimum values. Additional treatment may be required depending on expected 

public exposure. Additional regulations for industrial systems are contained in Appendix A. 

(2) NR - Not regulated by the state 

(3) NS - Not specified by state regulations 

mary of each state’s regulations). For example, California has different requirements for the use of reclaimed 

water as cooling water, based on whether or not a mist is 

created. If a mist is created, oxidation, coagulation, filtration, and disinfection are required and total coliform 

limits of 2.2/100 ml as a weekly median must be met. If 

a mist is not created, only oxidation and disinfection are 

required and total coliform limits of 23/100 ml as a weekly 

median must be met. 

4.1.1.9 Groundwater Recharge 

Spreading basins, percolation ponds, and infiltration basins have a long history of providing both effluent disposal and groundwater recharge. Most state regulations 

allow for the use of relatively low quality water (i.e., secondary treatment with basic disinfection) based on the 

fact that these systems have a proven ability to provide 

additional treatment. Traditionally, potable water supplies 

have been protected by requiring a minimum separation between the point of application and any potable 

supply wells. These groundwater systems are also typically located so that their impacts to potable water withdrawal points are minimized. While such groundwater recharge systems may ultimately augment potable aquifers, that is not their primary intent and experience suggests current practices are protective of raw water supplies. 

Based on a review of the existing reuse regulations and 

guidelines, California, Florida, Hawaii, and Washington 

have regulations or guidelines for reuse with the specific intent of groundwater recharge of aquifers. Table 

4-11 shows reclaimed water quality and treatment requirements for groundwater recharge via rapid-rate application systems. 

For groundwater recharge, California and Hawaii do not 

specify required treatment processes and determine requirements on a case-by-case basis. The California and 

Hawaii Departments of Health Services base the evaluation on all relevant aspects of each project including treatment provided, effluent quality and quantity, effluent or 

application spreading area operation, soil characteristics, 

hydrogeology, residence time, and distance to withdrawal. 

Hawaii does require a groundwater monitoring program. 

Washington has extensive guidelines for the use of reclaimed water for direct groundwater recharge of 

nonpotable aquifers. It requires Class A reclaimed wa160
Table 4-11. Groundwater Recharge (1) 

Arizona Califor nia(2) Flor ida Haw aii Ne vada Texas Washington 

Tre atm e nt NR (3) 

Sec ondary 

treatment and 

bas ic 

dis infec tion 

NR NR 

O x idiz ed, 

c oagulated, 

filtered, and 

dis infec ted 

BOD5 NR NS(4) NR NR 5 mg/l 

TSS N R 10.0 mg/l NR N R 5 mg/l 

Turbidity NR Case-by -case 

bas is 

NS Case-by -cas e 

bas is 

NR NR 2 NT U (Av g) 

5 NT U (Max ) 

Total 

Coliform NR NS NR NR 

2.2/100 ml 

(Av g) 

23/100 ml 

(Max ) 

Total 

Nitroge n NR 12 mg/l NR NR NS 

(1) All state requirements are for groundwater recharge via rapid-rate application systems. Additional regulations 

for recharge of potable aquifers are contained in Section 4.1.1.10 and Appendix A. 

(2) Groundwater recharge in California and Hawaii is determined on a case-by-case basis 

(3) NR - Not regulated by the state 

(4) NS - Not specified by state regulations 

ter defined as oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected. Total coliform is not to exceed 2.2/100 ml as a 

7-day median and 23/100 ml in any sample. Weekly 

average BOD and TSS limits are set at 5 mg/l. Turbidity 

is not to exceed 2 NTU as a monthly average and 5 

NTU in any sample. Additionally, groundwater monitoring is required and is based on reclaimed water quality 

and quantity, site-specific soil and hydrogeologic characteristics, and other considerations. Washington also 

specifies that reclaimed water withdrawn for nonpotable 

purposes can be withdrawn at any distance from the 

point of injection and at any time after direct recharge. 

Florida requires that TSS not exceed 5.0 mg/l in any 

sample, be achieved prior to disinfection, and that the 

total nitrogen in the reclaimed water be less than 12 mg/ 

l. Florida also requires continuous on-line monitoring of

turbidity; however, no limit is specified. 

4.1.1.10 Indirect Potable Reuse 

Indirect potable reuse involves the use of reclaimed water to augment surface water sources that are used or 

will be used for public water supplies or to recharge groundwater used as a source of domestic water supply. Unplanned indirect potable water reuse is occurring in many 

river systems today. Many domestic wastewater treatment plants discharge treated effluent to surface waters 

upstream of intakes for domestic water supply treatment 

plants. Additionally, many types of beneficial reuse 

projects inadvertently contribute to groundwater augmentation as an unintended result of the primary activity. For 

example, irrigation can replenish groundwater sources 

that will eventually be withdrawn for use as a potable 

water supply. Indirect potable reuse systems, as defined 

here, are distinguished from typical groundwater recharge 

systems and surface water discharges by both intent 

and proximity to subsequent withdrawal points for potable water use. Indirect potable reuse involves the intentional introduction of reclaimed water into the raw water 

supply for the purposes of increasing the total volume of 

water available for potable use. In order to accomplish 

this objective, the point at which reclaimed water is introduced into the environment must be selected to ensure 

it will flow to the point of withdrawal. Typically the design 

of these systems assumes there will be little to no additional treatment in the environment after discharge, and 

all applicable water quality requirements are met prior to 

release of the reclaimed water. 

Based on a review of the existing reuse regulations and 

guidelines, 4 of the 7 states (California, Florida, Hawaii, 

161
and Washington) have regulations or guidelines pertaining to indirect potable reuse. For groundwater recharge 

of potable aquifers, most of the states require a pretreatment program, public hearing requirements prior to project 

approval, and a groundwater monitoring program. Florida 

and Washington require pilot plant studies to be performed. 

In general, all the states that specify treatment processes 

require secondary treatment with filtration and disinfection. Washington is the only state that specifies the wastewater must be treated by reverse osmosis. California and 

Hawaii do not specify the type of treatment processes 

required and determine requirements on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Most states specify reclaimed water quality limitations 

for TSS, nitrogen, total organic carbon (TOC), turbidity, 

and total coliform. Florida requires that TSS not exceed 

5.0 mg/l in any sample and be achieved prior to disinfection. Florida and Washington require the total nitrogen in 

the reclaimed water to be less than 10 mg/l. Washington 

has a limit of 1 mg/l for TOC, while Florida’s limit is set 

at 3 mg/l as a monthly average. Florida also requires an 

average limit of 0.2 mg/l for total organic halides (TOX). 

Turbidity limits vary greatly where specified. For example, 

Washington specifies a limit of 0.1 NTU as a monthly 

average and 0.5 NTU as a maximum at any time. Florida 

requires continuous on-line monitoring of turbidity; however, no limit is specified. Fecal coliform limits also vary 

greatly from state to state. Washington requires a limit 

of 1/100 ml for total coliform as a weekly median and a 

not to exceed limit of 5/100 ml in any one sample for 

direct injection into a potable aquifer. The states that 

specify reclaimed water quality limitations require the reclaimed water to meet drinking water standards. 

Most states specify a minimum time the reclaimed water 

must be retained underground prior to being withdrawn 

as a source of drinking water. Washington requires that 

reclaimed water be retained underground for a minimum 

of 12 months prior to being withdrawn as a drinking water 

supply. Several states also specify minimum separation 

distances between a point of recharge and the point of 

withdrawal as a source of drinking water. Florida requires 

a 500-foot (150-meter) separation distance between the 

zone of discharge and potable water supply well. Washington requires the minimum horizontal separation distance between the point of direct recharge and point of 

withdrawal as a source of drinking water supply to be 

2,000 feet (610 meters). Table 4-12 shows the reclaimed 

water quality and treatment requirements for indirect potable reuse. 

Florida includes discharges to Class I surface waters 

(public water supplies) as indirect potable reuse. Discharges less than 24 hours travel time upstream from 

Class I waters are also considered as indirect potable 

reuse. Surface water discharges located more than 24 

hours travel time to Class I waters are not considered 

indirect potable reuse. For discharge to Class I surface 

waters or water contiguous to or tributary to Class I waters (defined as a discharge located less than or equal to 

4 hours travel time from the point of discharge to arrival 

at the boundary of the Class I water), secondary treatment with filtration, high-level disinfection, and any additional treatment required to meet TOC and TOX limits is 

required. The reclaimed water must meet primary and 

secondary drinking water standards, except for asbestos, prior to discharge. TSS must not exceed 5.0 mg/l in 

any sample prior to disinfection and total nitrogen cannot 

exceed 10 mg/l as an annual average. The reclaimed 

water must also meet TOC limitations of 3 mg/l as a 

monthly average and 5 mg/l in any single sample. Outfalls 

for surface water discharges are not to be located within 

500 feet (150 meters) of existing or approved potable 

water intakes within Class I surface waters. 

4.1.2 Reclaimed Water Monitoring 

Requirements 

Reclaimed water monitoring requirements vary greatly 

from state to state and again depend on the type of reuse. For unrestricted urban reuse, Oregon requires sampling for coliform daily, while for agricultural reuse of 

non-food crops, sampling for total coliform is only required once a week. Oregon also requires hourly monitoring of turbidity when a limit on turbidity is specified. 

For unrestricted and restricted urban reuse, as well as 

agricultural reuse on food crops, Florida requires the 

continuous on-line monitoring of turbidity and chlorine 

residual. Even though no limits on turbidity are specified in Florida, continuous monitoring serves as an online surrogate for suspended solids. In addition, Florida 

requires that the TSS limit be achieved prior to disinfection and has a minimum schedule for sampling and testing flow, pH, chlorine residual, dissolved oxygen, TSS, 

CBOD, nutrients, and fecal coliform based on system 

capacity. Florida also requires an annual analysis of primary and secondary drinking water standards for reclaimed water used in irrigation for facilities greater than 

100,000 gpd (4.4 l/s). Monitoring for Giardia and 

Cryptosporidium must also be performed with frequency 

dependent on system capacity. Other states determine 

monitoring requirements on a case-by-case basis depending on the type of reuse. 

4.1.3 Treatment Facility Reliability 

Some states have adopted facility reliability regulations 

or guidelines in place of, or in addition to, water quality 

162
Table 4-12. Indirect Potable Reuse (1) 

Arizona California(2 ) Florida Haw aii Ne vad a Texas W as h in g to n 

A dv a nc ed O x id iz e d , 

T r e atm e n t N R (3 ) 

trea tm e nt, 

filtra tio n, an d NR N R 

c oagulated, filtered, 

re v e rs e -o s m o s is 

high-lev el tr ea te d, a nd 

dis infec tion dis infec ted 

BOD5 N R 20 m g /l N R N R 5 m g /l 

TSS N R 5.0 m g /l N R N R 5 m g /l 

Turbidity NR NS (4 ) NR N R 0.1 N T U (A v g ) 

0.5 N T U (M ax ) 

Total Total 

Coliform NR C a s e-by -c as e 

ba s is A ll s a m p le s 

C a s e -b y -

c as e bas is NR NR 1/100 m l (A v g) 

le s s th a n 

de te c tion 

5/1 0 0 m l (M ax ) 

Total 

Nitr o g e n N R 10 m g /l N R N R 1 0 m g/l 

TOC NR 

3 m g /l (A v g ) 

NR N R 1.0 m g/l 

5 m g /l (M ax ) 

Pr im ar y 

and 

Se co n d ar y 

Standards 

NR 

C om p lia nc e 

w ith m o s t 

pr im ar y an d 

s ec on d ar y 

NR N R 

C o m p lia n c e w ith 

m os t prim ary a nd 

s e c o nd a r y 

(1) Florida requirements are for the planned use of reclaimed water to augment surface water sources that will be 

used as a source of domestic water supply 

(2) Indirect potable reuse in California and Hawaii is determined on a case-by-case basis 

(3) NR - Not regulated by the state 

(4) NS - Not specified by state regulations 

requirements. Generally, requirements consist of alarms 

warning of power failure or failure of essential unit processes, automatic standby power sources, emergency 

storage, and the provision that each treatment process 

be equipped with multiple units or a back-up unit. 

Articles 8, 9, and 10 of California’s Title 22 regulations 

provide design and operational considerations covering 

alarms, power supply, emergency storage and disposal, 

treatment processes, and chemical supply, storage, and 

feed facilities. For treatment processes, a variety of reliability features are acceptable in California. For example, 

for all biological treatment processes, one of the following is required: 

 Alarm (failure and power loss) and multiple units capable of producing biologically oxidized wastewater 

with one unit not in operation 

 Alarm (failure and power loss) and short-term (24-

hour) storage or disposal provisions and standby replacement equipment 

 Alarm (failure and power loss) and long-term (20-day) 

storage or disposal provisions 

Florida requires Class I reliability of treatment facilities 

when reclaimed water is used for irrigation of food crops 

and for restricted and unrestricted urban reuse. Class I 

reliability requires multiple treatment units or back-up units 

and a secondary power source. In addition, a minimum 

of 1 day of reject water storage is required to store reclaimed water of unacceptable quality for additional treatment. Florida also requires staffing at the water reclamation facility 24 hours/day, 7 days/week or 6 hours/day, 7 

days/week. The minimum staffing requirement may be 

reduced to 6 hours/day, 7 days/week if reclaimed water 

163
is delivered to the reuse system only during periods when 

a qualified operator is present, or if additional reliability 

features are provided. 

Florida has also established minimum system sizes for 

treatment facilities to aid in assuring the continuous production of high-quality reclaimed water. Minimum system size for unrestricted and restricted urban reuse and 

for use on edible crops is 0.1 mgd (4.4 l/s). A minimum 

system size is not required if reclaimed water will be 

used only for toilet flushing and fire protection uses. 

Other states that have regulations or guidelines regarding treatment facility reliability include Georgia, Hawaii, 

Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. Washington’s guidelines 

pertaining to treatment facility reliability are similar to 

California’s regulations. Georgia, Massachusetts, North 

Carolina, Oregon, and Wyoming require that multiple 

treatment units be provided for all essential treatment 

processes and a secondary or back-up power source 

be supplied. 

4.1.4 Reclaimed Water Storage 

Current regulations and guidelines regarding storage 

requirements are primarily based upon the need to limit 

or prevent surface water discharge and are not related 

to storage required to meet diurnal or seasonal variations in supply and demand. Storage requirements vary 

from state to state and are generally dependent upon 

geographic location and site conditions. For example, 

Florida requires a minimum storage volume equal to 3 

days of the average design flow, while South Dakota 

requires a minimum storage volume of 210 days of the 

average design flow. The large difference in time is primarily due to the high number of non-irrigation days due 

to freezing temperatures in the northern states. In addition to the minimum storage requirement, Florida also 

requires that a water balance be performed based on a 

1-in-10 year rainfall recurrence interval and a minimum 

of 20 years of climatic data to determine if additional 

storage is required beyond the minimum requirement of 

3 days. 

Most states that specify storage requirements do not 

differentiate between operational and seasonal storage, 

with the exception of Delaware, Georgia, and Ohio, 

which require that both operational and wet weather storage be considered. The majority of states that have storage requirements in their regulations or guidelines require that a water balance be performed on the reuse 

system, taking into account all inputs and outputs of 

water to the system based on a specified rainfall recurrence interval. 

Presently, Florida is the only state with regulations or 

guidelines for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) of 

reclaimed water. ASR systems using reclaimed water 

are required to meet the technical and permitting requirements of Florida’s Department of Environmental 

Protection underground injection control program and 

obtain an underground injection control construction and 

operation permit in addition to the domestic wastewater 

permit. Water recovered from the ASR system must 

meet the performance standards for fecal coliform as 

specified for high-level disinfection. Specifically, the fecal coliform limits require 75 percent of samples to be 

below detection limits, and any single sample is not to 

exceed 25/100 ml before use in a reuse system. 

Preapplication treatment and disinfection requirements 

vary depending on the class of groundwater receiving 

injected reclaimed water, but may be as stringent as to 

require that reclaimed water meet primary and secondary drinking water standards and TOC and TOX limits 

prior to injection. Monitoring of the reclaimed water prior 

to injection and after recovery from the ASR system is 

required. In addition, a groundwater monitoring plan 

must be implemented before placing the ASR system 

into operation. The monitoring plan must be designed 

to verify compliance with the groundwater standards and 

to monitor the performance of the ASR system. As part 

of the monitoring plan, a measure of inorganics concentration (such as chlorides or total dissolved solids) 

and specific conductance of the water being injected, 

the groundwater, and the recovered water are required 

to be monitored. In some cases, an extended zone of 

discharge for the secondary drinking water standards 

and for sodium can be approved. 

Injection wells and recovery wells used for ASR are to 

be located at least 500 feet from any potable water supply well. For potable water supply wells that are not public 

water supply wells, a smaller setback distance may be 

approved if it can be demonstrated that confinement exists such that the system will not adversely affect the 

quantity or quality of the water withdrawn from the potable water supply well. If the ASR well is located in the 

same aquifer as a public supply well, the permitting agencies may require a detailed analysis of the potential for 

reclaimed water entry into the public supply well. 

4.1.5 Application Rates 

When regulations specify application or hydraulic loading rates, the regulations generally pertain to land application systems that are used primarily for additional 

wastewater treatment for disposal rather than reuse. 

When systems are developed chiefly for the purpose of 

land treatment and/or disposal, the objective is often to 

dispose of as much effluent on as little land as possible; 

164
thus, application rates are often far greater than irrigation 

demands and limits are set for the maximum hydraulic 

loading. On the other hand, when the reclaimed water is 

managed as a valuable resource, the objective is to apply the water according to irrigation needs rather than 

maximum hydraulic loading, and application limits are 

rarely specified. 

Many states do not have any specific requirements regarding reclaimed water irrigation application rates, as 

these are generally based on site conditions; however, 

most states emphasizing beneficial reuse recommend 

a maximum hydraulic loading rate of no more than 2 inches 

per week (5.1 cm per week). Delaware’s regulations require that the maximum design wastewater loading be 

limited to 2.5 inches per week (6.4 cm per week). Florida 

recommends a maximum annual average of 2 inches per 

week (5.1 cm per week). Those states emphasizing land 

treatment or disposal may recommend a hydraulic loading rate of up to 4 inches per week (10.2 cm per week). 

In addition to hydraulic loading rates, some states also 

have limits on nitrogen loading. For example, Alabama, 

Arkansas, and Tennessee all require that the effluent 

from the reuse system have a nitrate-nitrogen concentration of 10 mg/l or less, while Missouri and Nebraska 

both require that the nitrogen loading not exceed the 

nitrogen uptake of the crop. 

4.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring 

Groundwater monitoring programs associated with reclaimed water irrigation generally focus on water quality in the surficial aquifer and are required by Alabama, 

Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In general, these groundwater 

monitoring programs require that 1 well be placed hydraulically upgradient of the reuse site to assess background and incoming groundwater conditions within the 

aquifer in question. In addition 2 wells must be placed 

hydraulically downgradient of the reuse site to monitor 

compliance. Florida normally requires a minimum of 3 

monitoring wells at each reuse site. For reuse projects 

involving multiple sites, Florida may allow monitoring at 

selected example sites. Some states also require that a 

well be placed within each reuse site. South Carolina’s 

guidelines suggest that a minimum of 9 wells be placed 

in golf courses (18 holes) that irrigate with reclaimed 

water. Sampling parameters and frequency of sampling 

are generally considered on a case-by-case basis. 

4.1.7 Setback Distances for Irrigation 

Many states have established setback distances or buffer 

zones between reuse irrigation sites and various facilities such as potable water supply wells, property lines, 

residential areas, and roadways. Setback distances vary 

depending on the quality of reclaimed water and the 

method of application. For example, Nevada requires a 

400- to 800-foot (120- to 240-meter) buffer, depending on 

disinfection level, for a spray irrigation system, but when 

surface irrigation is used as the application method, no 

buffer is required. For restricted and unrestricted urban 

reuse and irrigation of food crops, Florida requires a 75-

foot (23-meter) setback to potable water supply wells; 

but for agricultural reuse on non-food crops, Florida requires a 500-foot (150-meter) setback to potable water 

supply wells and a 100-foot (30-meter) setback to property lines. Florida will allow reduced setback distances 

for agricultural reuse on non-food crops if additional disinfection and reliability are provided or if alternative application techniques are used. Colorado recommends a 

500-foot (150-meter) setback distance to domestic supply wells and a 100-foot (30-meter) setback to any irrigation well regardless of the quality of the reclaimed water. 

Due to the high degree of treatment required, Oregon 

and Nevada do not require setback distances when reclaimed water is used for unrestricted urban reuse or irrigation of food crops. However, setback distances are 

required for irrigation of non-food crops and restricted 

urban reuse. In Nevada, the quality requirements for reclaimed water are based not only on the type of reuse, 

but also on the setback distance. For example, for restricted urban reuse and a 100-foot (30-meter) buffer zone, 

Nevada requires that the reclaimed water have a mean 

fecal coliform count of no more than 23/100 ml and not 

exceed a maximum daily number of 240/100 ml. However, with no buffer zone, the reclaimed water must have 

a mean fecal coliform count of no more than 2.2/100 ml 

and not exceed a maximum daily number of 23/100 ml. 

4.2 Suggested Guidelines for

Water Reuse 

Table 4-13 presents suggested wastewater treatment 

processes, reclaimed water quality, monitoring, and setback distances for various types of water reuse. Suggested guidelines are presented for the following categories: 

 Urban Reuse 

 Restricted Access Area Irrigation 

165 
 Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops 

-Food crops not commercially processed 

-Commercially processed food crops and 

surface irrigation of orchards and vineyards 

 Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

-Pasture for milking animals and fodder, fiber, 

and seed crops 

 Recreational Impoundments 

 Landscape Impoundments 

 Construction Uses 

 Industrial Reuse 

 Environmental Reuse 

 Groundwater Recharge 

-Spreading or injection into aquifers not used

 for public water supply 

 Indirect Potable Reuse

-Spreading into potable aquifers

-Injection into potable aquifers

-Augmentation of surface supplies

These guidelines apply to domestic wastewater from municipal or other wastewater treatment facilities having a 

limited input of industrial waste. The suggested guidelines are predicated principally on water reclamation and 

reuse information from the U.S. and are intended to apply to reclamation and reuse facilities in the U.S. Local 

social, economic, regulatory, technological, and other conditions may limit the applicability of these guidelines in 

some countries (see Chapter 8). It is explicitly stated 

that the direct application of these suggested guidelines 

will not be used by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as strict criteria for funding. 

The suggested treatment processes, reclaimed water 

quality, monitoring frequency, and setback distances are 

based on: 

 Water reuse experience in the U.S. and elsewhere 

 Research and pilot plant or demonstration study data 

 Technical material from the literature 

 Various states’ reuse regulations, policies, or guidelines (see Appendix A) 

 Attainability 

 Sound engineering practice 

These guidelines are not intended to be used as definitive water reclamation and reuse criteria. They are intended to provide reasonable guidance for water reuse 

opportunities, particularly in states that have not developed their own criteria or guidelines. 

Adverse health consequences associated with the reuse of raw or improperly treated wastewater are well 

documented. As a consequence, water reuse regulations and guidelines are principally directed at public 

health protection and generally are based on the control of pathogenic microorganisms for nonpotable reuse applications and control of both health significant 

microorganisms and chemical contaminants for indirect 

potable reuse applications. These guidelines address 

health protection via suggested wastewater treatment 

unit processes, reclaimed water quality limits, and other 

controls (setback distances, etc.). 

Both treatment processes and water quality limits are 

recommended for the following reasons: 

 Water quality criteria that include the use of surrogate parameters may not adequately characterize 

reclaimed water quality. 

 A combination of treatment and quality requirements 

known to produce reclaimed water of acceptable 

quality obviate the need to monitor the finished water for certain constituents, e.g., some health-significant chemical constituents or pathogenic microorganisms. 

 Expensive, time-consuming, and, in some cases, 

questionable monitoring for pathogenic organisms, 

such as viruses, is eliminated without compromising 

health protection. 

 Treatment reliability is enhanced. 

It would be impractical to monitor reclaimed water for all 

of the chemical constituents and pathogenic organisms 

of concern, and surrogate parameters are universally 

accepted. In the U.S., total and fecal coliforms are the 

most commonly used indicator organisms in reclaimed 

water as a measure of disinfection efficiency. While 

coliforms are adequate indicator organisms for many 

bacterial pathogens, they are, by themselves, poor indicators of parasites and viruses. The total coliform analysis includes enumeration of organisms of both fecal and 

nonfecal origin, while the fecal coliform analysis is spe166
Table 4-13. Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse 1 

Types of 

Reuse Treatment 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 2 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Setback 

Distances 3 Comments 

Urban Reuse 

All types of 

landscape 

 Secondary 4 

 Filtration 5 

 Disinfection 6 

 pH = 6-9 

 < 10 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 2 NTU 8 

 No detectable fecal 

 pH - weekly 

 BOD - weekly 

 Turbidity -

 continuous 

 50 ft (15 m) to 

 potable water 

 supply wells 

 See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits. 

 At controlled-access irrigation sites where design and

 operational measures significantly reduce the potential 

 of public contact with reclaimed water, a lower level of

irrigation, (e.g., 

golf courses, 

parks, 

cemeteries) – 

coli/100 ml 9,10 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual 

(minimum) 11 

 Coliform - daily 

 Cl2 residual -

 continuous 

 treatment, e.g., secondary treatment and disinfection to 

 achieve < 14 fecal coli/100 ml, may be appropriate. 

 Chemical (coagulant and/or polymer) addition prior to 

 filtration may be necessary to meet water quality

also vehicle recommendations. 

washing, toilet  The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of

flushing, use in viable pathogens. 12 

fire protection  Reclaimed water should be clear and odorless. 

systems and  A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may 

commercial air be necessary to assure that viruses and parasites are 

conditioners, and inactivated or destroyed. 

other uses with  A chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/l or greater in the distribution 

similar access or system is recommended to reduce odors, slime, and 

exposure to the bacterial regrowth. 

water  See Section 3.4.3. for recommended treatment reliability. 

Restricted 

Access Area 

Irrigation 

Sod farms, 

 Secondary 4 

 Disinfection 6 

 pH = 6-9 

 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 30 mg/l TSS 

 < 200 fecal coli/100 

ml 9,13,14 

 pH - weekly 

 BOD - weekly 

 TSS - daily 

 Coliform - daily 

 Cl2 residual -

 300 ft (90 m) to 

 potable water 

 supply wells 

 100 ft (30 m) to 

 areas accessible

 See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits. 

 If spray irrigation, TSS less than 30 mg/l may be necessary

 to avoid clogging of sprinkler heads. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

silviculture sites, 

and other areas 

where public 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual 

(minimum) 11 

 continuous to the public (if

 spray irrigation) 

access is 

prohibited, 

restricted or 

infrequent 

Agricultural 

Reuse – Food 

Crops Not 

Commercially 

Processed 15 

Surface or spray 

irrigation of any 

 Secondary 4 

 Filtration 5 

 Disinfection 6 

 pH = 6-9 

 < 10 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 2 NTU 8 

 No detectable fecal 

coli/100 ml 9,10 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual 

(minimum) 11 

 pH - weekly 

 BOD - weekly 

 Turbidity -

 continuous 

 Coliform - daily 

 Cl2 residual -

 continuous 

 50 ft (15 m) to 

 potable water 

 supply wells 

 See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits. 

 Chemical (coagulant and/or polymer) addition prior to 

 filtration may be necessary to meet water quality

 recommendations. 

 The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of 

viable pathogens. 12 

 A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may

 be necessary to assure that viruses and parasites are

food crop, 

including crops 

 inactivated or destroyed. 

 High nutrient levels may adversely affect some crops during

eaten raw. certain growth stages. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

Agricultural 

Reuse – Food 

Crops 

Commercially 

Processed 15 

Surface Irrigation 

of Orchards and 

Vineyards 

 Secondary 4 

 Disinfection 6 

 pH = 6-9 

 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 30 mg/l TSS 

 < 200 fecal coli/100 

ml 9,13,14 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual 

(minimum) 11 

 pH - weekly 

 BOD - weekly 

 TSS - daily 

 Coliform - daily 

 Cl2 residual -

 continuous 

 300 ft (90 m) to 

 potable water 

 supply wells 

 100 ft (30 m) to 

 areas accessible

 to the public (if

 spray irrigation) 

 See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits. 

 If spray irrigation, TSS less than 30 mg/l may be necessary

 to avoid clogging of sprinkler heads. 

 High nutrient levels may adversely affect some crops during

 certain growth stages. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

Agricultural 

Reuse – Nonfood Crops 

Pasture for 

milking animals; 

fodder, fiber, and 

seed crops 

 Secondary 4 

 Disinfection 6 

 pH = 6-9 

 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 30 mg/l TSS 

 < 200 fecal coli/100 

ml 9,13,14 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual 

(minimum) 11 

 pH - weekly 

 BOD - weekly 

 TSS - daily 

 Coliform - daily 

 Cl2 residual -

 continuous 

 300 ft (90 m) to 

 potable water 

 supply wells 

 100 ft (30 m) to 

 areas accessible

 to the public (if

 spray irrigation) 

 See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits. 

 If spray irrigation, TSS less than 30 mg/l may be necessary

 to avoid clogging of sprinkler heads. 

 High nutrient levels may adversely affect some crops during

 certain growth stages. 

 Milking animals should be prohibited from grazing for 15

 days after irrigation ceases. A higher level of disinfection,

 e.g., to achieve < 14 fecal coli/100 ml, should be provided if

 this waiting period is not adhered to. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

167
--------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4-13. Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse 1 

Types of Reuse Treatment Reclaimed 

Water Quality 2 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Setback 

Distances 3 Comments 

Recreational 

Impoundments 

Incidental contact 

(e.g., fishing and 

boating) and full 

body contact with 

reclaimed water 

 Secondary 4 

 Filtration 5 

 Disinfection 6 

 pH = 6-9 

 < 10 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 2 NTU 8 

 No detectable fecal

 coli/100 ml 9,10 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual

 (minimum) 11 

 pH - weekly 

 BOD - weekly 

 Turbidity -

continuous 

 Coliform - daily 

 Cl2 residual -

continuous 

 500 ft (150 m) to 

potable water 

supply wells 

(minimum) if 

bottom not sealed 

 Dechlorination may be necessary to protect aquatic species

 of flora and fauna. 

 Reclaimed water should be non-irritating to skin and eyes. 

 Reclaimed water should be clear and odorless. 

 Nutrient removal may be necessary to avoid algae growth in

 impoundments. 

 Chemical (coagulant and/or polymer) addition prior to 

filtration may be necessary to meet water quality 

allowed recommendations. 

 The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of

 viable pathogens. 12 

 A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may

 be necessary to assure that viruses and parasites are

 inactivated or destroyed. 

 Fish caught in impoundments can be consumed. 

 See Section 3.4.3. for recommended treatment reliability. 

Landscape 

Impoundments 

Aesthetic 

impoundment 

where public 

contact with 

reclaimed water is 

not allowed 

 Secondary 4 

 Disinfection 6 

 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 30 mg/l TSS 

 < 200 fecal coli/100 

ml 9,13,14 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual

 (minimum) 11 

 pH - weekly 

 TSS - daily 

 Coliform - daily 

 Cl2 residual -

continuous 

 500 ft (150 m) to 

potable water 

supply wells 

(minimum) if 

bottom not sealed 

 Nutrient removal may be necessary to avoid algae growth in

 impoundments. 

 Dechlorination may be necessary to protect aquatic species

 of flora and fauna. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

Construction Use 

Soil compaction, 

dust control, 

washing 

 Secondary 4 

 Disinfection 6 

 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 30 mg/l TSS 

 < 200 fecal coli/100 

ml 9,13,14 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual

 BOD - weekly 

 TSS - daily 

 Coliform - daily 

 Cl2 residual -

continuous 

 Worker contact with reclaimed water should be minimized. 

 A higher level of disinfection, e.g., to achieve < 14 fecal

 coli/100 ml, should be provided when frequent work contact

 with reclaimed water is likely. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

aggregate, making (minimum) 11 

concrete 

Industrial Reuse 

Once-through 

cooling 

 Secondary 4 

 Disinfection 6 

 pH = 6-9 

 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 30 mg/l TSS 

 < 200 fecal coli/100 

ml 9,13,14 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual

▪ pH - weekly 

▪ BOD - weekly 

▪ TSS - daily 

▪ Coliform - daily 

▪ Cl2 residual -

continuous 

 300 ft (90 m) to 

areas accessible 

to the public 

 Windblown spray should not reach areas accessible to 

 workers or the public. 

 (minimum) 11 

Recirculating 

cooling towers 

 Secondary 4 

 Disinfection 6 

(chemical

 coagulation

 and filtration 5 

may be needed) 

 Variable depends

 on recirculation

 ratio (see Section

 2.2.1) pH = 6-9 

 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 30 mg/l TSS 

 < 200 fecal coli/100 

ml 9,13,14 

 pH - weekly 

 BOD - weekly 

 TSS - daily 

 Coliform - daily 

 Cl2 residual -

 continuous 

 300 ft (90 m) to

 areas accessible

 to the public. 

 May be reduced 

 or eliminated if

 high level of

 disinfection is

 provided. 

 Windblown spray should not reach areas accessible to 

 workers or the public. 

 Additional treatment by user is usually provided to prevent

 scaling, corrosion, biological growths, fouling and foaming. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual

 (minimum) 11 

Other Industrial 

Uses Depends on site specific uses (See Section 2.2.3) 

Environmental  Variable Variable, but not to  BOD - weekly  Dechlorination may be necessary to protect aquatic species

Reuse 

Wetlands, 

marshes, wildlife 

habitat, stream 

 Secondary 4

 and

 disinfection 6

 (minimum) 

exceed: 

 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 

 < 30 mg/l TSS 

 < 200 fecal coli/100 

ml 9,13,14 

 TSS - daily 

 Coliform - daily 

 Cl2 residual -

continuous 

 of flora and fauna. 

 Possible effects on groundwater should be evaluated. 

 Receiving water quality requirements may necessitate

 additional treatment. 

 The temperature of the reclaimed water should not adversely

augmentation affect ecosystem. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

168
Table 4-13. Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse 1 

Types of 

Reuse Treatment 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 2 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Setback 

Distances 3 Comments 

Groundwater  Site-specific  Site-specific and  Depends on  Site-specific  Facility should be designed to ensure that no reclaimed 

Recharge and use use dependent treatment and water reaches potable water supply aquifers 

 dependent use  See Section 2.5 for more information. 

By spreading or  Primary  For spreading projects, secondary treatment may be 

injection into (minimum) needed to prevent clogging. 

aquifers not used for spreading  For injection projects, filtration and disinfection may be 

for public water 

supply 

 Secondary 4

 (minimum)

 needed to prevent clogging. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

 for injection 

Indirect Potable  Secondary 4  Secondary 4 Includes, but not  500 ft (150 m)  The depth to groundwater (i.e., thickness to the vadose

Reuse  Disinfection 6  Disinfection 6 limited to, the to extraction zone) should be at least 6 feet (2 m) at the maximum 

Groundwater 

recharge by 

spreading into 

potable aquifers 

 May also

 need

 filtration 5

 and/or

 advanced

 wastewater

 treatment 16 

 Meet drinking water 

standards after 

percolation through 

vadose zone 

following: 

 pH - daily 

 Coliform -

 daily 

 Cl2 residual -

 continuous 

 Drinking water

 standards -

 wells. May 

 vary depending

 on treatment

 provided and 

site-specific

 conditions. 

groundwater mounding point. 

 The reclaimed water should be retained underground for at

 least 6 months prior to withdrawal. 

 Recommended treatment is site-specific and depends on

 factors such as type of soil, percolation rate, thickness of 

vadose zone, native groundwater quality, and dilution. 

 Monitoring wells are necessary to detect the influence of the 

 recharge operation on the groundwater. 

 quarterly 

 Other 17 -

 See Sections 2.5 and 2.6 for more information. 

 The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of

 depends on 

 constituent 

 viable pathogens after percolation through the vadose

 zone. 12 

 BOD - weekly  See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

 Turbidity -

 continuous 

Indirect Potable 

Reuse 

Groundwater 

recharge by 

injection into 

potable aquifers 

 Secondary 4 

 Filtration 5 

 Disinfection 6 

 Advanced

 wastewater

 treatment 16 

Includes, but not 

limited to, the 

following: 

 pH = 6.5 - 8.5 

 < 2 NTU 8 

 No detectable total

 coli/100 ml 9,10 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual

 (minimum) 11 

 < 3 mg/l TOC 

 < 0.2 mg/l TOX 

 Meet drinking water

 standards 

Includes, but not 

limited to, the 

following: 

 pH - daily 

 Turbidity -

 continuous 

 Total coliform -

 daily 

 Cl2 residual -

 continuous 

 Drinking water

 standards -

 quarterly 

 Other 17 -

 depends on 

 constituent 

 2000 ft (600 m)

 to extraction 

wells. May vary 

 depending on 

site-specific

 conditions. 

 The reclaimed water should be retained underground for at

 least 9 months prior to withdrawal. 

 Monitoring wells are necessary to detect the influence of the 

 recharge operation on the groundwater. 

 Recommended quality limits should be met a the point of

 injection. 

 The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of

 viable pathogens after percolation through the vadose

 zone. 12 

 See Sections 2.5 and 2.6 for more information. 

 A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may 

be necessary to assure virus and protozoa inactivation. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

Indirect Potable 

Reuse 

Augmentation of 

surface supplies 

 Secondary 4 

 Filtration 5 

 Disinfection 6 

 Advanced

 wastewater

 treatment 16 

Includes, but not 

limited to, the 

following: 

 pH = 6.5 - 8.5 

 < 2 NTU 8 

 No detectable total

 coli/100 ml 9,10 

 1 mg/l Cl2 residual

 (minimum) 11 

 < 3 mg/l TOC 

 Meet drinking water

 standards 

Includes, but not 

limited to, the 

following: 

 pH - daily 

 Turbidity -

 continuous 

 Total coliform -

 daily 

 Cl2 residual -

 continuous 

 Drinking water

 standards -

 quarterly 

 Other 17 -

 depends on 

 constituent 

 Site-specific  Recommended level of treatment is site-specific and

 depends on factors such as receiving water quality, time and

 distance to point of withdrawal, dilution and subsequent

 treatment prior to distribution for potable uses. 

 The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of

 viable pathogens. 12 

 See Sections 2.6 for more information. 

 A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may 

be necessary to assure virus and protozoa inactivation. 

 See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability. 

169
Footnotes 

1. These guidelines are based on water reclamation and reuse practices in the U.S., and they are especially

directed at states that have not developed their own regulations or guidelines. While the guidelines should 

be useful in may areas outside the U.S., local conditions may limit the applicability of the guidelines in 

some countries (see Chapter 8). It is explicitly stated that the direct application of these suggested 

guidelines will not be used by USAID as strict criteria for funding. 

2. Unless otherwise noted, recommended quality limits apply to the reclaimed water at the point of discharge

from the treatment facility. 

3. Setback distances are recommended to protect potable water supply sources from contamination and to

protect humans from unreasonable health risks due to exposure to reclaimed water. 

4. Secondary treatment processes include activated sludge processes, trickling filters, rotating biological 

contractors, and may include stabilization pond systems. Secondary treatment should produce effluent in 

which both the BOD and TSS do not exceed 30 mg/l. 

5. Filtration means the passing of wastewater through natural undisturbed soils or filter media such as sand

and/or anthracite, filter cloth, or the passing of wastewater through microfilters or other membrane processes. 

6. Disinfection means the destruction, inactivation, or removal of pathogenic microorganisms by chemical, 

physical, or biological means. Disinfection may be accomplished by chlorination, UV radiation, ozonation, 

other chemical disinfectants, membrane processes, or other processes. The use of chlorine as defining 

the level of disinfection does not preclude the use of other disinfection processes as an acceptable means 

of providing disinfection for reclaimed water. 

7. As determined from the 5-day BOD test.

8. The recommended turbidity limit should be met prior to disinfection. The average turbidity should be based

on a 24-hour time period. The turbidity should not exceed 5 NTU at any time. If TSS is used in lieu of 

turbidity, the TSS should not exceed 5 mg/l. 

9.Unless otherwise noted, recommended coliform limits are median values determined from the bacteriological 

results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed. Either the membrane filter or fermentation-tube technique may be used. 

10. The number of fecal coliform organisms should not exceed 14/100 ml in any sample.

11. Total chlorine residual should be met after a minimum contact time of 30 minutes.

12. It is advisable to fully characterize the microbiological quality of the reclaimed water prior to implementa

 tion of a reuse program.

13. The number of fecal coliform organisms should not exceed 800/100 ml in any sample.

14. Some stabilization pond systems may be able to meet this coliform limit without disinfection.

15. Commercially processed food crops are those that, prior to sale to the public or others, have undergone

 chemical or physical processing sufficient to destroy pathogens.

16. Advanced wastewater treatment processes include chemical clarification, carbon adsorption, reverse

 osmosis and other membrane processes, air stripping, ultrafiltration, and ion exchange.

17. Monitoring should include inorganic and organic compounds, or classes of compounds, that are known or

 uspected to be toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, or mutagenic and are not included in the drinking water

 standards. 

170
cific for coliform organisms of fecal origin. Therefore, 

fecal coliforms are better indicators of fecal contamination than total coliforms, and these guidelines use fecal 

coliform as the indicator organism. Either the multipletube fermentation technique or the membrane filter technique may be used to quantify the coliform levels in the 

reclaimed water. 

The Guidelines suggest that, regardless of the type of 

reclaimed water use, some level of disinfection should 

be provided to avoid adverse health consequences from 

inadvertent contact or accidental or intentional misuse 

of a water reuse system. For nonpotable uses of reclaimed water, 2 levels of disinfection are recommended. 

Reclaimed water used for applications where no direct 

public or worker contact with the water is expected should 

be disinfected to achieve an average fecal coliform concentration not exceeding 200/100 ml because: 

 Most bacterial pathogens will be destroyed or reduced to low or insignificant levels in the water 

 The concentration of viable viruses will be reduced 

somewhat 

 Disinfection of secondary effluent to this coliform 

level is readily achievable at minimal cost 

 Significant health-related benefits associated with 

disinfection to lower, but not pathogen-free, levels 

are not obvious 

For uses where direct or indirect contact with reclaimed 

water is likely or expected, and for dual water systems 

where there is a potential for cross-connections with 

potable water lines, disinfection to produce reclaimed 

water having no detectable fecal coliform organisms per 

100 ml is recommended. This more restrictive disinfection level is intended for use in conjunction with tertiary 

treatment and other water quality limits, such as a turbidity less than or equal to 2 NTU in the wastewater 

prior to disinfection. This combination of treatment and 

use of water quality limits has been shown to produce 

reclaimed water that is essentially free of measurable 

levels of bacterial and viral pathogens. 

For indirect potable uses of reclaimed water, where reclaimed water is intentionally introduced into the raw 

water supply for the purposes of increasing the total 

volume of water available for potable use, disinfection 

to produce reclaimed water having no detectable total 

coliform organisms per 100 ml is recommended. Total 

coliform is recommended, in lieu of fecal coliform, to be 

consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) 

that regulate drinking water standards for producing potable drinking water. 

These guidelines do not include suggested specific parasite or virus limits. Parasites have not been shown to be 

a problem at water reuse operations in the U.S. at the 

treatment and quality limits recommended in these 

guidelines, although there has been considerable interest in recent years regarding the occurrence and significance of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in reclaimed 

water. Viruses are of concern in reclaimed water, but 

virus limits are not recommended in these guidelines 

for the following reasons: 

A significant body of information exists indicating that 

viruses are reduced or inactivated to low or immeasurable levels via appropriate wastewater treatment, including filtration and disinfection (Yanko, 1993). 

 The identification and enumeration of viruses in wastewater are hampered by relatively low virus recovery 

rates, the complexity and high cost of laboratory procedures, and the limited number of facilities having 

the personnel and equipment necessary to perform 

the analyses. 

 The laboratory culturing procedure to determine the 

presence or absence of viruses in a water sample 

takes about 14 days, and an additional 14 days are 

required to identify the viruses. 

 While recombinant DNA technology provides new 

tools to rapidly detect viruses in water (e.g., nucleic 

acid probes and polymerase chain reaction technology), methods currently in use are not able to quantify viruses or differentiate between infective and noninfective virus particles. 

 There is no consensus among virus experts regarding the health significance of low levels of viruses in 

reclaimed water. 

 There have been no documented cases of viral disease resulting from the reuse of wastewater at any 

of the water reuse operations in the U.S. 

The removal of suspended matter is related to the virus 

issue. Many pathogens are particulate-associated and 

that particulate matter can shield both bacteria and viruses from disinfectants such as chlorine and UV radiation. Also, organic matter consumes chlorine, thus making less of the disinfectant available for disinfection. 

There is general agreement that particulate matter should 

be reduced to low levels, e.g., 2 NTU or 5 mg/l TSS, 

prior to disinfection to ensure reliable destruction of patho171
genic microorganisms during the disinfection process. 

Suspended solids measurements are typically performed 

daily on a composite sample and only reflect an average 

value. Continuously monitored turbidity is superior to daily 

suspended solids measurements as an aid to treatment 

operation. 

The need to remove organic matter is related to the type 

of reuse. Some of the adverse effects associated with 

organic substances are that they are aesthetically displeasing (may be malodorous and impart color), provide food for microorganisms, adversely affect disinfection processes, and consume oxygen. The recommended BOD limit is intended to indicate that the organic matter has been stabilized, is nonputrescible, and 

has been lowered to levels commensurate with anticipated types of reuse. TSS limits are suggested as a 

measure of organic and inorganic particulate matter in 

reclaimed water that has received secondary treatment. 

The recommended BOD and TSS limits are readily 

achievable at well operated water reclamation plants. 

The suggested setback distances are somewhat subjective. They are intended to protect drinking water supplies from contamination and, where appropriate, to protect humans from exposure to the reclaimed water. While 

studies indicate the health risk associated with aerosols from spray irrigation sites using reclaimed water is 

low, the general practice is to limit, through design or 

operational controls, exposure to aerosols and windblown spray produced from reclaimed water that is not 

highly disinfected. 

Unplanned or incidental indirect potable reuse occurs 

in many states in the U.S., while planned or intentional 

indirect potable reuse via groundwater recharge or augmentation of surface supplies is a less-widely accepted 

practice. Whereas the water quality requirements for 

nonpotable water uses are tractable and not likely to 

change significantly in the future, the number of water 

quality constituents to be monitored in drinking water (and, 

hence, reclaimed water intended for potable reuse) will 

increase and quality requirements will become more restrictive. Consequently, it would not be prudent to suggest a complete list of reclaimed water quality limits for 

all constituents of concern. Some general and specific 

information is provided in the guidelines to indicate the 

extensive treatment, water quality, and other requirements 

that are likely to be imposed where indirect potable reuse 

is contemplated. 

4.3 Pathogens and Emerging

Pollutants of Concern (EPOC) 

As needs for alternative water supplies grow, reclaimed 

water will be used more in both direct nonpotable applications and indirect potable reuse projects. Future monitoring for pathogens and other EPOCs will likely be necessary to ensure that reclaimed water is a safe water 

source. For example, California regulations require 

monthly sampling and analysis for Giardia, enteric viruses, and Cryptosporidium for the use of reclaimed 

water for impoundments during the first year of operation (State of California, 2000). After the first year, the 

reclaimed water may be sampled and analyzed quarterly and monitoring may be discontinued after 2 years 

of operation with the approval of the California Department of Health Services (DHS). As previously discussed, 

Florida requires monitoring of Giardia and Cryptosporidium 

with sampling frequency based on treatment plant capacity for specific types of reuse. 

The DHS updated the draft regulations for Groundwater 

Recharge Reuse in July 2003 to require monitoring of 

EPOCs. Each quarter, during the first year of operation, 

the reclaimed water shall be analyzed for: unregulated 

chemicals; priority toxic pollutants; chemicals with state 

action levels; and other chemicals that the DHS has specified (California DHS, 2003). Chemicals with state action 

levels are defined as chemicals that have been detected 

at least once in drinking water supplies or chemicals of 

interest for some specific reason. The other chemicals 

as specified by the DHS include N-Nitrosodiethylamine 

(NDEA) and N-Nitrosopyrrolidine. 

The draft regulations also require annual monitoring of 

pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting chemicals, and 

other chemical indicators of municipal wastewater presence. The draft regulations state that these samples are 

being collected for information purposes, and there are 

no standards for the contaminants listed and no standards anticipated at this time (California DHS, 2003). 

Although no illnesses to date have been directly connected to the use of reclaimed water, in order to better 

define pathogens and EPOCs contained in reclaimed 

water, it is recommended to continue with ongoing research and additional monitoring for Giardia, 

Cryptosporidium, and other EPOCs. 

4.4 Pilot Testing 

Because it is desirable to fully characterize the reclaimed 

water to be produced and to compare its quality to other 

water sources in the area, pilot testing should be conducted in support of some of the more sensitive types of 

172
reuse, like groundwater recharge by injection and indirect potable reuse. Pilot testing can be used to demonstrate the ability of the selected unit processes to meet 

project objectives and to refine the design of sophisticated treatment trains. Pilot testing also can be used to 

demonstrate the ability of the treatment and disinfection units to effectively control pathogens and organic 

compounds. As part of this activity, the EPOCs, including pharmaceutically active substances, endocrine disrupters, and personal care products, can be evaluated. 

Ideally, pilot testing should build on previous work as 

opposed to repeating it. 

4.5 References 

California Department of Health Services. 2003. Groundwater Recharge Reuse Regulations July 2003 Draft, Title 

22, California Code of Regulations, Division 4. Environmental Health, Chapter 3. Recycling Criteria. 

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2000. 

California Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/recycling/recyfund/munirec/ 

index.html. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. 

2001 Reuse Inventory. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/ 

reuse/. 

Hilger, H.A., 2003. “An Assessment of North Carolina 

Water Reuse Regulations: Their Application to a New 

Reclamation Facility and Their Key Features Compared 

to Other State Reuse Regulations,” North Carolina Water 

Resources Research Institute, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Perlman, H.A., Pierce, R.R., and Solley, W.B. 1998. Estimated Use of Water in the U.S. in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. 

State of California. 2000. California Code of Regulations, 

Title 22, Division 4, Environmental Health, Chapter 3 

Recycling Criteria. 

Van Riper, C., G. Schlender and M. Walther, 1998. “Evolution of Water Reuse Regulations in Washington State.” 

WateReuse Conference Proceedings, AWWA, Denver, 

Colorado. 

Yanko, W.A. 1993. “Analysis of 10 Years of Virus Monitoring Data from Los Angeles County Treatment Plants 

Meeting California Wastewater Reclamation Criteria.” 

Water Environ. Research, 65(3):221-226. 

173 
174
CHAPTER 5

Legal and Institutional Issues

Although specific laws vary widely, most states have 

adopted a number of rules and policies that both support and challenge the development of reclaimed water 

projects. Since public health regulations are reviewed 

in detail in Chapter 4, this chapter focuses on other issues that emerge during the various stages of planning 

and implementing water reuse projects, including relevant rules promulgated by federal, state, and local jurisdictions. 

Laws, policies, rules, and regulations that affect project 

planning include water rights laws, water use, and 

wastewater discharge regulations, as well as laws that 

restrict land use and protect the environment. Included 

in project implementation issues are policies that guide 

the development of reclaimed water rates and agreements between reclaimed water producers, wholesalers, retailers, and customers, as well as rules affecting 

system construction and liability for water reuse. 

Some legal matters are quite technical, and the body of 

statutory and case law in the area of water reuse is relatively small. The majority of the rules and policies are 

focused on areas where water reuse has been practiced, and expansion to other areas might raise issues 

not discussed here. Therefore, managers should carefully consider the legal and institutional aspects of a new 

reuse project, and obtain counsel to help weigh alternatives and risks. However, even a review of the basic 

issues should allow reuse planners to identify the most 

important questions early in the planning process where 

they can be most effectively addressed. 

This section also expands upon the following guidelines 

that can assist managers in addressing legal and institutional issues during the planning and implementation 

phases of a reuse system: 

 Identifying the legal and institutional drivers for reuse 

 Developing a public education program 

 Forging and maintaining contact with the appropriate agencies 

 Developing a realistic schedule 

 Assessing cash flow needs 

 Considering institutional structure 

 Identifying steps to minimize liability 

 Preparing contracts 

5.1 Water Rights Law 

A water right is a right to use water – it is not a right of 

ownership. In the U.S., the state generally retains ownership of “natural” or public water within its boundaries, 

and state statutes, regulations, and case law govern 

the allocation and administration of the rights of private 

parties and governmental entities to use such water. A 

“water right” allows water to be diverted at one or more 

particular points and a portion of the water to be used 

for one or more particular purposes. A basic doctrine in 

water rights law is that harm cannot be rendered upon 

others who have a claim to the water. Water rights are 

an especially important issue since the rights allocated 

by the states can either promote reuse measures, or 

they can pose an obstacle. For example, in water-limited areas, where water reuse might be most attractive, 

water rights laws might prohibit the use of potable water for nonpotable purposes, while at the same time restricting the use of reclaimed water in a consumptive 

fashion that prevents its return to the stream. 

State laws allocate water based on 2 types of rights – 

the appropriative doctrine and the riparian doctrine. 

These will be described in general terms, after which 

there will be a brief analysis of their application to water 

reuse projects. 

175
5.1.1 Appropriative Rights System 

The appropriative rights system is found in most western states and in areas that are water-limited. (California has both appropriative and riparian rights.) It is a 

system by which the right to use water is appropriated – 

that is, it is assigned or delegated to the consumer. The 

basic notion is first in time, first in right. In other words, 

the right derives from beneficial use on a first-come, 

first-served basis and not from the property’s proximity 

to the water source. The first party to use the water has 

the most senior claim to that water. The senior users 

have a continued right to the water, and a “late” user 

generally cannot diminish the quantity or quality of the 

water to the senior user. This assures that senior users 

have adequate water under almost any rainfall conditions, and that later users have some moderate assurance to the water. The last to obtain water rights may 

be limited to water only during times when it is available 

(wet season). The right is for a specific quantity of water, but the appropriator may not divert more water than 

can be used. If the appropriated water is not used, it will 

be lost. 

Generally, appropriative water rights are acquired pursuant to statutory law; thus, there are comprehensive 

water codes that govern the acquisition and control of 

the water rights. The acquisition of the water right is 

usually accompanied by an application to state officials 

responsible for water rights and granted with a permit 

or license. The appropriative rights doctrine allows for 

obtaining water by putting it to beneficial use in accordance with procedures set forth in state statutes and 

judicial decisions. 

The appropriative water rights system is generally used 

for groundwater throughout the U.S. Water percolating 

through the ground is controlled by 3 different appropriative methods: absolute ownership, reasonable use 

rule, or specific use rule. Absolute ownership occurs 

when the water located directly beneath a property belongs to the property owner to use in any amount, regardless of the effect on the water table of the adjacent 

land, as long as it is not for a malicious use. The reasonable use rule limits groundwater withdrawal to the 

quantity necessary for reasonable and beneficial use in 

connection with the land located above the water. Water cannot be wasted or exported. The specific use rule 

occurs when water use is restricted to one use. 

During times of excess water supply, storage alternatives may be considered as part of the reuse project so 

that water may be used at a later date. A determination 

of the ownership or rights to use this stored reclaimed 

water will need to be made when considering this alternative. 

5.1.2 Riparian Rights System 

The riparian water rights system is found primarily in 

the east and in water-abundant areas. The right is based 

on the proximity to water and is acquired by the purchase of the land. A riparian user is not entitled to make 

any use of the water that substantially depletes the 

stream flow or that significantly degrades the quality of 

the stream. Such riparian use can only be for a legal 

and beneficial purpose. The right of one riparian owner 

is generally correlative with the rights of the other riparian owners, with each landowner being assured some 

water when available. 

Water used under a riparian right can be used only on 

the riparian land and cannot be extended to another 

property. However, unlike the appropriative doctrine, the 

right to the unused water can be held indefinitely and 

without forfeiture. This limits the ability of the water authority to quantify the amount of water that has a hold 

against it and can lead to water being allocated in excess of that available. This doctrine does not allow for 

storage of water. 

5.1.3 Water Rights and Water Reuse 

In arid parts of the western U.S., reclaimed water often 

constitutes a more reliable supply than rights to surface 

water or groundwater granted by a water authority. This 

is particularly true when a user has low-priority rights 

that are curtailed or withdrawn in times of shortage. 

(Such subordinate rights are sometimes referred to as 

“paper water” as opposed to “wet water” which refers to 

the possession of an actual supply.) Because of the difficulty in obtaining an uninterrupted supply, reclaimed 

water has simultaneously become an attractive alternative water source and the largest block of unappropriated water in the West. Consequently, it is important 

to understand who retains control of the reclaimed water among the discharger, water supplier, other appropriators, and environmental interests. For example, in 

Washington State, the municipal corporation of the City 

of Walla Walla was taken to court by a local irrigation 

district that wanted the city to continue to discharge 

wastewater effluent into Mill Creek, a natural channel, 

for irrigation use. The court decreed on 2 occasions 

that the city must discharge all of its wastewater effluent, at all seasons of the year, into the creek (Superior 

Court of the State of Washington, 1927 and 1971). 

According to Colgne and MacLaggan (1995) the downstream water user’s right to reclaimed water depends 

on the state’s water allocation system: 

176
Some states issue permits to the owners of reclaimed water or to appropriators of it when discharged into a natural water course. These 

states granting permits to the appropriators of 

reclaimed water do so treating such discharges 

into a reclaimed watercourse as if it has been 

abandoned and thus available for appropriation. 

Other states issue appropriation permits containing a provision that clarifies that the permit 

does not, in itself, give the permittee a right 

against a party discharging water upstream who 

may cease to discharge the water to the watercourse in the future. 

In other words, state law can either promote or constrain reuse projects depending on how its system of 

water rights regards the use and return of reclaimed 

water. In general, the owner of a wastewater treatment 

plant that produces effluent is generally considered to 

have first rights to its use and is not usually bound to 

continue its discharge. However, when a discharger’s 

right to reuse is constrained, such restrictions are usually based on issues resulting from one of the following 

scenarios: 

 Reduced Discharge – Reduction or elimination of 

effluent discharge flows due to certain types of reuse (e.g. evaporative cooling, groundwater infiltration) could result in legal challenges from downstream users, especially when the reduced flow results in serious economic losses or negative impacts 

on the environment. When the use of reclaimed 

water reduces or eliminates the discharge of wastewater to the watercourse, downstream users may 

make claim damages against the owner of the reuse project. The nature of the legal challenge would 

depend on the water rights system used. These issues are less well defined for groundwater than for 

streams and rivers. 

 Changes in Point-of-Discharge or Place-of-Use – 

Occurs in states with appropriative rights where laws 

are designed to protect the origin of the water by 

limiting the place-of-use or by requiring the same 

point of discharge. In riparian states, the place-ofuse can also be an issue when reclaimed water is 

distributed to users located outside the watershed 

from which the water was originally drawn. 

 Hierarchy of Use – Generally with water reuse, the 

concepts of “reasonable use” and “beneficial use” 

should not present an obstacle, particularly if such 

reuse is economically justified. Nevertheless, a hierarchy of use still exists in both riparian and appropriative law, and in times of water shortage, it is 

possible that a more important use could make claim 

to reclaimed water that, for example, is being used 

for industrial process water. 

 Reduced Withdrawal – A water reuse program that 

reduces withdrawals from the water supply will probably pose no third-party conflict with water rights 

issues, but the impact of such reductions on projectproponent water rights should be evaluated. In some 

instances, such as when water rights or allocations 

are based on historic usage, reductions could jeopardize the amount of water a customer is entitled 

to, especially during times of drought. This has a 

negative effect on the marketing of reclaimed water. Therefore, where possible, assurances should 

be made that historic allocations will not be reduced 

to the point that the customer will suffer damage 

during periods of shortage. 

5.1.4 Federal Water Rights Issues 

Although most water rights issues are decided according to state law, in certain cases federal water laws may 

impact the planning of water reuse projects. This most 

often occurs when the project augments, reduces, or 

otherwise impacts the supply of water to more than one 

state, to protected Native American tribes, or to other 

countries. In addition to these areas of federal involvement, the federal government also has the right to adequate water from sources on or adjacent to its own 

property to meet the required needs of the land. Some 

of the water rights laws that may apply to this situation 

are listed below. 

 Multi-State and Federal Water Allocations – The federal government may claim jurisdiction in disputes 

between states regarding the allocation of limited 

water supplies. This has been particularly true in 

the West where 5 states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah) are served by the Colorado River where the flow is not always sufficient to 

supply all the nominal allocations. A federal interest may also be invoked when water owned by the 

federal government is allocated to various parties 

within the same state. In such cases, the federal 

government may serve as the “honest broker” between parties. Or, in instances were the federal interest is strong enough, the government may support the implementation of an appropriate solution 

to allocation conflicts by funding recommended improvements. In either situation, the availability of alternative water supplies (e.g. reclaimed water) may 

constitute an important factor in determining water 

rights and entitlements. (This is also discussed in 

177
5.2 

Section 5.2 “Water Supply and Use.”) 

 Native American Water Rights – Although there have 

been many court decisions relating to the water 

rights of Indian reservations and other federal lands, 

there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to how 

these decisions should be interpreted. If there is a 

possibility that a water reuse project will conflict with 

the federal reserved water rights, either from an Indian reservation or other federal reserve, a very 

careful legal interpretation of such water rights 

should be obtained. 

 International Water Rights – Another area of federal interest with respect to water rights is in the 

distribution of water supplies across state lines, or 

in international or boundary waters (e.g. the Great 

Lakes, the Tijuana River). In such situations, where 

the use of reclaimed water might reduce the access 

to water supply between states, or to another nation, federal jurisdiction may be imposed. 

 Water Rights on Federal Property – Referred to as 

federal reserved water rights, the quantity of water 

reserved by the federal government does not have 

to be established at the time of the land’s acquisition. In addition, these water rights are not lost due 

to non-use or abandonment and can be designated 

for purposes other than that which they were originally intended, as long as consumption does not 

increase. These rights may be set aside by executive order, statute, treaty, or agreement (Weinberg 

and Allan, 1990). Water may also be appropriated 

by the federal government for purposes established 

by Congress and carried out on non-reserved lands. 

Like the water rights associated with federal reserves, this right to water for non-reserved lands 

may not cause harm to other water users and the 

appropriation may not take priority over already existing appropriations. There is some question as to 

whether there is sufficient legal basis for claiming 

water under the non-reserved rights scenario. 

Water Supply and Use

Regulations 

Water supply and use legislation in the context of the 

Guidelines is distinct from water rights law in that it covers policies and regulations, which determine how an 

agency or entity with water rights may decide to distribute that supply to various parties. Over the past decade, 

it has become increasingly common for federal, state, 

and even local entities to set standards for how water 

may be used as a condition of supplying water to its 

customers, including the extent to which it must be conserved or reused. Often these standards serve to promote reuse by requiring water users to reduce their total or per capita water use as compared to an established baseline. In some cases, certain uses of potable 

water (i.e., irrigation, power plant cooling) are considered “unreasonable” and are prohibited unless other, 

nonpotable sources have been determined to be “environmentally undesirable or economically unsound” (California Water Code Section 13550). 

There are 3 main types of water supply and use rules 

discussed here: 

 Water supply reductions 

 Water efficiency goals 

 Water use restrictions 

5.2.1 Water Supply Reductions 

Water supply reductions are often imposed during periods of drought. For example, Florida has identified water conservation goals for the water management districts to implement (FDEP, 1999). To meet these goals 

and to help ensure that enough water is available to 

meet anticipated potable water demands, Florida issued 

a water shortage order in 2001 to limit the number of 

irrigation days per week. Where water shortages are 

common, cutbacks may be imposed by statute, or they 

may be written into water allocation agreements between 

the various parties, (e.g., Colorado River Agreement, 

Monterey Agreement). During such times, appropriate 

water rights may be invoked so that the senior rightsholders receive their full allocations, or have their allocations reduced less than those with more junior rights. 

Whatever the cause, water shortages often provide a 

powerful incentive to implement water reuse projects to 

augment supplies, especially where reductions are frequent and other less costly methods (e.g., water conservation) have already been implemented. 

When the supply is curtailed by the federal or state government, local water agencies may adopt tiered rates, 

priority categories, and other pricing and allocation strategies to minimize the impact of drought on customers 

by making sure that water is available for firefighting, 

public health, and other critical purposes. One side effect of such restrictions is an increased public awareness of the cost associated with water supply—costs 

that water reuse projects can help to avoid. The frequency of restrictions can also help planners evaluate 

the risk of such shortages, which in turn can increase 

the calculated value of the reuse projects. 

178
5.2.2 Water Efficiency Goals 

Water efficiency goals can be either mandatory or voluntary. When voluntary goals (or targets) are promulgated, public support for conservation and reuse are 

usually stimulated by advertising or outreach campaigns 

designed to underscore the importance of protecting limited supplies. When mandatory goals are set, however, 

compliance is related to fees and availability of service. 

On a local level, the consequences for failing to meet 

mandatory goals can range from higher use fees (e.g. 

tiered water rates, surcharges) to termination of service. 

Where water efficiency is required on a state level, incentives are frequently used to encourage compliance, 

and meeting certain targets is a prerequisite for qualifying for grants or loans or even for receiving a greater 

percent of an agency’s normal allocation. 

When water reuse projects are planned in areas where 

voluntary or mandatory goals are in place, project managers should be sure that the proposed reuse types 

qualify as water efficiency measures so that reclaimed 

water customers can take advantage of the resulting 

benefits. 

5.2.3 Water Use Restrictions 

Water use restrictions may either prohibit the use of 

potable water for certain purposes, or require the use of 

reclaimed water in place of potable water. Ordinances 

requiring water reuse, however, generally allow otherwise prohibited and “unreasonable” uses of potable 

water to occur when reclaimed water is unavailable, is 

unsuitable for the specific use, is uneconomical, or when 

its use would have a negative impact on the environment. 

On a federal level, there have been discussions in recent years on encouraging the passage of federal water use restrictions as part of a “green building” regulation, such that all federally-sponsored projects must 

evaluate the use of reclaimed water during the planning process. However, no such rules have yet been 

proposed. On a state level, water use restrictions are 

important because they give local jurisdictions a legal 

foundation for regulating local use. They may also be 

effective in promoting water reuse, particularly when 

such rules also require state agencies to evaluate alternative supplies for all state-funded projects. 

Local water use restrictions can help to encourage reuse when the practice is generally accepted and readily 

available at a cost below other supplies. However, an 

important consideration in evaluating the implementation of such restrictions is deciding what type of penalties or consequences result from non-compliance. In 

the case of local water restrictions, it may not be necessary to test the enforceability of the statutes, since the 

potential consequences of non-compliance may be sufficient to persuade most customers to use reclaimed 

water for appropriate purposes. Otherwise, penalties 

should be specified at a level adequate to deter violation. Such penalties may include disconnection of service and a fee for reconnection with fines and jail time 

for major infractions (e.g., Mesa, Arizona and Brevard 

County, Florida). However, other regulations designed 

to protect water customers from termination may mitigate or even neutralize that particular penalty option. 

Where local ordinances require the use of reclaimed 

water, they may also include a variety of other requirements regulating its supply and use, including rules for 

customer connection, inspection, and facility management. Many cities require customers within a given distance of existing or proposed reclaimed water pipes to 

connect to the reclaimed water system. This may be 

coupled with restrictions on the use of potable water for 

nonpotable purposes, such as irrigation. Some cities 

have gone as far as to prohibit the use of other 

nonpotable water (i.e. groundwater or surface water) 

where reclaimed water is available. These rules are examined more closely in a later section, 5.5.3 Customer 

Agreements. 

5.3 Wastewater Regulations 

Both federal and state agencies exercise jurisdiction 

over the quality and quantity of wastewater discharge 

into public waterways. The primary authority for the regulation of wastewater is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) (Public Law 92-500). While the legislative origin 

of the CWA stretches back to the Rivers and Harbors 

Act of 1899, the 1972 CWA assigned the federal government specific responsibilities for water quality management designed to make all surface waters “fishable 

and swimmable” (Cologne and MacLaggan, 1995). The 

CWA requires states to set water quality standards, thus 

establishing the right to control pollution from wastewater treatment plants, as long as such regulations are at 

least as stringent as federal rules. Primary jurisdiction 

under the CWA is with the EPA, but in most states the 

CWA is administered and enforced by the state water 

pollution control agencies. 

Wastewater discharge regulations mostly address 

treated effluent quality—specifically the removal of 

chemical pollutants and biological pathogens that could 

have a deleterious effect on receiving waters. Even in 

regions of the U.S. where rainfall is plentiful (i.e., Florida), 

179
regulations that establish criteria for discharged wastewater water quality can provide a powerful incentive to 

reuse treated effluent. Although less common, discharge 

permits may also restrict the quantity of effluent discharged to a receiving body to limit its effect on the local ecosystem. Such regulations may be continuous or 

seasonal, and may or may not correspond to a period 

when reclaimed water is in demand. As with water quality 

limits, it is important for those planning reuse projects 

to meet with treatment plant managers to understand 

the extent of discharge limitations and how they may be 

alleviated by supplying treated effluent for reuse. 

5.3.1 Effluent Quality Limits 

The CWA regulates discharge of pollutants into navigable waters through permits issued pursuant to the 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES). Under the CWA, the term “navigable waters” 

means waters of the U.S. The federal courts follow the 

Tenth Circuit Court’s conclusion that this definition is an 

expression of congressional intent “to regulate discharges made into every creek, stream, river or body of 

water that in any way may affect interstate commerce” 

(United States vs. Earth Sciences Inc., 1979). 

The goal of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical and biologic integrity of the nation’s 

waters.” The CWA sets forth specific goals to conserve 

water and reduce pollutant discharges and directs the 

EPA Administrator to assist with the development and 

implementation of water reclamation plans, which will 

achieve those goals. Major objectives of the CWA are 

to eliminate all pollutant discharges into navigable waters, stop discharges of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts, 

develop waste treatment management plans to control 

sources of pollutants, and to encourage water reclamation and reuse. Pursuant to this goal, the EPA has evaluated major waterways in the U.S. to determine which 

ones fail to meet federal water quality standards. 

Waterbodies listed as “impaired” according to Section 

303(d) of the CWA are protected by strict limits on the 

discharge of the specific pollutants of concern that could 

further degrade their water quality. 

In addition to limits on the concentration of specific contaminants, discharge regulations may also include limits on the total mass of a pollutant discharged to the 

receiving stream – known as total maximum daily load 

(TMDL) limits – and on the quality of the water in the 

receiving stream itself (e.g. minimum dissolved oxygen 

limits). These regulations are usually the result of extended negotiations between federal, state, and local 

agencies. 

Wastewater discharge regulations are important to water reuse managers for a number of reasons. First, reuse projects can be implemented as an alternative to 

high levels of treatment when discharge regulations require advanced treatment methods, such as nutrient removal. Second, the level of treatment required by the 

NPDES permit may be adequate to meet most health 

regulations, reducing the investment needed to meet 

reuse standards. By the same token, the level of reliability required by NPDES standards may be less rigorous than what paying customers expect, so that supplementary treatment systems are needed to ensure continuous production. These issues should be thoroughly 

explored by those planning water reuse projects prior 

to project design and implementation. 

5.3.2 Effluent Flow Limits 

Although less common than water quality regulations, 

the quantity of treatment plant effluent discharged to a 

receiving body may also be limited by regulation, such 

as the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Such regulations may be continuous or seasonal, and may or may 

not correspond to periods associated with reclaimed 

water demand as required by the NPDES permit. For 

instance, state regulators in California required the San 

Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (serving the Silicon Valley area of northern California) to reuse treated effluent as an alternative to limiting discharge 

into the south end of San Francisco Bay during the summer dry-weather period (May through October). In this 

instance the limitation was due not to contaminants, but 

to the fact that the point of discharge was a saltwater 

marsh which was made brackish by the discharge of 

relatively fresh treated effluent. The salt marsh in question is home to 2 endangered species (Rosenblum, 

1998). Further discussion of the Endangered Species 

Act is in Section 5.4.2. 

Effluent quantity may also be limited due to the demand 

for the reclaimed water by communities in the area. In a 

1984 decision by the California State Water Resources 

Control Board, the Fallbrook Sanitary District (a wastewater discharger near San Diego) was enjoined to show 

cause why their treated effluent was discharged to the 

Pacific Ocean rather than made available for reuse by 

the local community. As discussed in the citation above, 

the foundation of this ruling (which has not been tested 

by the courts) lies with that state’s prohibition against 

wasting water and the “unreasonable” use of potable 

water when reclaimed water is available. This case also 

illustrates a trend towards viewing water of any quality 

suitable for some type of reuse, such that its discharge 

may be limited for the sake of preserving a scarce public resource. 

180
5.4 Safe Drinking Water Act – 

Source Water Protection 

In 1996, the 104th Congress reauthorized and amended 

Title XIV of the Public Health Services Act (commonly 

known as the Safe Drinking Water Act). One of the 

amendments included was Section 132, Source Water 

Assessment, which requires that the EPA administrator 

publish guidance for states exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems to carry out 

directly or through delegation, (for the protection and 

benefit of public water systems and for the support of 

monitoring flexibility), a source water assessment program within the state’s boundaries. The program requirements include: (a) delineating the boundaries of the assessment areas in such state from which one or more 

public water systems in the state receive supplies of 

drinking water, using all reasonably available 

hydrogeologic information on the sources of the supply 

and the water flow, recharge, discharge, and any other 

reliable information deemed necessary to adequately 

determine such areas; and (b) identifying contaminants 

regulated under this title for which monitoring is required 

under this title or any unregulated contaminants which 

the state has determined may present a threat to public 

health. To the extent practical, the origins of such contaminants within each delineated area should be determined so that the susceptibility of the public water systems to such contaminants can be decided. 

A state may establish a petition program under which a 

community water system, municipal or local government, 

or political subdivision of a state may submit a source 

water quality protection partnership petition requesting 

state assistance in the development of a voluntary, incentive-based partnership to reduce the presence of 

drinking water contaminants, and to obtain financial or 

technical assistance necessary to set up the source 

water of a community water system. A petition may only 

address contaminants that are pathogenic organisms 

for which regulations are established, or for which regulations have been proposed or promulgated and are 

detected by adequate monitoring methods in the source 

water at the intake structure or in any community water 

system collection, treatment storage, or distribution facilities at levels above the maximum contaminant level 

(MCL), or that are not reliable and consistently below 

the MCL. 

5.5 Land Use and Environmental 

Regulations 

Land use policies regulate the development and use of 

property which might be served by reclaimed water systems. Unlike water and wastewater laws that are promulgated and enforced by federal and state governments, most land use regulations are developed and 

enforced by local jurisdictions. But while they are generally considered to be local matters, land use decisions 

are always made in the context of federal environmental laws and state planning regulations that also influence their determination. The following section reviews 

the key elements of local land use planning, as well as 

the underlying environmental regulations and their effect on planning reclaimed water projects. 

5.5.1 General and Specific Plans 

Most communities in the U.S. engage in some type of 

structured planning process whereby the local jurisdiction regulates development according to a general plan. 

A general plan is designed to serve as “a basis for rational decisions regarding a city’s or county’s long-term 

physical development [and] embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land uses, both public 

and private” (State of California, 1998 and State of 

Florida, 2002). General plans can be adopted by ordinance and are sometimes reinforced with zoning regulations and similar restrictions. In some states, communities are legally required to adopt these general plans, 

and projects that significantly deviate from them must 

be rejected, modified, or permitted by variance. 

The cost of extending utilities into undeveloped areas 

is an important criterion when deciding where to permit 

development in a community, as is the availability of 

resources. Even after a general plan is adopted and an 

area is planned for a particular type of development, 

developers may be required to prepare specific plans 

that demonstrate sufficient water supply or wastewater 

treatment capacity to meet the needs of their developments. Several western states have also adopted laws 

that require communities to adopt water management 

plans and identify additional supplies to support new 

developments. Such rules actually encourage the implementation of reuse projects that reduce the use of limited resources. In chronically water-short or environmentally sensitive areas, use of reclaimed water may even 

be a prerequisite for new developments. 

However, the local planning process can also pose a 

challenge to reuse projects by subjecting them to the 

scrutiny of a public that may have many misconceptions about reclaimed water. Federal and state environmental assessment regulations (which are often included in the local planning process) require public notice of published plans and advertised hearings to solicit opinion from all parties potentially affected by the 

proposed project. It is not unusual at such hearings to 

hear opposition to the use of reclaimed water for rea181
sons ranging from health effects to growth inducement 

to environmental justice. These concerns often mask 

underlying worries about growth or political issues that 

may be hard to deal with directly. However, unless the 

specific concerns are thoroughly addressed in the planning process, it is unlikely that the project will proceed 

to the point that the underlying issues can emerge to be 

dealt with. Furthermore, failure of a reuse project to conform to general plan guidelines and local requirements 

will render the project vulnerable to challenge in the 

courts or to appeal before the regulatory bodies even 

after the project is approved. 

5.5.2 Environmental Regulations 

A number of state and federal environmental regulations promote the use of reclaimed water by limiting the 

amount of water available to communities or restricting 

the discharge of wastewater into receiving streams. The 

ESA in particular has been applied to require water users to maintain minimum flows in western rivers to protect the habitat of various species of fish whose survival 

is threatened by increases in water temperature and 

restricted access to breeding grounds. Similarly, as 

noted previously, the provisions of the CWA can impose limits on both the quality and quantity of treated 

effluent an agency is allowed to discharge. A community with limited water supply or wastewater treatment 

capabilities has a real incentive to build a reclaimed 

water project that augments existing sources and reduces discharge. 

Broader in scope, the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires an assessment of environmental impacts for all projects receiving federal funds, and then 

the mitigation of all significant impacts. Many states also 

have equivalent rules that mandate environmental assessment and mitigation planning for all projects prior 

to construction. Combined with other laws that protect 

biological, scenic, and cultural resources, these laws 

can result in a de facto moratorium on the construction 

of large-scale water diversions (by dams) that flood the 

habitat of protected species or inundate pristine canyons or areas of historical significance. 

Even where such projects are allowed to go forward, 

they may be less cost-effective than water reuse projects 

that provide a comparable supply with fewer and less 

expensive mitigations. Both federal and state environmental assessment regulations generally require an economic analysis of alternatives, including the “no project” 

alternative in which nothing is built. A number of guidance documents are available suggesting approaches 

to evaluating both the costs and benefits of water 

projects, including water reuse alternatives. It is particularly important when evaluating the economics of 

reuse projects to consider how reclaimed water serves 

to augment water supply and divert wastewater from 

impacted waters, and to include both direct and indirect 

benefits. The evaluation should include the consideration of preserving a habitat that might be depleted by 

importing surface water supplies or the avoided cost of 

mitigating such an impact. A steady stream of research 

has appeared in the literature during the past decade 

suggesting appropriate methods of contingent valuation for environmental benefits (Sheikh et al., 1998). 

On the other hand, environmental assessment regulations also require the careful assessment of any negative impacts of reclaimed water projects. Examples of 

common environmental impacts include the visual impact of tanks and reservoirs and the disturbance of underground cultural resources and hazardous materials 

by underground pipelines. Less common, but equally 

significant, projects that provide reclaimed water for irrigation over unconfined aquifers are sometimes required to demonstrate that use of nonpotable water will 

not contribute to the degradation of underlying groundwater. In such cases, mitigation may include a monitoring program or even additional treatment to match 

groundwater quality. Rules to protect aquifers from infiltration by reclaimed water may also be adopted. 

The manager of a reclaimed water project must be familiar with not only the federal and state regulations 

guiding the environmental assessment process, but also 

their interpretation by the local jurisdiction. For example, 

the federal NEPA process requires a public scoping, 

dissemination of a Notice of Intent, and at least one 

public meeting preceding the solicitation and consideration of public comments on project impacts and their 

mitigation. By contrast, the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) mandates specific periods during 

which project information must be published and encourages—but does not require—formal hearings during project review. However, many lead agencies do 

conduct public hearings on environmental assessment 

reports, either independently or in the course of their 

own public planning process (California Department of 

Water Resources, 2002 and State of Florida, 2002). 

Public review requirements have a significant effect on 

project schedules. In addition to the time required to 

assemble site information and assess the potential impacts of the project, there are mandatory public review 

periods that range from 1 to 6 months depending on 

the nature of the impact and the type of permit required. 

A comprehensive implementation schedule should be 

182
developed and periodically revised, including lengthy 

review procedures, the timing of any public hearings 

that must be held, and the time needed to enact any 

required legislation. It is especially important to identify 

any permit review procedures and whether they can 

occur concurrently or must occur consecutively, and in 

what order. 

5.5.2.1 Special Environmental Topics 

In addition to the assessment of environmental impacts 

commonly encountered by construction of all types of 

water projects, there are some topics of special concern for the evaluation of reuse projects that reflect the 

safety of reclaimed water use, including growth inducement, environmental justice, and detection of emerging 

pathogens. Because the project proponent or lead 

agency must, by law, address all material questions 

raised during the assessment process, these topics 

should be considered at some point during project planning—if only to note that they do not apply. 

One environmental impact associated with reclaimed 

water projects is the potential for growth inducement. 

Indeed, where communities are constrained by a limited water supply, the availability of a reliable source of 

reclaimed water can allow more growth than might otherwise occur. However, there are many other factors 

that contribute to the increase in population in an area, 

and substitution of nonpotable for potable water may 

only reduce the negative impact a community’s existing 

water use has on the neighboring environment. In any 

case, the question of growth inducement must be addressed in evaluating the overall impact of reclaimed 

water projects. 

The question of environmental justice may come up 

during the permitting of water reuse projects. The term 

“environmental justice” refers to the historic pattern of 

siting undesirable environmental facilities (e.g. wastewater treatment plants, landfills and transfer stations, 

solid waste incinerators) in or adjacent to economically 

depressed neighborhoods, whose populations may have 

a proportionally large percentage of people of color or 

ethnic minorities. An environmental justice policy attempts to ensure that all such facilities are distributed 

equally throughout the community, so that no one segment bears a disproportionate share of the impact. This 

policy is reinforced by a number of federal rules pertaining to environmental review of federally-funded 

projects, the ultimate source of which is the constitutional right to equal protection under the law. While it is 

reasonable to argue that reclaimed water distribution 

facilities should not be grouped with other more noxious facilities, and that the use of reclaimed water represents a clear benefit to the neighborhoods where it is 

available, the population at large does not always share 

this view. The project manager of a water reuse program should discuss project plans with representatives 

from all affected communities to gauge their sensitivity 

to this issue, and provide additional information about 

reclaimed water to help alleviate neighborhood concerns. 

5.6 Legal Issues in Implementation 

Just as there are many laws and policies that influence 

the planning and overall design of water reuse projects, 

their detailed design, construction, and implementation 

is also governed by a number of rules and regulations. 

For example, state health departments may require minimum setback distances between potable and 

nonpotable pipelines (addressed in Chapter 4), while 

dual distribution facilities at the customer’s site may have 

to be constructed to meet Uniform Plumbing Code standards. Similarly, a value engineering study of the system design may need to be performed in order for the 

project to qualify for state or federal funding, which may 

add to the time required for project review and impact 

the ultimate construction schedule. 

Following construction, various parties need to coordinate their efforts to produce, distribute, deliver, and pay 

for reclaimed water. Each of these parties must be organized to comply with their contractual obligation, with 

appropriate legal agreements between the parties to 

clearly spell out and enforce responsibilities. Indeed, 

there are a range of legal agreements that may be necessary in order for reclaimed water to be delivered to 

the end customer for reuse. 

The following section examines laws and regulations 

pertaining to project construction (both system wide 

and on-site), agreements between water wholesalers 

and retailers, and customer agreements to ensure 

payment and proper handling of reclaimed water by the 

end user. 

5.6.1 Construction Issues 

In general, there are 2 types of regulations associated 

with construction of reuse projects: 

1) Rules governing system construction, including 

large-diameter mains, pump stations, reservoirs, 

and other appurtenances required to deliver reclaimed water to groups of customers 

2) Rules for on-site construction, specifically separation of existing pipelines into potable and 

183
nonpotable systems, or the installation of new reclaimed water pipelines separate from the potable 

system 

As noted in Chapter 4, state health departments often 

promulgate regulations for both system and on-site construction, but these rules may be administered by county 

or even local health departments. State agencies may 

also take the lead in ensuring that project designs meet 

the requirements for grant funding, but their rules are 

frequently adopted from existing federal grant or loan 

programs. Local agencies may adopt their own special 

rules incorporating state regulations with additional requirements specific to local jurisdictions. 

5.6.1.1 System Construction Issues 

Chapter 4 includes a detailed analysis of water reuse 

regulations and design guidelines in various states. 

These issues are included here only to provide a comprehensive picture of the overall legal context in which 

reuse projects are developed and built. 

Regulations impacting system construction include both 

rules governing utility construction in general and rules 

specifically aimed at water reuse projects. Regulations 

governing general utility construction include requirements to observe and maintain proper easements for 

pipelines and facilities, local codes with respect to acceptable building materials and construction practices, 

as well as all applicable contract and labor laws (which 

is beyond the scope of this chapter). Prior to and during 

design of any system construction project, the project 

manager should become familiar with state and local 

construction regulations and obtain all necessary permits from local agencies, utilities, and other parties so 

as not to delay project construction. 

In addition to these general rules, many states have 

rules specifically pertaining to the construction of reclaimed water systems. These regulations frequently 

designate physical separation distances between reclaimed water and potable and wastewater lines, as well 

as details for pipeline crossings (e.g., nonpotable below potable). Where it is not practical to maintain minimum distances, some states allow construction of 

nonpotable pipelines adjacent to potable lines provided 

that they are cased in suitable materials. 

From a legal perspective, federal and state grant and 

loan programs are established by statute and often establish construction-related rules that projects must meet 

to qualify for funding. Typically these include: 

 Formal review of all designs to ensure that they 

meet professional standards and present the 

most “cost-effective” solutions to engineering problems. This review often includes value engineering 

of the project by professionals who were not involved 

in the original design. 

 Institution of a revenue program identifying additional sources of funds to pay for the initial construction. This is especially true when grant funds are 

provided for construction on a reimbursement basis, to ensure that the project sponsor will be able 

to afford the project without the support of grant 

funds. 

 Identification of customers, with some evidence that 

they will individually and collectively use a specific 

quantity of reclaimed water once it is supplied. 

Early in the process, agencies that accept grants or loans 

should be aware of the requirements of their particular 

programs with respect to project design and funding. 

5.6.1.2 On-site Construction Issues 

Like system construction regulations, standards for constructing distribution pipelines on a customer’s site (e.g. 

irrigation systems) are usually a combination of state 

regulations and local ordinances specifically regarding 

the use of reclaimed water. State regulations generally 

focus on requirements to prevent accidental or intentional cross-connection of potable and nonpotable systems by separating the pipelines, requiring clear identification of nonpotable facilities, and installing backflow 

prevention devices, where appropriate. Local agencies 

may adopt individual regulations by ordinance, or they 

may adopt general regulations like the Uniform Plumbing Code, whose Appendix J includes special rules for 

installing reclaimed water lines inside buildings where 

potable water is also served. Once again, the manager 

of a reuse project should become familiar with all pertinent regulations during the design phase to ensure that 

the system meets state and local codes. See Chapter 4 

for a detailed discussion of regulations that have been 

adopted in various jurisdictions throughout the U.S. 

Once on-site facilities have been constructed, state and 

local regulations often require that cross-connection 

tests be performed to ensure complete separation between potable and nonpotable systems. Depending on 

the quality of the water provided and the type of use, 

agencies may also restrict the times of use and require 

periodic inspection and reporting on system operation, 

even after the on-site system has been installed and 

184
approved. This topic is addressed more closely in Section 5.5.3 Customer Agreements. 

5.6.2 Wholesaler/Retailer Issues 

One of the first steps in implementing a water reuse 

program is the identification of roles and responsibilities for the production and wholesale and retail distribution of reclaimed water. Many different types of institutional structures can be utilized for implementing a water reuse project and responsibility for reclaimed water 

production and wholesale and retail distribution can be 

assigned to different groups depending on their historical roles and technical and managerial expertise (Table 

5-1). 

The various departments and agencies within a government may come into conflict over the proposed reuse system unless steps are taken early in the planning 

stages to find out who will be involved and to what level. 

Close internal coordination between departments and 

branches of local government will be required to ensure a successful reuse program. Obtaining the support of other departments will help to minimize delays 

caused by interdepartmental conflicts. 

A good example of integrated authority is the Irvine 

Ranch Water District in California, an independent, selffinancing entity responsible for all phases of reclaimed 

water production and distribution. Under its original enabling legislation, the district was strictly a water supply 

entity; but in 1965, state law was amended to assign it 

sanitation responsibilities within its service area. This 

put the district is in a good position to deal directly, as 

one entity, with conventional potable water and 

nonpotable water services. Such a position contrasts 

markedly with other institutional arrangements in the Los 

Angeles area, where agency relationships are often 

more complex. For instance, the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant is operated by the Sanitation Districts of 

Table 5-1. Some Common Institutional 

Patterns 

Los Angeles County, which sells reclaimed water to several purveyors, including the municipal Pomona Water 

Department, who then redistributes it to a number of 

users. 

5.6.2.1 Institutional Criteria 

In evaluating alternative institutional arrangements, responsible managers should determine the best municipal organizations or departments to operate a reclamation and reuse program. For example, even if the municipal wastewater treatment service is permitted by law 

to distribute reclaimed water, it might make more sense 

to organize a reuse system under the water supply 

agency or under a regional authority (assuming that such 

an authority can be established under the law). 

Among the criteria that should be considered in developing a viable arrangement is the ability of the proposed 

entity to finance the project and enter into the following 

types of agreements: 

 Financing Power – The agency responsible for financing the project should be able to assume 

bonded indebtedness, if such financing is likely, a 

determination should be made as to what kind of 

debt could be assumed, how much, and how debt 

must be retired. In addition, the evaluation should 

include the method for recovering the costs of operating the water reclamation facility and any restrictions placed on them by virtue of the institutional 

structure, including kinds of accounting practices to 

be imposed upon the entity. 

 Contracting Power – Any constraints on how and 

with whom services can be contracted should be 

identified, as well as the method of approving such 

agreements. For example, if contracts are required 

with other municipalities, they may have limitations 

on the nature of the corporate structure or legal auType of Institutional Arrangement Production W holesale 

Distribution Retail Distribution 

Separate Authorities Wastewater 

Treatment Agency 

Wholesale Water 

Agency Retail Water Company 

Wholesaler/Retailer System Wastewater 

Treatment Agency 

Wastewater 

Treatment Agency Retail Water Company 

Joint Powers Authority (for Production and Distribution 

only) 

Joint Powers 

Authority 

Joint Powers 

Authority Retail Water Company 

Integrated Production and Distribution Water/Wastewater 

Authority 

Water/Wastewater 

Authority 

Water/Wastewater 

Authority 

185
thorization of entities with whom they enter into 

agreement. 

5.6.2.2 Institutional Inventory and Assessment 

It is necessary to develop a thorough understanding of 

which organizations and institutions are concerned with 

which aspects of a proposed reuse system. This understanding should include an inventory of required permits and agency review requirements prior to construction and operation of the reuse system, economic arrangements, subsidies, groundwater and surface water 

management policies, and administrative guidelines and 

issues. The following institutions should be involved or 

at a minimum, contacted: federal and state/regulatory 

agencies, administrative and operating organizations, 

and general units of government. 

On occasion there is an overlap of agency jurisdiction. 

For example, it is possible for one agency to control the 

water in the upper reaches of a stream and a separate 

agency to control the water in the lower reaches. Unless these agencies can work together, there may be 

little hope of a successful project. 

One of the best ways to gain the support of other agencies is to make sure that they are involved from the beginning of the project and are kept informed as the 

project progresses. Any potential conflicts between 

these agencies should be identified as soon as possible. Clarification on which direction the lead agency 

should follow will need to be determined. By doing this 

in the planning stages of the reuse project, delays in 

implementation may be avoided. 

5.6.3 Customer Issues 

Finally, a key link in the chain of institutional arrangements required to implement water reclamation projects 

is the relationship between the water purveyor and the 

water customer. Again, there are 2 dimensions to this 

arrangement: 

1) The legal requirements established by state and 

local jurisdictions defining the general responsibilities of the 2 parties to protect the public 

2) The specific items of agreement between the parties, including commercial arrangements and operational responsibilities 

The legal requirements are usually stipulated in state 

laws, agency guidelines, and local ordinances designed 

to ensure that reclaimed water is used safely and with 

appropriate regard for public health. In fact, the agency 

responsible for reclaimed water distribution should consider adopting an ordinance requiring customers to meet 

these standards of performance as a condition of receiving reclaimed water. Or, if that is not appropriate, 

the agency should encourage the jurisdictions where 

the customers are located to pass such ordinances. In 

some cases, the requirements for customer performance 

have been delegated by the state to the reclaimed water purveyor, who in turn is empowered to delegate them 

to their customers. For instance, where reclaimed water is still statutorily considered effluent, the agency’s 

permit to discharge wastewater may be delegated by 

the agency to customers whose reuse sites are legally 

considered to be distributed outfalls of the reclaimed 

water, with concomitant responsibilities. 

The second group of agreements, those agreements 

made between parties, are more variable and reflect 

the specific circumstances of the individual projects and 

the customers they serve. These include rates and 

charges, fees, rebates, terms of service, and other special conditions of use between reclaimed water suppliers and customers. 

Not all reclaimed water systems require development 

of a reclaimed water ordinance. This is particularly true 

where there are a limited number of users. For example, 

it is not uncommon for a reclaimed water supplier providing service to a small number of large users, such as 

agriculture or industrial customers, to forego development of a reuse ordinance and rely instead on user 

agreements. In other instances, such as water intensive activities, a single user may well encumber all of 

the water available from a given reclaimed water source. 

Where such conditions exist, it is often more appropriate to deal with the customer through the negotiation of 

a reclaimed water user agreement. However, all of the 

customer issues discussed should still be addressed in 

developing customer agreements. 

5.6.3.1 Statutory Customer Responsibilities 

Protective measures are required to avoid cross-connection of reclaimed water lines with potable water lines. 

In the event that these responsibilities are codified in a 

local ordinance, the ordinance and its provisions should 

be clearly spelled out in the customer agreement. (Local ordinances may, in turn, reference state regulations 

on this subject, in which case they should provide specific citations, in addition to general references, for the 

sake of clarity.) 

As noted in Chapter 4, required protections may include 

the mandatory backflow preventers, use of color-coded 

186
pipes for the reclaimed and potable water, and periodic 

inspection of the system. Inspection is recommended 

to determine if there are any illegal connections, violations of ordinances, or cross-connections. It is important that the ordinance or agreement state which party 

is responsible for inspection, under what conditions and 

with what frequency inspection may be required, as well 

as the consequences if users refuse to perform or allow 

inspection (i.e., disconnection of service). 

A customer agreement (or the corresponding local ordinance) might also specify the type of irrigation system required in order to receive reclaimed water. This 

could include the requirements for system design (e.g., 

a permanent below-ground system) or construction details (e.g., specific pipe materials or appurtenances like 

quick disconnect fittings on hose bibs used for hand 

watering). The requirements for an irrigation system 

timer may also be included. 

The customer agreement may also include details on 

financing on-site construction to separate potable and 

nonpotable piping systems. It is not uncommon for local agencies to fund all or part of the cost of retrofitting 

a customer’s existing system in order to defray the overall cost of reclaimed water use. In such instances, the 

agency may provide grant funds to the customer to cover 

the cost of construction or may even construct the facilities at the agency’s expense after obtaining a rightof-entry from the customer. In other cases, the cost of 

the construction may be covered by reductions in the 

normal rates over a period of time. 

Although not included in a customer agreement, a local 

ordinance might also define when property owners will 

be required to connect to the reuse system. Examples 

include the requirement for turf grass facilities (e.g., 

parks, golf courses, cemeteries, schools) to connect 

when the system becomes available, requirements for 

new developments to connect prior to being inhabited, 

and requirements for all properties to connect as the 

reuse system becomes available. These agreements 

might also specify what equipment is available to the 

customer and how it can be used. For example, Florida 

allows hose bibs on the reclaimed water system but they 

must be placed in below-ground, locking boxes. 

Local ordinances may also contain requirements for public education about the reuse project, including information on the hazards of reclaimed water, the requirements for service, the accepted uses, and the penalties 

for violation. In Cocoa Beach, Florida, reclaimed water 

applicants must be provided an informative brochure to 

explain public safety and reuse in accordance with the 

City’s ordinance. A detailed discussion of public information programs is provided in Chapter 7. 

5.6.3.2 Terms of Service and Commercial 

Arrangements 

Any reclaimed water connection fees and rates associated with service should be addressed in an appropriate rate ordinance passed by the local jurisdiction. Reclaimed water rate ordinances should be separate from 

those regulations that control reclaimed water use, and 

may include an “escalator clause” or other means of 

providing for regular increases proportional to the cost 

of potable water in the local area. (See Chapter 6 for a 

discussion of the development of the financial aspects 

of water reuse fees and rates). 

In addition to these considerations, it is often helpful to 

establish various other terms of service that are particular to the water reuse program and its customers. 

For example, the customer agreement may specify a 

certain level of reliability that may or may not be comparable to that of the potable system. When reclaimed 

water is used for an essential service, such as fire protection, a high degree of system reliability must be provided. However, if reclaimed water use is limited to irrigation, periodic shortages or service interruption may 

be tolerable. The reclaimed water supplier may also wish 

to retain the right to impose water use scheduling as a 

means of managing shortages or controlling peak system demands. 

5.7 Case Studies 

5.7.1 Statutory Mandate to Utilize

Reclaimed Water: 

California 

Underscoring the fact that potable water resources are 

strained and in many cases reclaimed water represents 

the next best supply, some states have integrated reclaimed water into the codes and policies that govern 

water resources in general. An example of such a case 

from California is Article 7, Water Reuse from the California Code of Regulations, Section 13550, Legislative 

Findings and Declarations; Use of Potable Water for 

Nonpotable Uses Prohibited. 

a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the 

use of potable domestic water for nonpotable uses, 

including, but not limited to, cemeteries, golf 

courses, parks, highway landscaped areas, and 

industrial and irrigation uses, is a waste or an unreasonable use of the water within the meaning of 

Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution 

187
if reclaimed water is available which meets all of 

the following conditions, as determined by the state 

board, after notice to any person or entity who may 

be ordered to use reclaimed water or to cease using 

potable water and a hearing held pursuant to Article 2 

(commencing with Section 648) of Chapter 1.5 of Division 3 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations: 

(1) The source of reclaimed water is of 

adequate quality for these uses and is available for these uses. In determining adequate quality, the state board shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not 

limited to, food and employee safety, and 

level and types of specific constituents in 

the reclaimed water affecting these uses, 

on a user-by-user basis. In addition, the 

state board shall consider the effect of the 

use of reclaimed water in lieu of potable 

water on the generation of hazardous waste 

and on the quality of wastewater discharges 

subject to regional, state, or federal permits. 

(2) The reclaimed water may be furnished for 

these uses at a reasonable cost to the user. 

In determining reasonable cost, the state 

board shall consider all relevant factors, 

including, but not limited to, the present and 

projected costs of supplying, delivering, and 

treating potable domestic water for these 

uses and the present and projected costs 

of supplying and delivering reclaimed water for these uses, and shall find that the 

cost of supplying the treated reclaimed water is comparable to, or less than, the cost 

of supplying potable domestic water. 

(3) After concurrence with the State Department of Health Services, the use of reclaimed water from the proposed source will 

not be detrimental to public health. 

(4) The use of reclaimed water for these uses 

will not adversely affect downstream water 

rights, will not degrade water quality, and is 

determined not to be injurious to plant life, 

fish, and wildlife. 

b) In making the determination pursuant to subdivision 

(a), the state board shall consider the impact of the 

cost and quality of the nonpotable water on each individual user. 

c) The state board may require a public agency or person subject to this article to furnish information, which 

the state board determines to be relevant to making 

the determination required in subdivision (a). 

HISTORY: Added by Stats.1977, c. 1032, p. 3090, 

Section 1, eff. Sept. 23, 1977. Amended by 

Stats.1978, c. 380, p. 1205, Section 148; 

Stats.1978, c. 894, p. 2821, Section 1, eff. Sept. 

20, 1978; Stats.1991, c. 553 (A.B.174), Section 1. 

5.7.2 Administrative Order to Evaluate 

Feasibility of Water Reclamation: 

Fallbrook Sanitary District, Fallbrook, 

California 

In 1984 the California State Water Resources Control 

Board considered a complaint filed by the Sierra Club 

to enjoin an unreasonable use of water by a wastewater discharger (California State Water Resources Control Board Order 84-7). At issue was a permit issued by 

the Board authorizing the Fallbrook Sanitary District to 

discharge up to 1.6 mgd (6000 m3/d) of treated wastewater to the ocean. The Sierra Club alleged that under 

the circumstances, the discharge of the district’s wastewater to the ocean, where it cannot be recovered for 

beneficial use, constitutes a waste of water. 

Before a wastewater discharger can be required to reclaim water, a determination must be made whether the 

particular discharge constitutes a waste or unreasonable use of water. Water Code Section 13550, with its 

focus on prohibiting the use of potable water for 

nonpotable applications, provided no guidance to the 

State Board in this instance. Thus, in making its determination, the State Board sought guidance from the 

state’s constitutional prohibitions on waste and related 

case law. 

In keeping with the case law, which indicates that a reasonable use of water today may be a waste of water at 

some time in the future, the State Board ordered the 

district, and all future applicants proposing a discharge 

of once-used water into the ocean, to evaluate the feasibility of reclaiming its wastewater. The State Board 

insisted that water reclamation be carefully analyzed 

as an alternative, or partial alternative, to the discharge 

of once-used wastewater to the ocean in all water-short 

areas of the state. In adopting its order, the State Board 

recognized the requirements were consistent with the 

Board’s authority to conduct investigations and prevent 

188
waste of water (California Water Code). 

Information provided by Cologne and Maclaggan (1995) 

“Legal Aspects of Water Reclamation” in Wastewater 

Reclamation and Reuse. 

5.7.3 Reclaimed Water User Agreements 

Instead of Ordinance: 

Central Florida 

While most reclaimed water systems with multiple users will require the adoption of a reclaimed water ordinance, there may be cases where an ordinance is not 

required, particularly when there are a limited number 

of users in the system. An example would include the 

provision of reclaimed water to several large agricultural users where the need for control extends to only a 

few parties. In such cases, it may be entirely appropriate to handle the requirements of the supplier and the 

users through a user agreement. 

Orlando, Florida’s reclaimed water program (in concert 

with Orange County, Florida) began with about 20 citrus growers under the Water Conserv II Irrigation Program in 1986. Orlando/Orange County entered into a 

20-year agreement with each of the growers, with the 

agreement specifying the responsibilities of both the supplier and the user. Each of these agreements was identical except for the volume of flow provision. The agreement covered suppliers’ contractual requirements including “no cost” provision of reclaimed water, water quality 

limits, minimum pressures, volume of water and delivery schedules, and indemnity provisions for third party 

claims. From the users’ side, the agreements addressed 

issues such as requirements to take a certain volume 

of water, transfer of land allowances, inspection requirements, and buyout provisions if the agreement was terminated prior to the 20 year term. As Orlando’s reclaimed 

system grew, each of the users, either agricultural or 

commercial, were required to enter into a user agreement. For the commercial users, an agreement was 

developed similar in some respects to the grower agreement. These commercial agreements evolved over time, 

but all contained the same basic requirements. For example, each of them stated that the customer would 

pay the user fee for the reclaimed water when such a 

rate was established by the City. It was not until 2002 

that the City elected to adopt monthly user rates with 

the growth of the reclaimed system for single-family residences. These rates were implemented shortly after the 

adoption of a reclaimed water ordinance, which governs all aspects of the reclaimed water system within 

the city boundaries. 

Clearly there are other examples of the need for a user 

agreement when dealing with a larger customer. Orange County, Florida, provides over 10 mgd (438 l/s) of 

make-up water from its water reclamation facility to the 

Curtis Stanton Energy Center. The Curtis Stanton Energy Center, located on the east side of Orlando, is 

owned by the Orlando Utilities Commission and provides electric power to the greater Orlando area. There 

are unique aspects to the relationship between these 2 

entities with respect to the supply of reclaimed water for 

cooling purposes including stringent water quality requirements, delivery schedules, fees, and means for 

handling the blow-down water. 

5.7.4 Interagency Agreement Required for 

Water Reuse: 

Monterey County Water Recycling 

Project, Monterey, California 

The Monterey County Water Recycling Project 

(MCWRP) consists of a tertiary water recycling plant 

and water distribution system. Since beginning operation in the spring of 1998, over 14 billion gallons (53 

million m3) of reclaimed water have been produced for 

irrigation of food crops such as artichokes, lettuce, cauliflower, celery, and strawberries. The project was designed to reduce seawater intrusion along the northwest portion of Monterey County (California) by using 

reclaimed water instead of groundwater. 

The reclaimed water is supplied by the regional wastewater provider, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution 

Control Agency (MRWPCA). However, the responsibility for water planning rests with the Monterey County 

Water Resources Agency (MCWRA). Thus, 2 types of 

agreements were required. The first was a contract between MRWPCA and MCWRA for the sale, disposition, 

and operation of MCWRP. The second was a series of 

ordinances between MCWRA and the growers that governed the providing of water for the end user. The focus 

of this case study is on the contract between MRWPCA 

and MCWRA. 

The base agreement was signed in 1992 and contained 

the following key provisions: 

A. Project Ownership, Operation, and Maintenance 

 The project will be owned and operated by 

MRWPCA 

 MRWPCA will be reimbursed for the actual 

189 
cost of its operation 

 MRWPCA will supply water on a daily basis 

except for infrequent shut-downs 

 Water will be provided in accordance with a 

specified demand schedule 

B. Maintenance of Water Quality 

 Water produced will be suitable for irrigation 

of food crops 

 MRWPCA will monitor water quality 

 Water Quality Committee, which includes local growers, will be formed 

C. Records and Audits 

 Accounting system required that allocates 

project costs 

 Annual project audit required 

D. Project Repairs and Maintenance

 Reserve for replacement established

 MCWRA will cover uninsured costs

E. Indemnification and Insurance 

 Each party will hold each other harmless 

from damages 

 Types and amounts of project insurance are 

defined 

F. Term of Agreement/Dispute Resolution 

 Provisions for extension of the Agreement 

are defined 

 Options to cancel/terminate are described 

 Requirement to meet and confer in the case 

of disputes 

Three amendments to the agreement have been negotiated in order to clarify the details of the agreement. 

Overall, this contract has worked well. 

5.7.5 Public/Private Partnership to Expand 

Reuse Program:

The City of Orlando, Orange County

And The Private Sector – Orlando,

Florida

The Orange County National Golf Center (OCNGC) is 

a unique and innovative public/private partnership 

formed by Orange County, the City of Orlando, and 

Team Classic Golf Services, Inc. The Orange County 

National is one of the largest golf centers in the State 

of Florida, devoted solely to golf and golf instruction. 

The Orange County National Golf Course project represents an expansion of the successful Conserv II reuse program jointly owned and operated by the City of 

Orlando and Orange County, Florida. (See the case 

study, 3.8.6 Water Conserv II Chapter 3 for additional 

details.) The County and City purchased 660 acres (270 

hectares) of additional land adjacent to 2 of its original 

rapid infiltration basins (RIB) sites in the rolling hills of 

west Orange County, originally intended solely for the 

construction of new RIBs. Large RIB sites in this area 

typically consist of a series of basins interspersed across 

the site with large areas of open land between them. In 

fact, RIBs typically occupy as little as 15 percent of the 

site, with the remaining area being available for other 

uses. Hoping to achieve multiple uses on the new lands, 

the County commissioned a study to determine the feasibility of building a municipal golf course. The results 

of the feasibility study were very encouraging, and the 

County and City agreed to pursue this option with the 

County acting as the lead-contracting agency. 

During a subsequent regulatory and permitting delay in 

the RIB expansion program, an internationally renowned 

golf instructor and course developer, Mr. Phil Ritson, 

approached the Orange County Parks Department and 

the Orange County Convention Center in search of land 

to construct a public golf course. After considerable debate, all parties agreed to investigate the feasibility of 

co-locating RIBs and golf facilities on Conserv II property owned jointly by the City and County. 

Project planning for the golf course began in 1991. Using a four-step process, the team completed the following before construction started: (1) a business feasibility plan; (2) a request for interested golf course developers; (3) a leasehold agreement; and (4) a capital-financing plan. Each step was crucial and built on the 

work of the previous steps. 

The business feasibility study showed excess demand 

for golf and high potential for a golf course development. This analysis, along with the primary environmental concerns, such as protection of on-site wetlands 

190
acreage and a preliminary survey of threatened and endangered species, was used to develop a request for 

business proposals. In September 1993, after the City 

and County had selected and approved Team Classic 

Golf Services, Inc. as a partner, the difficult work began 

– negotiating terms for the long-term lease, securing

financing for the deal, and setting up a team which would 

work to the mutual benefit of all the partners. The major 

breakthrough in the project came when Team Classic 

acquired private sector financing totaling $51.5 million. 

A public/private partnership was established through a 

55 year leasehold agreement. Forming a partnership 

with the municipal government and private sector parties took 6 years from its conceptual and planning stages 

until the start of construction. 

In addition to RIBs, the OCNGC incorporated several 

other environmental benefits. The site includes a number of isolated wetland areas that had been degraded 

through lowered water tables and invasion of undesirable plant species. The combined golf course RIB and 

surface water management system was designed to 

restore and maintain more desirable water elevations, 

and the invading plant species were removed and replaced by hand-planted native species appropriate to 

the wetland type. The site was developed in a low-density layout, leaving natural upland habitat areas between 

the golf holes. 

Today, 54 holes of golf are open along with a 42-acre 

(17-hectare) practice range and a 9-hole executive 

course. The facilities also include a 33,000 square-foot 

(3,070- m2

) clubhouse, 50-room campus lodge, a Pro 

Studio with 5,000 square feet (465 m2) of instructional 

space, and an institute housing classrooms and administrative offices. It is estimated that private sector investment will exceed $100M at completion. 

Accessibility has been increased through a multi-tiered 

fee structure that provides reduced rates to Florida residents and even greater reductions for Orlando and Orange County residents. Rent is paid to the City and 

County in tiered lease payments tied to time and financial performance of the golf course development. As 

the golf center is more successful, the lease payments 

will increase. 

University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences (IFAS) is using the site as part of a study, which 

is co-funded by the County and City. The study is examining the effects of reclaimed water use on golf 

courses, including the effects of fertilizer and pesticide 

applications. The study results are being used to develop best management practices for golf courses irrigated with reclaimed water. 

5.7.6 Inspection of Reclaimed Water 

Connections Protect Potable Water 

Supply:

Pinellas County Utilities, Florida 

Few things are more important than a safe, potable water supply. Therefore, cross connection control must be 

taken seriously and comprehensive inspections are absolutely necessary to ensure the public’s health. In addition, state and local ordinances and policies must be 

thoroughly and uniformly enforced. This has become 

even more important considering the potential threats 

to our drinking water. 

Pinellas County, Florida, began its Cross Connection 

Control and Backflow Prevention Program in 1977. Major improvements to the inspection process were implemented in 1994 and 2002. Inspections have uncovered 

remote hose bibs (to docks, etc.), hidden and/or forgotten valves, and interconnections between the potable 

and well systems with inexpensive and leaking ball or 

gate valves. 

Pinellas County requires that the reclaimed water connection remain in the locked position and that the irrigation system be separated until the day of inspection. 

The owner, or their legal representative, must sign an 

application (see copy following this case study) agreeing to use the reclaimed water for its intended purpose 

and agreeing to inform future owners of these conditions. Owners must schedule an inspection and are to 

be present to operate the entire system. First, the inspector verifies that the backflow prevention device is 

installed on the potable meter. Pinellas County inspectors check all zones for potential cross-connections and 

overspray into public waters, sidewalks, and roadways. 

A “dry” run, with the potable source on and the reclaimed 

source off, is then conducted. This helps to limit the possibility of reclaimed water entering the building. Certainly, 

it is far less intrusive and more cost-effective than flushing the potable plumbing system if a cross-connection 

occurs. Then the “wet” run, with the reclaimed water 

connected and the potable water supply turned off at 

the meter, begins. This uncovers any remote connections and any cross-connections under the reclaimed 

pressure. A 1-page report (see copy following this case 

study) with a “point of disconnect” (POD) sketch is completed by the inspector. A reclaimed water curb marker 

is glued to the curb indicating that the property has 

passed the inspection. This information is then entered 

into a database. 

Initially, contractors who are unfamiliar with this process 

have minor concerns about the length of time for this 

inspection. A typical, well-prepared residential property 

191
1. The Pinellas County Utilities Inspector briefly explains the inspection procedure. 

2. The Inspector asks the questions necessary to complete the Reclaimed Water Cross-Connection 

Inspection form, and records the information on the form. 

3. The Inspector checks to see if the reclaimed service line has been connected to the irrigation 

system and checks to make sure that the reclaimed service valve is locked off. 

4. The Inspector walks around the building, checking to make sure that all hose bibbs have water 

flowing from them, and to see if a pressure relief valve is attached, that all reclaimed valve box 

covers and exposed pipes located above ground (except risers for bush spray heads) are purple 

in color from the factory or painted with Pantone Purple 522C (Florida Building Code - Plumbing 

608.8; DEP 62-610.469(7)(f)) using light stable colorants, and that all sprinkler heads are attached. 

5. The Inspector asks to see the Point of Disconnect (POD) from the potable, well, or other water 

source. 

6. The Inspector starts the Dry Run by having the Contractor or Homeowner operate each of the 

solenoid valves, one zone at a time, and then checks to see if any other water source is being 

used for irrigation. 

The Inspector asks the Contractor or Homeowner to connect the irrigation system to the reclaimed 

service line, and then unlocks the reclaimed water service valve. 

8. The Inspector starts the Wet Run, by opening all hose bibbs and then closing the potable water 

at the water meter and letting the hose bibbs completely drain. Next, the reclaimed water service 

is run, one zone at a time. When each zone is fully pressurized, the Inspector checks each hose 

bibb to make sure no water is coming out of them and also checks for over spray. 

9. The Inspector turns the potable water back on and then turns off all of the hose bibbs. 

sidewalks, POD, Pinellas County water meter, and the reclaimed box. Any areas with no irrigation 

present are identified, and each component of the drawing is labeled. The location of the POD is 

referenced by measurements taken at right angles to the building’s walls. 

computer program. 

Pinellas County Utilities – STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 

FOR RECLAIMED WATER CROSS-CONNECTION INSPECTIONS 

7. 

valve and the Homeowner’s shut-off valve are opened, and each irrigation zone on the property 

10. The Inspector installs a Reclaimed Water curb marker on the curb or road edge. 

11. The Inspector makes a drawing on the form, depicting the locations of buildings, streets, driveways, 

12. The Inspector returns to the office and enters the information into the MAXIMO Work Management 

192
Pinellas County Application for Reclaimed Water Service and Cross-Connection Inspection Forms 

As reclaimed water service becomes more common, utilities create the forms required to keep track of customers 

and address concerns critical to distribution of nonpotable water. The following forms present the application for 

service and cross-connection inspection forms currently used by the Pinellas County Utilities in Florida. 

193
Please Print in Ink Please Print in Ink 

Owner’s Full Name and Service Address Mailing Address (If different than service address)

194
inspection is completed in 45 to 60 minutes. Approximately 8,000 inspections have been conducted and 

contractors work successfully with the County’s experienced inspectors. 

Information provided by the Pinellas County Utilities Department – Cross-Connection Control and Backflow Prevention Program, 1998, Clearwater, Florida. 

5.7.7 Oneida Indian Nation/Municipal/ 

State Coordination Leads to 

Effluent Reuse: 

Oneida Nation, New York 

The Oneida Indian Nation is in a period of strong economic growth. The cornerstone of its economic development is the Turning Stone Casino Resort, the only 

casino in New York State. The casino and other Nation 

enterprises are located in an area of central New York 

with limited water resources. The viability of future enterprise development is linked to the Nation’s ability to 

adequately meet its water supply and wastewater treatment needs. For the Nation’s planned golf course complex, reclaimed water has been identified as a viable 

water resource for irrigation water. Implementing water 

reclamation required inter-governmental cooperation between the Nation and the reclaimed water supplier, the 

City of Oneida. Regulatory or jurisdictional cooperation 

between the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Nation also was 

required because the Nation, being sovereign, is free 

to establish its own environmental standards for its lands, 

while the City is regulated by the NYSDEC. The project 

was further complicated by the fact that the NYSDEC 

does not have reclaimed water quality or treatment standards for unrestricted reuse. 

An estimate of the peak irrigation demand for the 

Nation’s proposed golf course complex is 670,000 gpd 

(2540 m3

/d), which is well in excess of the potable water allocation available to the Nation (150,000-250,000 

gpd, 570-950 m3/d). Investigation of the area’s water 

resources identified the City of Oneida’s wastewater 

treatment plant as a water source. The City subsequently 

agreed to support the Nation’s concept for a water reclamation project. 

Reclaimed water use is not a common practice in New 

York State. In fact, the state does not have reclaimed 

water quality or treatment standards for either restricted 

or unrestricted urban reuse. In the initial stages of the 

project, a stakeholders meeting was held with representatives of the Nation, the City, and the NYSDEC. 

The environmental benefits of the project were discussed at this meeting – the reuse of a water resource, 

the conservation of existing potable water supplies, and 

reduced pollutant loads into Oneida Creek and, ultimately, Oneida Lake, which is part of the Great Lakes 

watershed. The Nation also made its position clear that 

the NYSDEC had no jurisdiction over activities on Nation land. The NYSDEC concurred with the Nation and 

City’s reclaimed project concept plan, and expressed 

its basic support of the project. It outlined for the Nation 

and the City the regulatory framework and procedural 

steps for expediting the project. 

To formally commit the City to the project, the City Council and Mayor needed to pass a resolution to authorize 

the technical staff of its Public Works Department to proceed with the project. The project team elected to use 

one of the City’s semi-monthly council meetings as the 

forum to present the benefits of the project. Informational fact sheets were prepared for the meeting, which 

described in simple terms what reclaimed water is, the 

current uses of reclaimed water by other communities, 

and the environmental benefits of reclaiming highly 

treated wastewater. The fact sheets were distributed 

before the meeting so that elected officials, the public, 

and the news media could prepare questions before the 

council meeting. Factual and candid information was 

presented on water reclamation – its need in the overall 

growth plans of the Nation, its environmental benefits 

and, through its use, the conservation of limited potable 

water supplies. The City Council unanimously approved 

a resolution pledging the City’s support and commitment 

to cooperate with the Nation on this project. 

The implementation phase of the project included the 

following major milestones: 

 Preparing a draft reuse agreement between the Nation and the City 

 Completing the State Environmental Quality Review 

(SEQR) process to demonstrate the project’s environmental benefits and lack of significant negative 

impacts 

 Obtaining approval from the NYSDEC for a State 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) 

permit modification to allow the city to deliver its 

treated water to the Nation’s irrigation pond 

 Completing a preliminary design of the project. 

Each of these project aspects is discussed below: 

Reuse Agreement – The agreement addresses reclaimed water quality and characteristics. The City of 

Oneida will be responsible for delivering to the Nation 

195
reclaimed water of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of the City’s SPDES permit and target water quality conditions identified in the reuse agreement. While 

the entire cost of constructing the project will be borne 

by the Nation, the planned treatment and pumping systems will be installed at the City’s wastewater treatment 

plant site. The City will be responsible for operating the 

reclaimed water system. As needed, the Nation will contract with a third party for major maintenance and repair 

work for the facilities and pipeline. 

Other provisions of the agreement include easement 

and usage rights to allow the City access to Nation land 

to operate and monitor the reclaimed system, standard 

conditions regarding good faith commitments, a limited 

waiver of sovereign immunity for the purpose of implementing and enforcing the agreement, indemnification, 

notices, and amendments and assignments. 

SEQR Review Process – The first step in the SEQR 

process was for the City to formally request “lead 

agency” status. This required sending a letter of notice, 

along with a basic project description, to the potentially 

interested agencies (including NYSDEC, County Departments of Health, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and 

New York State Department of Transportation). After a 

required 30-day public comment period, during which 

no other agency challenged the City’s lead agency request, the City became lead agency for SEQR purposes. 

An environmental assessment of the project was completed and resulted in a recommendation to the City 

Council that a “negative declaration” (akin to the ”finding of no significant impact” under NEPA) be declared. 

As an “unlisted action,” the project’s SEQR conclusion 

did not need any additional public comment period after the City’s negative declaration. 

SPDES Permit Modification – To deliver water to an 

outfall location other than its permitted discharge point 

(Oneida Creek), the NYSDEC required that the City complete a SPDES permit modification request. Currently, 

the permit application is under review by the NYSDEC. 

It is anticipated that the City will obtain the permit modification with few exceptions to the proposed plan. Early 

involvement and open communication with the NYSDEC 

was a key success factor in preparing the application 

based on specific guidance form the NYSDEC. 

Preliminary Design – The design report addressed the 

preliminary design criteria and basis of design for the 

needed reclaimed water system components, including 

operation and control strategies. The system design includes a provision that would allow the City to process 

a portion of its secondary treated effluent through the 

reclaimed system filter (i.e., providing tertiary treatment) 

for discharge to the creek outfall in the event there is no 

demand for reclaimed water. This provision would allow the City to discharge a higher quality water to the 

creek, but it would not obligate the City to provide a 

higher level of treatment than is now required by its existing permit. This provision is a secondary benefit, not 

the driving force behind the project or future permit requirements. 

In New York State, where water reclamation is not commonly practiced, the Nation, the City of Oneida, the 

NYSDEC and other local agencies collaborated in an 

inter-governmental and multi-jurisdictional effort to make 

this project possible. A key reason for the successful 

collaboration was effective communication among all 

project stakeholders. All involved parties shared the 

conviction that the project was a win-win proposition for 

the Nation, the City, and the environment. Early, twoway communication that consistently focused on the 

project’s benefits resulted in full and unanimous support of the project at each of the legal decision-making 

junctions. 

5.7.8 Implementing Massachusetts’ First 

Golf Course Irrigation System

Utilizing Reclaimed Water: 

Yarmouth, Massachusetts 

For the first time in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, reclaimed water is being used as the source water to irrigate a golf course – The Links at Bayberry Hills, 

which is owned and operated by the Town of Yarmouth. 

This project required a team effort on the part of everyone involved and many years to successfully implement. 

The town developed a landfill closure/reuse plan that 

provided for a 9-hole expansion of the adjacent townowned Bayberry Hills Golf Course with 7 of the 9 holes 

located over the capped landfill. However, since the town 

already needed additional drinking water supplies to 

handle peak summer demands in this tourist community, in the spring of 1996, the town began discussions 

with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

about utilizing the effluent from the adjacent YarmouthDennis Septage Treatment Plant (STP) as the source 

of irrigation water. 

The Yarmouth-Dennis STP had an existing biological 

treatment process followed by sand filtration and ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection. The original facility was not 

designed to meet stringent reclaimed water standards. 

After evaluating several options it was determined that 

the installation of an ozone treatment system prior to 

196
filtration was the most efficient option to meet the proposed standards. 

A reclaimed water sampling plan was developed in discussions with the DEP. A two-phase sampling program 

was required. The phase 1 preliminary sampling program was performed in conjunction with the start-up of 

the new ozone treatment system and consisted of daily 

fecal coliform testing and continuous turbidity monitoring of the final effluent form the UV channel. Results of 

the sampling indicated that the proposed fecal coliform 

and turbidity standards could be attained. The phase 2 

program consisted of comparing the results of influent 

septage samples from the equalization tanks and final 

effluent samples from the UV channel for the following 

parameters: Enteric Viruses, Giardia and 

Cryptosporidium, Heterotrophic Plate Counts (HPC), 

Coliphage (Male-specific and Somatic), and Clostridium 

perfingens. Results for these parameters indicated similar log removals with and without the ozone treatment. 

Development of Groundwater Discharge Permit to 

Use Reclaimed Water 

The sampling programs were developed to convince 

DEP that utilizing reclaimed water in Yarmouth was viable and that the interim guidelines could be attained. 

However, there were several steps necessary to acquire 

the revised groundwater discharge permit for the project. 

In total, it took 4 years to acquire the permit that finally 

allowed the reclaimed water to be utilized. The first step, 

which began in 1996, involved working closely with the 

DEP to develop a means for permitting this type of facility; Massachusetts was one of the remaining states that 

did not have guidelines or regulations for permitting reclaimed water facilities. Ultimately, DEP issued a set of 

“Interim Guidelines on Reclaimed Water” in May 1999 

(Revised January 2000). These guidelines provided a 

mechanism for permitting reclaimed water projects under the DEP’s groundwater discharge permit regulations. 

A site hearing process allowed for a public comment 

period regarding modifications to the existing YarmouthDennis STP groundwater discharge permit so that it 

would include the reclaimed water and new application 

site. Based on all the work that had been done leading 

up to these events, there were very few comments received and the new groundwater discharge permit was 

issued on June 28, 2000. 

DEP added some additional monitoring parameters to 

the reclaimed water portion of the permit to help develop a historical database of viral and pathogenic values. The MS2 Coliphage, a viral indicator, will be 

sampled twice per month for the March through November use period, and can be tested using a fairly inexpensive means. 

Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Clostridium perfringens 

will be sampled 4 times during the use period, which 

involves expensive testing procedures that take weeks 

to conduct. Although the reclaimed water is not to be 

ingested, it is believed that DEP will utilize this data in 

the future to develop an even greater confidence level 

that the current stringent reclaimed water standards are 

protective of public health. 

Groundwater Protection Management Plan 

Because of the unique way in which the reclaimed water portion of the groundwater discharge permit was 

written, the implementation of reclaimed water requires 

close coordination between the treatment plant staff and 

the golf course staff. Therefore, a Groundwater Protection Management Plan was developed to address these 

coordination issues. The overall purpose of the plan is 

to protect the area groundwater. To achieve that purpose, the plan provides an understanding of the issues 

involved and defines the responsibilities of the various 

parties. The treatment plant staff are responsible for the 

groundwater discharge permit compliance, which includes the reclaimed water applied as well as the water 

collected in the underflow from the golf course. The golf 

course staff are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Links at Bayberry Hills. Thus, without 

close coordination between the 2 parties, permit compliance would be difficult. 

Based on the coordination requirements and the uniqueness of this golf course, there were 4 basic elements 

addressed within the Groundwater Protection Management Plan. The first element deals with the schedule for 

using the reclaimed water. Town water will be used during the spring months when the golf course staff will be 

“waking the course up” with different fertilizer applications depending on the previous winter weather conditions. This is also a period when the town can use its 

own potable water supply. However, in the summer 

months, when town water supplies are stretched, reclaimed water will be used on the golf course. It is anticipated this will occur beginning in July and will continue until November, or until the reclaimed water supplies of up to 21 million gallons by permit are depleted. 

The second element deals with the requirement for the 

use of slow release fertilizers. The third element deals 

with the need to reduce the quantity of commerciallyapplied fertilizer when reclaimed water is in use. The 

197
fourth element addresses the coordination between the 

treatment plant staff and the golf course staff so that 

the above 3 elements are being done. Thus, an approval 

form requiring the signature of both parties has been 

developed for use prior to any fertilizer application on 

the golf course. 

It is believed that the Groundwater Protection Management Plan addresses the key issues between the treatment plant staff and the golf course staff so that, over 

time, as personnel change, the Town of Yarmouth will 

have an adequately maintained golf course and adequately protected groundwater supplies. It will also provide the ability to comply with the reclaimed water permit limits. Implementation of the reclaimed water project 

for the Town of Yarmouth has been a challenge for all 

parties involved due to its innovative nature for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. However, all parties 

worked together to find a way to get this project implemented without compromising public health issues. 

5.8 References 

California Department of Water Resources Recycled 

Water Task Force. White Paper of the Public Information, Education and Outreach Workgroup on Better Public Involvement in the Recycled Water Decision Process 

(December, 2002 Draft). 

California State Water Resources Control Board. 1984. 

“In The Matter Of The Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter” 

Order 84-7. 

Cologne, Gordon and Peter MacLaggan. 1995. “Legal 

Aspects of Water Reclamation” in Wastewater Reclamation And Reuse (ed. Takashi Asano) American Water Works Association (Denver CO) ISBN: 1566763053 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92-500, 

33 U.S.C. 1251-1387. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. 

“Water Resource Implementation Rule.” Chapter 62-40, 

Florida Administrative Code. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Rosenblum, Eric. “Nonpotable Recycling in San Jose, 

California Leads Silicon Valley Towards Sustainable 

Water Use”, Proceedings of the Advanced Wastewater 

Treatment, Recycling and Reuse Conference, Milan, 

Italy, September 14-16, 1998. 

Sheikh, Bahman., E. Rosenblum. “Accounting for the 

Benefits of Water Reuse,” Proceedings, AWWA/WEF 

1998 Water Reuse Conference (February, 1998) 

State of California. 1998. “General Plan Guidelines”, 

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, (November, 1998), p.10. http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/

pub_org.html 

State of Florida, Florida’s Growth Management Act. 

2002. Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Local 

Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act. Tallahassee, Florida. 

State of Florida, Sunshine Law. 2002. Chapter 286, 

Florida Statutes. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Blalock Irrigation District vs. The City of Walla Walla 

Case 18888 Decree. March 25, 1927. 

Superior Court of the State of Washington. City of Walla 

Walla vs. Blalock Irrigation District Case 54787 Decree. 

September 28, 1971. 

Water Reclamation and Reuse, Water Quality Management Library Volume 10, edited by Takashi Asano, CRC 

Press 1998. 

Weinberg, E. and R.F. Allan. 1990. Federal Reserved 

Water Rights. In: Water Rights of the Fifty States and 

Territories, American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado. 

198
CHAPTER 6

Funding Water Reuse Systems

Like the development of other utilities, the implementation of reuse facilities generally requires a substantial 

capital expense. Capital improvements at the wastewater treatment facility are normally required, but transmission lines can also add significantly to capital costs. 

In an urban setting, reuse lines must often be added to 

the existing transmission infrastructure, requiring careful construction processes. And unless agricultural, industrial, and recreational reuse sites are close to reclaimed water sources, these sites will require new transmission facilities as well. 

In addition to the capital costs associated with reclaimed 

water facilities, there are also additional operation, maintenance, and replacement (OM& R) costs, including those 

associated with power and water quality monitoring, as 

well as administrative costs, such as customer billing. 

And, in almost all cases, implementation of a reuse system involves enhanced cross-connection programs with 

an associated increase in cost. These costs are typically calculated into a reclaimed water rate, expressed 

either as a gallonage charge or a fixed monthly fee. Even 

in situations where reclaimed water systems are developed in response to effluent disposal needs and customers are encouraged to make use of an “unlimited” supply 

at little to no charge, provisions should still be made for 

the day when conservation of the reclaimed water supply 

will be required. Another factor impacting costs is the 

potential drop in revenues associated with a reduction in 

potable water use after implementation of a reuse system. This loss of revenue can be particularly challenging 

if the water and wastewater systems are owned by different utilities. Consequently, multiple financial alternatives 

should be investigated to fund a reclaimed water system. 

Decision Making Tools 

To clarify the issues to be discussed, some general terms 

are defined as follows: 

 Cost-Effectiveness – the analysis of alternatives using an effectiveness scale as a measurement concept. EPA formulated “Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 

Guidelines” as part of its Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix 

A). This technique requires the establishment of a 

single base criterion for evaluation, such as annual 

water production of a specific quality expressed as 

an increase in supply or decrease in demand. Alternatives are ranked according to their ability to 

produce the same result. The alternatives can include such factors as their impact on quality of life, 

environmental effects, etc. which are not factored 

into a cost/benefit analysis. 

 Cost/Benefit – the relationship between the cost of 

resources and the benefits expected to be realized 

using a discounted cash-flow technique. Non-monetary issues are not factored into these calculations. 

 Financial Feasibility – the ability to finance both the 

capital costs and OM&R costs through locally raised 

funds. Examples of revenue sources include user 

fees, bonds, taxes, grants, and general utility operating revenues. 

In the context of these definitions, the first analysis to 

be performed when considering a reuse system would 

be a cost-effectiveness analysis. This involves analyzing the relevant costs and benefits of providing additional water from fresh water sources versus reclaimed 

water. 

Benefits that can be considered include: 

 Environmental - the reduction of nutrient-rich effluent discharges to surface waters 

- the conservation of fresh water supplies 

- reduction of saltwater intrusion 

199 

6.1 
6.2 

 Economic - delay in or avoidance of expanding existing water supply and treatment facilities 

 Delay in, or elimination of, enhancements to the existing potable water treatment systems 

 Delay in, or elimination of, enhancements to the existing wastewater treatment systems 

Shared benefits should also be considered. For instance, 

if a benefit is received by water customers from a delay 

in expanding the water supply (deferred rate increase), 

a portion of reclaimed water costs could be shared by 

existing and future water customers. A similar analysis 

can also be made for wastewater customers who benefit from a delay in, or elimination of, increased levels of 

treatment associated with more stringent discharge limits. 

The cost/benefit analyses are conducted once feasible 

alternatives are selected. The emphasis of these analyses is on defining the economic impact of the project on 

various classes of users, (e.g., industrial, commercial, 

residential, agricultural). The importance of this step is 

that it relates the marketability of reuse relative to alternative sources, based on the end use. To elaborate, given 

the cost of supplying reclaimed water versus fresh water 

for urban use, what is the relationship of water demand 

to price, given both abundant and scarce resources? The 

present worth value of the benefits are compared to determine whether the project is economically justified and/ 

or feasible. As part of meeting a requirement to secure a 

100-year water supply, an expansion of the reuse system was found to be more cost-effective than traditional 

effluent disposal coupled with increasing water supplies 

(Gray et al., 1996). 

Finally, financial feasibility determines whether sufficient 

financial resources can be generated to construct and 

operate the required reclamation facilities. Specific financial resources available will be explained in subsections 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4. 

Externally Generated Funding

Alternatives 

It is difficult to create a totally self-supporting reuse program financed solely by reclaimed water user fees. To 

satisfy the capital requirements for implementation of a 

reuse program, the majority of the construction and related capital costs are often financed through long-term 

water and wastewater revenue bonds, which spread the 

cost over multiple decades. Supplemental funds may be 

provided by grants, developer contributions, etc., to mitigate or offset the annual revenue requirement. The various externally generated capital funding source alternatives include: 

 Local Government Tax-Exempt Bonds – The total 

capital cost of construction activities for a reuse 

project could be financed from the sale of long-term 

(20-30 year) bonds. 

 Grants and State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs – 

Capital needs could be funded partially through state 

or local grants programs or through SRF loans, particularly those programs designed specifically to support reuse. 

 Capital Contribution – At times, there are special agreements reached with developers or industrial users, 

requiring the contribution of either assets or money 

to offset the costs of a particular project. 

6.2.1 Local Government Tax-Exempt 

Bonds 

A major source of capital financing for local governments 

is to assume debt – that is, to borrow money by selling 

municipal bonds, which enables the municipality to 

spread the cost of the project over many years. This 

approach reduces the annual amount that must be 

raised as compared to funding the entire capital project 

on a “pay-as-you-go” basis from rate revenues. With 

many water reclamation projects, local community support will be required to finance the project. If revenue 

bond financing is used, this matches the revenue stream 

from the use of reclaimed facilities with the costs of the 

debt used for construction, but does not normally require voter approval. However, voter approval may be 

required for general obligation bonds. The types of bonds 

commonly used for financing public works projects are: 

 General Obligation Bonds – Repaid through collected general property taxes or service charge revenues, and generally require a referendum vote. 

Underlying credit support is the full faith taxation 

power of the issuing entity. 

 Special Assessment Bonds – Repaid from the receipts of special benefit assessments to properties 

(and in most cases, backed by property liens if not 

paid by property owners). Underlying credit support 

is the property tax liens on the specially benefited 

properties. 

 Revenue Bonds – Repaid through user fees and 

service charges derived from operating reuse facilities (useful in regional or sub-regional projects because revenues can be collected from outside the 

200
geographical limits of the borrower). Underlying credit 

support is the pledged revenues, such as user fees 

or special charges. 

 Short-Term Notes – Usually repaid through general 

obligation or revenue bonds. These are typically 

used as a method of construction or interim financing until they can be incorporated into the long-term 

debt. 

The local government must substantiate projections of 

the required capital outlay, of the anticipated OM&R 

costs, of the revenue-generating activities (i.e., the user 

charge system, etc.), and of the “coverage” anticipated 

– that is, the extent to which anticipated revenues will

more than cover the anticipated capital and OM&R costs. 

A local government finance director, underwriter, or financial advisor can describe the requirements to justify 

the technical and economic feasibility of the reuse project. 

Since reuse facilities are often operated as part of a water and wastewater utility fund, bonds issued will probably be issued by the combined utility and thus any financial information presented will be for a combined enterprise fund. The reuse operation will most likely not 

have to stand alone as a self-sufficient operation and will 

appear financially stronger. 

6.2.2 State and Federal Financial 

Assistance 

Where available, grant programs are an attractive funding source, but require that the proposed system meets 

grant eligibility requirements. These programs reduce 

the total capital cost borne by system beneficiaries thus 

improving the affordability and viability of the project. 

Some funding agencies have an increasingly active role 

in facilitating water reuse projects. In addition, many 

funding agencies are receiving a clear legislative and 

executive mandate to encourage water reuse in support of water conservation. 

To be financially successful over time, a reuse program, 

however, must be able to “pay for itself.” While grant 

funds may underwrite portions of the capital improvements necessary in a reuse project – and in a few states, 

state-supported subsidies can also help a program to 

establish itself in early years of operation – grant funds 

should not be expanded for funding needs associated 

with annual operating costs. In fact, most federally- funded 

grant and loan programs explicitly prohibit the funding of 

OM&R costs. Once the project is underway, the program 

should strive to achieve self-sufficiency as quickly as 

possible – meeting OM&R costs and debt service requirements of the local share of capital costs by generating an adequate stream of revenues through local 

sources. 

6.2.2.1 State Revolving Fund 

The SRF is a financial assistance program established 

and managed by the states under general EPA guidance 

and regulations and funded jointly by the federal government (80 percent) and state matching money (20 percent). It is designed to provide financial assistance to 

local agencies to construct water pollution control facilities and to implement non-point source, groundwater, and 

estuary management activities, as well as potable water 

facilities. 

Under SRF, states make low-interest loans to local agencies. Interest rates are set by the states and must be 

below current market rates and may be as low as 0 percent. The amount of such loans may be up to 100 percent of the cost of eligible facilities. Loan repayments 

must begin within 1 year after completion of the facility 

and must be completely amortized in 20 years. Repayments are deposited back into the SRF to be loaned to 

other agencies. The cash balance in the SRF may be 

invested to earn interest, which must accrue to the SRF. 

States may establish eligibility criteria within the broad 

limits of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

(CWSRF). Basic eligible facilities include secondary and 

advanced treatment plants, pump stations, and force 

mains needed to achieve and maintain NPDES permit 

limits. States may also allow for eligible collection sewers, combined sewer overflow correction, stormwater facilities, and the purchase of land that is a functional part 

of the treatment process. 

Water conservation and reuse projects eligible under the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) include 

installation of meters, installation or retrofit of water efficient devices such as plumbing fixtures and appliances, 

implementation of incentive programs to conserve water 

(e.g., rebates, tax breaks, vouchers, conservation rate 

structures), and installation of dual-pipe distribution systems as a means of lowering costs of treating water to 

potable standards. 

In addition to providing loans to water systems for water 

conservation and reuse, states can use their DWSRF 

set-aside funds to promote water efficiency through activities such as: development of water conservation plans, 

technical assistance to systems on how to conserve water 

(e.g., water audits, leak detection, rate structure consultation), development and implementa201
tion of ordinances or regulations to conserve water, 

drought monitoring, and development and implementation of incentive programs or public education programs 

on conservation. 

States select projects for funding based on a priority system, which is developed annually and must be subjected 

to public review. Such priority systems are typically structured to achieve the policy goals of the state and may 

range from “readiness to proceed” to very specific water 

quality or geographic area objectives. Each state was 

allowed to write its own program regulations for SRF funding, driven by its own objectives. Some states, such as 

Virginia, provide assistance based on assessing the 

community’s economic health, with poorer areas being 

more heavily subsidized with lower interest loans. 

Further information on the SRF program is available from 

each state’s water pollution control agency. 

6.2.2.2 Federal Policy 

The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, supports 

water reuse projects through the following provisions: 

 Section 201 of PL 92-500 was amended to ensure 

that municipalities are eligible for “201” funding only 

if they have “fully studied and evaluated” techniques 

for “reclaiming and reuse of water.” A 201 facility 

plan study must be completed to qualify for state 

revolving loan funds. 

 Section 214 stipulates that the EPA administrator 

“shall develop and operate a continuing program of 

public information and education on water reclamation and reuse of wastewater. . .” 

 Section 313, which describes pollution control activities at federal facilities, was amended to ensure 

that wastewater treatment facilities will utilize “recycle and reuse techniques: if estimated life-cycle 

costs for such techniques are within 15 percent of 

the most cost-effective alternative.” 

6.2.2.3 Other Federal Sources 

There are a number of federal sources that might be 

used to generate funds for a water reuse project. While 

there are many funding sources, only certain types of 

applicants or projects are eligible for assistance under 

each program. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has several programs that may provide financial assistance for 

water reuse projects in rural areas, but the definition of 

a rural area varies depending upon the statutory language authorizing the program. Most of these programs 

are administered through the USDA Rural Development 

Office in each state. 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) offers funds through the 

Water and Waste Program, in the form of loans, grants, 

and loan guarantees. The largest is the Water and Waste 

Loan and Grant Program, with approximately $1.5 billion 

available nationwide per year. This program offers financial assistance to public bodies, eligible not-for-profits 

and recognized tribal entities for development (including 

construction and non-construction costs) of water and 

wastewater infrastructure. Unincorporated areas are typically eligible, as are communities with less than 10,000 

people. Grants may be available to communities meeting income limits to bring user rates down to a level that 

is reasonable for the serviced population. Interest rates 

for loan assistance depend on income levels in the served 

areas as well. The Rural Development offices act to oversee the RUS-funded projects from initial application until 

the operational stage. 

Other Rural Development programs are offered by the 

Rural Housing Service and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service. Rural Housing Service offers the Community Facilities Program that may fund a variety of projects 

for public bodies, eligible not-for-profits, and recognized 

tribal entities where the project serves the community. 

This includes utility projects and may potentially include 

a water reuse project, if proper justification is provided. 

The Rural Business-Cooperative Service offers the Rural Business Enterprise Grant program to assist grantees in designing and constructing public works projects. 

A water reuse system serving a business or industrial 

park could potentially receive grant assistance through 

this program. An individual eligible business could apply 

for loan guarantees through the Rural Business-Cooperative Service to help finance a water reuse system 

that would support the creation of jobs in a rural area. 

Other agencies that have funded projects in cooperation 

with USDA may provide assistance for water reuse 

projects if eligibility requirements are met include the 

Economic Development Administration, Housing and 

Urban Development (Community Development Block 

Grant), Appalachian Regional Commission, and the 

Delta Regional Commission. 

Finally, the Bureau of Reclamation, authorized under 

Title XVI, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act; PL 102-575, as amended, 

Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 

1996; PL 104-266, Oregon Public Lands Transfer and 

Protection Act of 1998; PL 105-321, and the Hawaii 

202
Water Resources Act of 2000; PL 106-566, provides for 

the Bureau to conduct appraisal and feasibility studies 

on water reclamation and reuse projects. The Bureau 

can then fund construction of reuse projects after Congressional approval of the appropriation. This funding 

source is restricted to activities in the 17 western states 

unless otherwise authorized by Congress. Federal participation is generally up to 25 percent of the capital cost. 

Information about specific funding sources can be found 

in the Catalog of Federal and Domestic Assistance, prepared by the Federal Office of Management and Budget and available in federal depository libraries. It is the 

most comprehensive compilation of the types and 

sources of funding available. 

6.2.2.4 State, Regional, and Local Grant and 

Loan Support 

State support is generally available for wastewater treatment facilities, water reclamation facilities, conveyance 

facilities, and, under certain conditions, for on-site distribution systems. A prime source of state-supported funding is provided through SRF loans. 

Although the number of states that have developed other 

financial assistance programs that could be used for 

reuse projects is still limited, there are a few examples. 

Texas has developed a financial assistance program 

that includes the Agriculture Water Conservation Grants 

and Loans Program, the Water Research Grant Program, and the Rural Water Assistance Fund Program. 

There is also a planning grant program – Regional Facility Planning Grant Program and Regional Water Planning Group Grants – that funds studies and planning 

activities to evaluate and determine the most feasible 

alternatives to meet regional water supply and wastewater facility needs. 

Local or regional agencies, such as the regional water 

management districts in Florida, have taxing authority. 

In Florida, a portion of the taxes collected has been allocated to the funding of alternative water sources including reuse projects, which have been given a high priority, 

with as much as 50 percent of a project’s transmission 

system eligible for grant funding. Various methods of 

prioritization exist, with emphasis on those projects that 

are of benefit to multi-jurisdictional users. 

The State of Washington began its process of addressing water reclamation and reuse issues by passing the 

Reclaimed Water Act of 1992. In 1997, the State Legislature provided $10 million from the Centennial Clean Water Fund to help fund 5 demonstration projects. These 

projects have been completed and are currently providing reclaimed water for a variety of non-potable uses. 

A comprehensive water reuse study in California concluded that funding was the primary constraint in implementing new water reuse projects (California State Water Resources Control Board, 1991). 

To assist with the financial burden, grant funds are now 

available from the California Department of Water Resources for water conservation and groundwater management. Proposition 13 Safe Drinking Water, Clean 

Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond 

Act provides funds for: 

 Agriculture water conservation capital outlay 

 Groundwater recharge construction loans 

 Groundwater storage construction grants 

 Infrastructure rehabilitation feasibility study grants 

 Infrastructure rehabilitation construction grants 

 Urban streams restoration program grants 

 Urban water conservation capital outlay grants 

AB303, the Local Groundwater Management Assistance 

Act of 2000, also provides grants. Funds have been used 

by Daly City, California to develop a groundwater-monitoring program and to refine models of the Westside Basin aquifer. 

The passage of California’s Proposition 50 in November 

2002 makes funds available for projects to “protect urban communities from drought, increase supplies of clean 

drinking water, reduce dependence on imported water, 

reduce pollution of rivers, lakes, streams, and coastal 

waters, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife.” This 

includes financing for “groundwater recharge and management projects.” The State Water Resources Control 

Board (SWRCB) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

have played major roles in providing capital funding for 

local projects. 

6.2.3 Capital Contributions 

In certain circumstances, where reclaimed water is to be 

used for a specific purpose, such as cooling water, it 

may be possible to obtain the capital financing for new 

transmission facilities directly from one or more major 

users that benefit from the available reclaimed water 

supply. 

203
One example of such a capital contribution would be construction of a major reuse transmission line by a developer who then transfers ownership to the utility for operation and maintenance. Another example is a residential 

housing developer, golf course, or industrial user who 

may provide the pipeline, financing for the pipeline, or 

provide for a pro-rata share of construction costs for a 

specific pipeline. In the event the private entity initially 

bears the entire capital cost of the improvement, such 

an approach may include provisions for reimbursement 

to the entity from future connections to the contributed 

facility for a specified period of time. 

6.3 Internally Generated Funding

Alternatives 

While the preceding financing alternatives describe the 

means of generating construction capital, there is also 

a need to provide funding for OM&R costs, as well as 

debt service on borrowed funds. Examples of various 

internally-generated funding sources are highlighted, with 

details, in the following subsections. 

In most cases, a combination of several funding sources 

will be used to recover capital and OM&R costs. The 

following alternatives may exist for funding water reuse 

programs. 

 Reclaimed water user charges 

 Operating budget and cash reserves of the utility 

 Local property taxes and existing water and wastewater user charges 

 Public utility tax 

 Special assessments or special tax districts 

 Connection fees 

The City of Reno, Nevada, used a combination of special assessment districts bonds, revenue bonds, developer agreements, connection fee charges, user fees, 

and general fund advances as part of the creation of its 

reclaimed water system (Collins, 2000). 

6.3.1 Reclaimed Water User Charges 

The first source of funding considered should be a 

charge to those receiving reclaimed water services. As 

noted in the introduction, reclaimed water systems may 

well begin life as effluent disposal programs. Under such 

circumstances, reclaimed water “customers” are likely 

to be encouraged to use as much water as they want. A 

negligible fee may have been adopted to support the “all 

you can use” mentality. Very often a fixed rate will be 

used to simplify billing and eliminate penalties for overuse in the form of increased costs. While such an approach may seem to be justified when a project begins, 

this rationale for basing user fees falls by the wayside as 

water resources become stressed and reclaimed water 

supplies become a valuable resource. User charges would 

be utilized to generate a stream of revenues with which 

to defray the OM&R costs of the reuse facility and the 

debt service of any bonds or loans issued. 

In a reclaimed water user charge system, the intent of 

an equitable rate policy is to allocate the cost of providing reuse services to the recipient. With a user charge 

system, it is implicit that there be select and identifiable 

user categories to which the costs of treatment and distribution can be allocated. 

There are 2 prime means of allocating costs that are to 

be incorporated into a user charge: the proportionate share 

cost basis and the incremental cost basis. These 2 methods are discussed in more detail in Section 6.4. 

Determining an equitable rate policy requires consideration of the different service needs of individual residential users (single-family and multi-family) as compared 

to other “larger” users with bigger irrigable areas, such as 

golf courses and green spaces. In many cases, a lower 

user rate can be justified for such large users than for 

residential customers. As an example, large users may 

receive reclaimed water into on-site storage facilities and 

then subsequently repump the water into the irrigation 

system, enabling the supplier to deliver the reclaimed 

water, independent of daily peak demands, using lowpressure pumps rather than providing high-pressure delivery on demand as required by residential users. Some 

multi-family customers may be treated as “large” users 

under this example, unless the reclaimed water is delivered at high pressure directly into the irrigation system. 

This flexibility in delivery and the low-pressure requirements can often justify the lower rate. At the same time, 

keeping reclaimed water rates competitive for large users when considering alternative sources of water, such 

as groundwater, is another consideration. 

The degree of income from other sources, such as the 

general fund and other utility funds, must be considered in determining the balance of funding that must come 

from reuse rates. Residential user fees must be set to 

make water reuse an attractive option to potable water or 

groundwater. Alternatively, local regulations can prescribe 

that reclaimed water must be used for irrigation and other 

outdoor nonpotable uses in areas where it is available so 

usage becomes less sensitive to pricing. Although re204
claimed water may have to be priced below potable water to encourage its use, reuse rates may also be set to 

discourage indiscriminate use by instituting volume (per 

gallon) charges rather than a flat fee; however, as reclaimed water has become recognized as an increasingly valuable element of an overall water resources plan, 

the trend is to meter reuse consumption to better monitor 

and control its use. 

6.3.2 Operating Budget and Cash

Reserves 

Activities associated with the planning and possible preliminary design of reuse facilities could be funded out of 

an existing wastewater utility/department operating budget. A water supply agency seeking to expand its water 

resources would find it appropriate to apply a portion of 

its operating funds in a similar way. It could be appropriate, for example, to utilize funds from the operating 

budget for planning activities or business costs associated with assessing the reuse opportunity. Furthermore, 

if cash reserves are accruing for unspecified future capital projects, those funds could be used for design and 

construction costs, or a portion of the operating revenues 

from utility revenues can be set aside in a cash reserve 

for future needs. 

The obvious advantage of using this alternative source 

of funding is that the utility board or governing body of 

the water and/or wastewater department or utility can 

act on its own initiative to allocate the necessary resources. These sources are especially practical when 

relatively limited expenditures are anticipated to implement or initiate the reuse program, or when the reuse 

project will provide a general benefit to the entire community (as represented by the present customers of the 

utility). In addition, utilizing such resources is practical 

when the reclaimed water will be distributed at little or 

no cost to the users, and therefore, will generate no 

future stream of revenues to repay the cost of the project. 

While it is ideal to fully recover all direct costs of each 

utility service from customers, it may not be practical 

during the early phases of a reuse system implementation. 

6.3.3 Property Taxes and Existing User 

Charges 

If the resources available in the operating budget or the 

cash reserves of the utility are not sufficient to cover 

the necessary system, OM&R activities, and capital financing debt, then another funding source to consider 

is revenues generated by increasing existing levies or 

charges. If some utility costs are currently funded with 

property taxes, levies could be increased and the new 

revenues designated for expenses associated with the 

reuse project. Similarly, the user charge currently paid 

for water and wastewater services could be increased. 

Like using the operating budget or cash reserves, the 

use of property taxes or user charges may be desirable 

if the expenditures for the project are not anticipated to 

be sizable or if a general benefit accrues to the entire 

community. 

Ad valorem property taxes, unlike user charges, raise 

funds on the basis of assessed value of all taxable property, including residential, commercial, and industrial. 

Property value can be an appropriate means of allocating the costs of the service improvements if there is a 

“general good” to the community. It is also a useful 

means of allocating the cost of debt service for a project 

in which there is general good to the community and in 

which the specific OM&R costs are allocated to the direct beneficiaries. A contribution of ad valorem property tax revenues might be appropriate for such reuse 

applications as: 

 Irrigation of municipal landscaping 

 Fire protection 

 Water for flushing sewers 

 Groundwater recharge for saltwater intrusion

barriers

 Parks and recreational facility irrigation 

All such projects have benefits, either to the residents 

of the municipality in general, or to those who can be 

isolated in an identifiable special district. 

Resources generated by increasing any existing user 

charges can be used in a similar manner. However, to 

do so equitably, benefits of the proposed project should 

primarily accrue to those presently utilizing the services 

of the water or wastewater utility. This would be the case, 

for example, when water reuse precludes the need to 

develop costly advanced treatment facilities or a new 

water supply source. 

Contributions from the water and wastewater systems 

may be warranted whenever there is a reduction in the 

average day or peak day water demand or when the 

reuse system serves as a means of effluent disposal 

for the wastewater system. The City of St. Petersburg, 

Florida, for example, provides as much as 50 percent of 

the urban reuse system operations costs from water and 

wastewater system funds. The significant reduction in 

potable water demand achieved through water reuse has 

205
allowed the City to postpone expansion of its water treatment plant. 

6.3.4 Public Utility Tax 

The State of Washington took a rather innovative approach to funding when it passed a major water bill in 

2001. The new law addresses several key areas in water 

resource management, including an incentive program 

to promote conservation and distribution of reclaimed 

water. The Public Utility Tax (Chapter 82.16 Revised Code 

of Washington) is levied on gross income of publicly and 

privately-owned utilities. The incentive program (Chapter 

237), which exempts 75 percent of the amounts received 

for reclaimed water services for commercial and industrial uses, also allows reclaimed water utilities to deduct 

from gross income 75 percent of amounts expended to 

improve consumer water use efficiency or to otherwise 

reduce the use of water by the consumer. (Focus, Washington State Department of Ecology, August 2001) Examples of eligible measures are: 

 Measures that encourage the use of reclaimed water 

in lieu of drinking water for landscape or crop irrigation 

 Measures that encourage the use of moisture sensors, flow timers, low-volume sprinklers, or drip irrigation for efficiencies in reclaimed water use 

Many variations on this incentive theme could be 

adopted by states, such as imposing a utility tax directly 

on large water users and granting exemptions for reclaimed water use. 

6.3.5 Special Assessments or Special Tax 

Districts 

When a reuse program is designed to be a self-supporting enterprise system, independent of both the existing water and wastewater utility systems, it may be 

appropriate to develop a special tax or assessment district to recover capital costs directly from the benefited 

properties. The advantage of this cost recovery mechanism is that it can be tailored to collect the costs appropriate to the benefits received. The City of Cape Coral, 

Florida, is one example of an area using special assessments to fund dual-water piping capital costs for fire 

protection and irrigation water. This special assessment 

was levied at an approximate cost of $1,600 per singlefamily residence with financing over 8 years at 8 percent 

annual interest. In addition, a monthly user charge is also 

applied to the water and wastewater billing to assist in 

defraying operating costs. 

Special assessments may be based on lot front footage, 

lot square footage, or estimated gallon use relative to 

specific customer types. This revenue alternative is especially relevant if the existing debt for water and wastewater precludes the ability to support a reuse program, 

or if the area to be served is an independent service area 

with no jurisdictional control over the water or wastewater systems. The implementation of reclaimed water systems will reduce potable water consumption, corresponding to a reduction of revenues. This must be factored 

into the funding analysis. 

6.3.6 Impact Fees 

Impact fees, or capacity fees, are a means of collecting 

the costs of constructing an infrastructure element, such 

as water, wastewater, or reuse facilities, from those new 

customers benefiting from the service. Impact fees collected may be used to generate construction capital or 

to repay borrowed funds. Frequently, these fees are used 

to generate an equitable basis for cost recovery between 

customers connecting to the system in the early years 

of a program and those connecting in the later years. 

The carrying costs (interest expenses) are generally not 

fully recovered through the impact fee, although annual 

increases above a base cost do provide equity between 

groups connecting in the early years and those in later 

years. 

Impact fees for water reuse systems are implemented 

at the discretion of the governing body. However, requiring a fee to be paid upon applying for service prior 

to construction can provide a strong indication of public 

willingness to participate in the reuse program. Incentive programs can be implemented in conjunction with 

impact fees by waiving the fee for those users who make 

an early commitment to connect to the reclaimed water 

system (e.g., for the first 90 days after construction 

completion) and collecting the fee from later connections. 

6.4 Incremental Versus Proportionate 

Share Costs 

6.4.1 Incremental Cost Basis 

The incremental cost basis allocates only the marginal 

costs of providing service to the customer. This system 

can be used if the community feels that the marginal 

reclaimed water user is performing a social good by conserving potable water, and should be allocated only the 

additional increment of cost of the service. However, if 

the total cost savings realized by reuse are being enjoyed only by the marginal user, then in effect, the rest of 

the community is subsidizing the service. For example, 

206
an ocean outfall used as the primary means of effluent 

disposal could be tapped and reclaimed water mains extended to provide irrigation to one or more developments 

in an area that formerly used potable water. In this example, it may be appropriate to charge the developments 

only for the cost of installing the additional mains plus 

any additional treatment that might be required. 

6.4.2 Proportionate Share Cost Basis 

Under the commonly used proportionate share basis, the 

total costs of the facilities are shared by the parties in 

proportion to their usage. In apportioning the costs, consideration must be given to the quantity and quality of the 

water, the reserve capacity that must be maintained, and 

the use of any joint facilities, particularly means of conveyance. In determining the eventual cost of reuse to the 

customer base, the apportionment of costs among wastewater users, potable water users, and reclaimed water 

users must be examined. The allocation of costs among 

users also must consider the willingness of the local community to subsidize a reuse program. 

A proportional allocation of costs can be reflected in the 

following equations: 

Total wastewater service = wastewater treatment 

to permitted disposal 

standards + effluent 

disposal + transmission + collection 

Total potable water service = water treatment + water supply + transmission + distribution 

Total reclaimed water service = [reclaimed water treatment – treatment to 

permitted disposal 

standards] + additional 

transmission + additional distribution + additional storage 

These equations illustrate an example of distributing the 

full costs of each service to the appropriate system and 

users. The first equation distributes only the cost of treating wastewater to currently required disposal standards, 

with any additional costs for higher levels of treatment, 

such as filtration, coagulation, or disinfection, assigned 

to the cost of reclaimed water service. In the event that 

the cost of wastewater treatment is lowered by the reuse alternative because current effluent disposal standards are more stringent than those required for the 

reuse system, the credit accrues to the total cost of reclaimed water service. This could occur, for example, if 

treatment for nutrient removal had been required for a 

surface water discharge but would not be necessary for 

agricultural reuse. 

As previously noted, because reclaimed water is a different product from potable water and has restrictions on 

its use, it may be considered a separate, lower valued 

class of water and priced below potable water. Thus, it 

may be important that the user charges for reuse be below, or at least competitive with, those for potable water 

service. However, often the current costs of constructing reuse facilities cannot compete with the historical 

costs of an existing potable water system. One means 

of creating a more equitable basis for comparison is to 

associate new costs of potable water supplies to the 

current costs of potable water, as well as any more costly 

treatment methods or changes in water treatment requirements that may be required to meet current regulations. 

When creating reuse user fees, it may be desirable to 

deduct incremental potable water costs from those 

charged for reuse because reuse is allowing the deferral 

or elimination of developing new potable water supplies 

or treatment facilities. The perceived inequalities between 

reclaimed water and potable water may be eliminated 

where potable water is in short supply and subject to 

seasonal (or permanent) restrictions. For customers that 

cannot tolerate uncertainty in deliveries, a source of reclaimed water free from restrictions might be worth more 

than traditional supplies. 

To promote certain objectives, local communities may 

want to alter the manner of cost distribution. For example, to encourage reuse for pollution abatement purposes by eliminating a surface water discharge, the 

capital costs of all wastewater treatment, reclaimed 

water transmission, and reclaimed water distribution can 

be allocated to the wastewater service costs. To promote water conservation, elements of the incremental 

costs of potable water may be subtracted from the reuse costs to encourage use of reclaimed water. 

For water reuse systems, the proportionate share basis 

of allocation may be most appropriate. The allocation 

should not be especially difficult, because the facilities 

required to support the reuse system should be readily 

identifiable. As shown in the previous equations, it is 

appropriate to allocate to wastewater charges the costs 

of all treatment required for compliance with NPDES permits. All additional costs, including the costs of reclamation and conveyance of reclaimed water, would be 

allocated to the water reuse user charge. 

207
General and administrative costs should also be allocated proportionately to all services just as they would 

be in a cost-of-service allocation plan for water and wastewater service. In some cases, lower wastewater treatment costs may result from initiating reclaimed water 

usage. Therefore, the result may be a reduction in the 

wastewater user charge. In this case, depending on local circumstances, the savings could be allocated to either the wastewater customer or the reclaimed water customer, or both. 

Table 6-1 provides a range of credits that can be applied 

to the financial analysis of water reclamation projects 

based on experience in California (Sheikh et al., 1998). 

With more than one category or type of reclaimed water 

user, different qualities of reclaimed water may be 

needed. If so, the user charge becomes somewhat more 

complicated to calculate, but it is really no different than 

calculating the charges for treating different qualities of 

wastewater for discharge. If, for example, reclaimed 

water is distributed for 2 different irrigation needs with 

one requiring higher quality water than the other, then 

the user fee calculation can be based on the cost of 

treatment to reach the quality required. This assumes 

that it is cost-effective to provide separate delivery systems to customers requiring different water quality. 

Clearly this will not always be the case, and a cost/benefit analysis of treating the entire reclaimed water stream 

to the highest level required must be compared to the 

cost of separate transmission systems. Consideration 

should also be given to providing a lower level of treatment to a single reclaimed water transmission system 

with additional treatment provided at the point of use as 

required by the customer. 

Estimating the operating cost of a reclaimed water system involves determining those treatment and distribution components that are directly attributable to the reclaimed water system. Direct operating costs involve additional treatment facilities, distribution, additional water 

quality monitoring, and inspection and monitoring staff. 

Table 6-1. Credits to Reclaimed Water Costs 

Any costs saved from effluent disposal may be considered a credit. Indirect costs include a percentage of administration, management, and overhead. Another cost 

is replacement reserve, i.e., the reserve fund to pay for 

system replacement in the future. In many instances, 

monies generated to meet debt service coverage requirements are deposited into replacement reserves. 

6.5 Phasing and Participation

Incentives 

The financing program can be structured to construct 

the water reuse facilities in phases, with a target percentage of the potential customers committed to using 

reclaimed water prior to implementation of each phase. 

This commitment assures the municipal utility decision 

makers that the project is indeed desired and ensures 

the financial stability to begin implementation. Incentives, 

such as a reduction or waiver of the assessment or connection fee for those connections to the system within a 

set time frame, can be used to promote early connections or participation. The San Antonio, Texas, reclaimed 

water system charges for reclaimed water will be $280/ 

acre-foot ($0.86/1,000 gallons), the same as the cost of 

potable water. As an incentive for users to sign up for 

this service, the city offered a one-time $900/acre-foot 

($2.76/1,000 gallons) credit to cover the user’s costs of 

converting to reclaimed water (Martinez, 2000). 

Adequate participation to support implementation can be 

determined by conducting an initial survey in a service 

area, followed by a formal voted service agreement for 

each neighborhood. If the required percentage of residents in a given neighborhood agree to participate, facilities will be constructed in that area. Once this type of 

measure is taken, there is an underlying basis for either 

assessing pipeline costs, or charging using a monthly 

fixed fee, because the ability to serve exists. The rate 

policy may also include a provision for assessments or 

charges for undeveloped properties within a neighborhood served by a reclaimed water system. 

Benefit Applicability Value ($/acre-feet) 

Water supply Very common $300 - $1,100 

Water supply reliability Very common $100 - $140 

Effluent disposal Very common $200 - $2,000 

Downstream watershed Common $400 - $800 

Energy conservation Situational 0 to $240 

208
6.6 Sample Rates and Fees 

6.6.1 Connection Fees 

Connection charges to a dual distribution system are often based on the size of the reclaimed water system 

being served. For example, in Cocoa Beach, Florida, 

customers are charged a connection fee based on the 

size of the reclaimed water service line. The connection 

fees are $100, $180, and $360 for a 3/4-inch, 1-inch, 

and 1-1/2-inch service line, respectively. 

As an alternative to connection fees, a flat monthly rate 

can be charged to each user for a specified length of 

time until the capital costs associated with the system 

are paid off. This alternative is often preferred to spread 

out the costs associated with connection fees. 

6.6.2 User Fees 

The procedure for establishing rates for reclaimed water can be similar to the procedure for establishing potable water and wastewater rates. If reclaimed water is 

metered, then user rates can be based upon the amount 

of reclaimed water used. This will tend to temper excessive use. If meters are not used, then a flat rate can 

be charged. Table 6-2 presents user fees for a number 

of existing urban reuse systems. 

It is common for the cost of reclaimed water service to 

be based on a percentage of the cost of potable water 

service. One might assume that reclaimed water rates 

would always be less than that of potable water but this 

may not be the case. A recent survey of reclaimed water utilities in California (Table 6-3) shows the range of 

discounts for reclaimed water (Lindow and Newby, 1998). 

This survey clearly shows that reclaimed water can command rates equal to that of potable water depending on 

the specific nature of local water resources. 

Table 6-3. Discounts for Reclaimed Water 

Use in California 

Jurisdiction Cost Percentage of 

Potable W ater (%) 

City of Long Beach 53 

Marin Municipal Water District 56 

City of Milpitas 80 

Orange County Water District 80 

San Jose Water Company 85 

Irvine Ranch Water District 90 

Carlsbad Municipal Water District 100 

East Bay Municipal Utility District 100 

Otay Water District 100 

Figure 6-1 provides the results of a similar survey of 

potable and reclaimed water rates for utilities in southwest Florida (Personal Communication with Dennis 

Cafaro, 2003). With the exception of Barron Collier utilities, reclaimed water rates tend to be less than 50 percent of the potable water rates, with some rates for reuse less than 20 percent that of potable water. These 

results provide additional evidence that reclaimed water 

rates are highly dependent on local conditions. 

To further reinforce the concept that reclaimed water is a 

valuable resource, utilities may consider not only charging for reclaimed water by the gallon, but also implementing a conservation rate structure to encourage efficient 

use. Conservation rate structures provide economic incentives for consumers to limit water use. To the extent 

possible, they should achieve similar results in all customer classes, be equitable within and among customer 

classes, support the utility’s financial requirements, and 

can be revenue neutral. Structures can significantly reduce water use without government expenditure or new 

regulation, while helping to protect both the quantity and 

quality of water resources. For example, at system startup some residential customers in the City of Venice, 

Florida were charged a flat rate for reclaimed water service. When the rate structure was changed to charge 

customers for the actual volume of water used, including 

an inclining conservation rate, demand was reduced by 

10 to 15 percent. However, no change in the peak demand water use was observed – suggesting peak use 

was driven by actual need and reductions were the result 

of more efficient water use in low demand periods 

(Farabee et al., 2002). 

6.7 Case Studies 

6.7.1 Unique Funding Aspects of the Town 

of Longboat Key, Florida Reclaimed

 Water System 

Longboat Key is a barrier island community located on 

Florida’s Gulf coast. The town lies within 2 counties—the 

northern portion of Longboat Key is in Manatee County and 

the southern portion is in Sarasota County. The island is 

surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west and Sarasota 

Bay on the east. The town’s geographical location severely 

limits local water resources. Since its inception in 1972, the 

Town of Longboat Key has received potable water and wastewater services from Manatee County. 

Landscape irrigation accounts for approximately a quarter of the town’s potable water use. In 2002, it was necessary for the town to seek an alternative water source 

for irrigation since its current potable water use exceeded 

what is available through Manatee County agreement al209
Table 6-2. User Fees for Existing Urban Reuse Systems 

Location User Fee 

Amarillo, Texas1 $0.15/1,000 gallons 

Cocoa Beach, Florida1 

Residential (not metered): 

▪ $8/month/acre 

Commercial (metered): 

▪ $0.26/1,000 gallons 

Colorado Springs, Colorado1 $0.00685/cubic foot ($0.91/1,000 gallons) 

County of Maui, Hawaii1 

Major agriculture: 

▪ $0.10/1,000 gallons 

Agriculture, golf course: 

▪ $0.20/1,00 gallons 

Other: 

▪ $0.55/1,000 gallons 

Henderson, Nevada1 $0.71/1,000 gallons 

Tier 1: $2.02/CCF for 0-100% of water budget 

San Rafael, California1 Tier 2: $3.89/CCF for 100-150% of water budget 

Tier 3: $7.64/CCF for over 150% of water budget 

Inside service area: 

South Bay, California1 

▪ $280/AF ($0.86/1,000 gallons) for 0-25 AF/month 

▪ $260/AF ($0.80/1,000 gallons) for 25-50 AF/month 

▪ $240/AF ($0.74/1,000 gallons) for 50-100 AF/month 

▪ $220/AF ($0.68/1,000 gallons) for 100-200 AF/month 

▪ $200/AF ($0.61/1,000 gallons) for 200+ AF/month 

Residential (not metered): 

St. Petersburg, Florida1 ▪ $10.36/month for first acre + 

 $5.92/month for each additional acre 

Wheaton, Illinois1 $0.18/1,000 gallons 

Residential - Flat Rate ($/month) 

▪ Average = $13.81 

▪ Range = $0.00 - $350.003 

Summary of Florida Reuse Systems2 

Residential - Gallonage Charge ($/1,000 gallons) 

▪ Average = $0.32 

▪ Range = $0.00 - $1.25 

Non-Residential - Flat Rate ($/month) 

▪ Average = $445.35 

▪ Range = $0.00 - $12,595.00 

Non-Residential Gallonage Charge ($/1,000 gallons) 

▪ Average = $0.26 

▪ Range = $0.00 - $2.50 

1

 User fees as reported in management practices for nonpotable water reuse, Project 97-

IRM-6, Water Environment Research Foundation, 2001. 

2 Reuse Rates as reported in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Reuse Inventory Report, June 2002. 

3

 Includes lump sum rates charged to residential developments as well as individual

 residential customers. 

210 
Figure 6-1. Comparison of Reclaimed Water and Potable Water Rates in Southwest Florida 

locations. Historically, the town has also used groundwater to meet approximately 80 percent of its irrigation 

demands. However, a decline in groundwater quality attributed to saltwater intrusion caused by long-term withdrawals and probable overpumping has been observed. 

After the review and evaluation of many alternatives, the 

Town of Longboat Key opted for a reclaimed water system with supply provided by an adjoining jurisdiction, the 

City of Sarasota, Florida. The project will require: 

 Installation of a subaqueous reclaimed water transmission main across Sarasota Bay 

 Construction of aquifer storage and recovery facilities 

 Construction of delivery pumping stations 

 Construction of a 2.5-million-gallon (9,460-m3) storage tank 

 Construction of associated distribution mains 

The Longboat Key reclaimed water transmission system 

will connect to the City of Sarasota’s existing reclaimed 

water system. Two and a half million gallons per day of 

reclaimed water will be available from the City of Sarasota. 

The conceptual planning cost for the project is estimated 

to be $28,166,000. 

The reclaimed water rate structure has been designed 

so the system can be financially self-sufficient. The end 

user costs are the true cost of providing the service. 

The estimated cost per 1,000 gallons will be approximately $2.67. By obtaining funding through the SRF loan 

program, the town will be able to satisfy the capital requirements for system implementation. Since loan repayments are not required to begin until 1 year after 

completion of the facility, semi-annual debt service payments and OM&R costs will be satisfied from the operating revenues of the reclaimed water system. 

Water and wastewater revenues are not intended to be 

used to pay for the reclaimed water system, but instead 

will serve as a backup pledge to the pledge of reclaimed 

water revenues for the SRF loan. To the extent that water and wastewater revenues are used to make any 

semi-annual loan payments, the town intends to reim211
burse its water and wastewater revenues fund with reclaimed water revenues. 

The reclaimed water revenue source is contingent on commitments in the form of user agreements from condominium and homeowner’s associations. The public has 

voted for a town-required referendum authorizing the financing of a reclaimed water system. 

6.7.2 Financial Assistance in San Diego 

County, California 

Water reclamation is an important component of the San 

Diego region’s local water resources. A number of agencies in San Diego continue to implement and expand 

their water reuse projects. Currently, about 12,000 acrefeet (3.9 billion gallons) per year of reclaimed water is 

beneficially reused within the service area of Water 

Authoriy Board of the County of San Diego (Authority). 

Approximately 64 percent of the water is used for agriculture, landscape irrigation, and other municipal and industrial uses; the remaining 36 percent is recharged into 

groundwater basins. This number is projected to increase 

to over 53,000 acre-feet per year (17.3 billion gallons per 

year) by 2020. 

Financial assistance programs play a critical role in the 

development of reclaimed water supplies. There are a 

number of financial assistance programs available to 

San Diego County agencies: the Authority’s Financial 

Assistance Program (FAP) and Reclaimed Water Development Fund (RWDF); the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s Local Resources Program 

(LRP); the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI Grant 

Program; and the State Water Resources Control 

Board’s low-interest loan programs. Together, these 

programs offer funding assistance for all project phases, 

from initial planning and design to construction and operation. Examples of how these funds facilitate water 

reuse projects in San Diego are described below: 

 FAP provides loans to Authority member agencies 

for water reuse facilities planning, feasibility investigations, preliminary engineering studies, and research 

projects related to water reuse and/or groundwater 

development. The Authority provides funding on a 

50:50 cost sharing basis up to $50,000 for any given

project activity. 

 FAP funds are also available for research and development in the form of grants. In order to receive FAP 

funding for these types of studies, a local agency 

must have secured partial funding from at least one 

other source such as the American Water Works 

Association Research Foundation (AWWARF), Desalination Research and Innovation Partnership 

(DRIP), Water Environmental Research Foundation 

(WERF), Proposition 13, etc. 

 RWDF provides Authority member agencies financial assistance up to $100 per acre-foot ($0.31 per 

1,000 gallons) for the development of reclaimed water projects capable of relieving a demand on the 

Authority. Project expenses must exceed project revenues. Funding is available for up to 25 years based 

on financial need. 

 LRP is designed to ensure the financial feasibility of 

local projects during the initial years of operation. 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California offers an incentive of up to $250 per acre-foot 

($0.77 per 1,000 gallons) for up to 25 years for reclaimed water and groundwater development projects 

that offset demands for imported water. 

6.7.3 Grant Funding Through the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District 

The Southwest Florida Water Management District 

(SWFWMD) is 1 of 5 water management districts in Florida 

with responsibilities for: water quality, natural systems 

improvement, flood protection, and water supply in a 

10,000-square-mile (25,900-km2) area. The SWFWMD is 

unique among the water management districts in Florida 

in that, beyond the similar structure of the governing 

boards, it has 9 basins with jurisdictional boundaries encompassing the major watersheds making up the District. In 8 of the 9 basins, populations have increased 

such that boards have been appointed to react to local, 

sub-regional water resource issues. These boards sponsor projects in coordination with local governments, private citizens, and private businesses, to improve, protect, and restore the water resources of their respective 

areas. These basin boards, like the Governing Board, 

have the authority to levy ad valorem taxes up to 0.5 of a 

mil within their boundaries. 

The SWFWMD basin boards have provided local funds 

for local water resource-related projects since the 

District’s creation in 1961. Originally, the focus of the 

basin boards and the Governing Board was on funding 

flood control projects. In the late 1980s, the basin priorities began to shift to the identification and funding of 

projects that focus on water conservation and the development of alternative water sources. 

Recognizing the importance of their ability to support local governments by providing solutions to the growing 

issues surrounding water supply, the basins adopted a 

212
more proactive role in addressing local non-regulatory 

water issues. The Cooperative Funding Initiative, New 

Water Sources Initiative, and Water Supply and Resource 

Development funding was established in recognition of 

the growing need for a structured approach to projects in 

order to maximize the SWFWMD’s effectiveness in 

choosing and funding water resource projects and budgeting for their completion. 

The SWFWMD funds up to 50 percent of a project’s capital 

cost and over the past 15 years has budgeted more than 

$182,000,000 in financial contributions towards reclaimed 

water development. As a result of Governing Board and 

basin board participation, more than 214 reuse projects 

totaling $494,000,000 in capital costs have been funded 

since Fiscal Year 1987. 

Source: SWFWMD, 2003. 

6.7.4 Use of Reclaimed Water to Augment 

Potable Supplies: An Economic 

Perspective (California) 

To accurately assess the cost-effectiveness of any reuse project, including an indirect potable water reuse 

project, all potential benefits of the project must be considered. The beneficial effects of an indirect potable reuse project often extend beyond the sponsoring agency, 

providing regional benefits and, in many cases, benefits that extend statewide and beyond. In certain settings, indirect potable reuse projects may provide for 

large-scale beneficial use of reclaimed water with relatively modest additional infrastructure requirements. 

Examples of 2 such indirect potable reuse projects are 

underway in California: the East Valley Water Recycling 

Project (EVWRP), and the Orange County Groundwater 

Replenishment (GWR) System. 

East Valley Water Recycling Project 

Phase IA of the EVWRP includes approximately 10 miles 

(16 km) of 54-inch (137-cm) diameter pipeline and a pumping station to deliver tertiary treated reclaimed water from 

the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant to the 

Hansen Spreading Grounds. Phase IA also includes an 

extensive monitoring well network designed to track the 

reclaimed water as it travels through the San Fernando 

Groundwater Basin from the spreading grounds to domestic production wells. This project will initially deliver 

up to 10,000 acre-feet per year (6,200 gpm) to the Hansen 

Spreading Grounds. Phase IB of the EVWRP will include 

construction of an additional pipeline to deliver reclaimed 

water to the Pacoima Spreading Grounds. 

The cost of Phase IA is estimated at approximately $52 

million. Up to 25 percent of this cost is being funded by 

the federal government through the Federal Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. 

Up to 50 percent of the total cost is being funded by the 

State of California through the Environmental Water Act 

of 1989. The remaining 25 percent of the total cost is 

being funded by ratepayers through special conservation and reclamation rate adjustments. Table 6-4 provides calculations, in cost per acre-foot, for reclaimed 

water with and without federal and state requirements. 

Based on these funding reimbursement percentages, 

Phase IA of the EVWRP will provide water at an estimated cost of $478 per acre-foot ($1.47 per 1,000 gallons), with a net cost of approximately $194 per acrefoot ($0.60 per 1,000 gallons) when state and federal funding is considered. Even if state or federal funding had 

not been available, the EVWRP would still provide a new 

reliable source of water at a cost comparable to other 

water supplies, and significantly less expensive than other 

new supply options. (According to the City Of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Urban Water Management Plan Fiscal Year 1997-1998 Annual Update, seawater might be desalinated using new technology, which 

has produced desalted ocean water at a cost of about 

$800 per acre-foot ($2.35 per 1,000 gallons) in pilot tests, 

or approximately $2,000 per acre-foot ($6.14 per 1,000 

gallons) using current technology.) Furthermore, the 

EVWRP has other benefits, which have not been quantified, such as the reduction of water imported from the 

Mono Basin and improved water system reliability resulting from a new local supply of water. 

Orange County Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) 

System 

Under the Orange County GWR System, highly treated 

reclaimed water will be pumped to either existing spreading basins, where it will percolate into and replenish the 

groundwater supply, or to a series of injection wells that 

act as a seawater intrusion control barrier. The GWR 

System will be implemented in 3 phases, providing a 

peak daily production capacity of 78,400 acre-feet per 

year (70 mgd) by the year 2007, 112,000 acre-feet per 

year (100 mgd) by 2013, and 145,600 acre-feet per year 

(130 mgd) by 2020. 

Table 6-5 shows a conservative preliminary estimate of 

the capital and OM&R costs for Phase I of the GWR 

System based on December 2003 estimates. 

The expected project benefits and their economic values (avoided costs) include: 

213
Table 6-4. Estimated Capital and Maintenance Costs for Phase IVA With and Without Federal and 

State Reimbursements 

Without Federal and State 

Reimbursement 

With 25% Federal and 50% State 

Reimbursement 

Capital Costs $52,000,000 $52,000,000 

State Reimbursement (50%) -0- $26,000,000 

Federal Reimbursement (25%) -0- $13,000,000 

Net DWP Capital Expenditure $52,000,000 $13,000,000 

Amortized Net Capital Expenditure (6% interest for 30 years) $3,777,743 $944,436 

Operation & Maintenance Cost per Acre-foot (AF) $100 $100 

Annual Delivery 10,000 AF 10,000 AF 

Cost of Delivered Water $478 per acre-foot 

($1.47 per 1,000 gal) 

$194 per acre-foot 

($0.60 per 1,000 gal) 

1. Alternative Water Supply – If the GWR System is

not implemented, Water Factory 21 would have to

be rehabilitated at a construction cost of approximately $100 million to provide the water needed for

seawater intrusion control via groundwater injection.

Additional imported water at a yearly cost of approximately $4 million to $10 million would have to be

purchased for use at the spreading basins as recharge

water. In times of drought, there is also a penalty

imposed on using imported water supplies, ranging

from $175 to $250 per acre-foot, potentially adding

fees up to $10.7 million a year. By implementing the

GWR System, approximately $27.4 million in annual

costs are avoided.

area of the Orange County groundwater basin. The 

treated wastewater discharges and water from the 

Colorado River are high in TDS, with concentrations 

over 700 mg/l. Higher TDS water can cause corrosion of plumbing fixtures and water heaters. Normalized costs for more frequent replacement of plumbing and water using fixtures and appliances are estimated to range from $100 to $150 per household 

each year. Over time, the reverse osmosis-treated 

product from the GWR System will lower the overall 

TDS content of the groundwater basin, saving the 

average household approximately $12.50 per year 

(or $25/acre-foot, $0.08 per 1,000 gallons). Industries and other large water users might also realize 

significant savings. From the standpoint of salinity 

2. Salinity Management – The OCWD uses water from management, the GWR System provides an annual 

the Santa Ana River (consisting of upstream treated benefit of $16.9 million. 

wastewater discharges and stormwater) and imported 

water (from the Colorado River Aqueduct and the 3. Delay/Avoid Ocean Outfall Construction – ImplemenState Water Project) to percolate into the forebay tation of the GWR System will divert up to 100 mgd 

Table 6-5. Cost Estimate for Phase I of the GWR System 

Item Cost 

Capital Costs $453.9 Million 

Operation & Maintenance $26.7 Million/year 

Grant Receipts $89.8 Million 

Interest 2.6% amortized over 25 years 

Power Cost $0.11per kwh 

Capacity Utilization 50% Barrier injection 

50% Recharge percolation 

214 
(4,380 l/s) of peak wastewater flow during Phase I 

from the Sanitation District’s ocean outfall disposal 

system. The estimated $175 million cost of a new 

ocean outfall can be delayed at least 10 years by 

applying several peak reduction methods, including 

diverting water to the GWR system instead of discharging to the ocean outfall. 

Economic Summary 

The annual cost to implement the GWR System – including capital, OM&R, engineering, administration, and 

contingencies, at 2.6 percent interest and amortized over 

a 25-year period – would be approximately $37.1 million. 

Totaling the avoided costs, the total annual benefits are 

as shown in Table 6-6. 

This results in a maximum benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.33 

($49.2/$37.1). Based on this analysis, Orange County 

Water District and Orange County Sanitation District 

have decided to move forward with the implementation 

of this project. 

The EVWRP and the GWR System exemplify how indirect potable reuse projects, when compared to other 

water supply and wastewater management options, can 

offer the greatest benefits for the least cost. The ultimate success of these projects would be attributable to 

project sponsors reaching out and forming alliances with 

the full array of beneficiaries. 

The EVWRP and the GWR System exemplify how indirect potable reuse projects, when compared to other 

water supply and wastewater management options, can 

offer the greatest benefits for the least cost. The ultimate success of these projects would be attributable to 

project sponsors reaching out and forming alliances with 

the full array of beneficiaries. 

Table 6-6. Total Annual Benefits 

Source: WateReuse Association, 1999. Updated by CDM/ 

OCWD Project Team, 2004. 

6.7.5 Impact Fee Development

Considerations for Reclaimed Water 

Projects: Hillsborough County, 

Florida 

Hillsborough County is located on the central-west coast 

of the State of Florida. The unincorporated area encompasses 931 square miles (2,411 km2), or more than 86 

percent of the total county area. Approximately 650,000 

residents live in unincorporated Hillsborough County, and 

most of them are served by various community services 

provided by the County. The Hillsborough County Water Department is responsible for providing treatment 

and delivery of potable water, wastewater collection, and 

treatment and distribution of reclaimed water within unincorporated Hillsborough County. The Department currently saves about 10 mgd (440 l/s) of potable water 

through reuse. Future expansion of the reclaimed water system is expected to save about 30 mgd (1,315 l/s) 

of potable water by the year 2020. 

Florida continues to be a rapidly growing state. To address the need for additional infrastructure, local governments have turned to development impact fees. Development impact fees are charges applied to new development to pay for the construction of new facilities or for 

the expansion of existing ones to meet these demands. 

Water and wastewater utilities are no exception. At least 

half of Florida’s 67 counties use some form of impact 

fees to pay for expansion of their water and wastewater 

utility that is necessitated by growth in the community. 

The following 3 criteria must be met to justify these fees: 

(1) there must be a reasonable connection between growth

from new development and the resultant need for the 

Item Total Annual Cost 

Avoidance (Millions $) 

Orange County Water District 

(OWCD) Cost Avoidance $27.40 

Salinity Management $16.90 

Orange County Sanitation District 

(OCSD), Delay in outfall $4.90 

Total Benefits $49.20 

215
new service; (2) the fees charged cannot exceed a proportionate share of the cost incurred in accommodating 

the new users paying the fee; and (3) there must be a 

reasonable connection between the expenditure of the 

fees that are collected and the benefits received by the 

new customers paying the fees. 

Several years ago, Hillsborough County decided to fund 

a portion of the cost of new reclaimed water projects 

through the capacity fee mechanism. It was recognized 

that the service benefits reclaimed water customers as 

well as new customers to the system that do not necessarily receive the reclaimed service. Specifically, reclaimed water projects have the unique characteristic 

of providing capacity in both the water and wastewater 

components of a traditional utility. 

The Department’s potable water investment since 1986, 

when the majority of the debt for the existing system 

was issued, is approximately $175 million with a corresponding potable water capacity of 54.5 mgd (2,400 l/ 

s). The level of service prior to potable water conservation benefits derived from using reclaimed water was 

approximately 350 gpd (1,325 l/d) per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC). Based on this level of service, the 54.5 mgd (2,400 l/s) potable water capacity would 

serve 155,714 ERCs. However, since reclaimed water 

service has been implemented, the Department has been 

able to reduce the level of service to 300 gpd (1,135 l/d) 

per ERC. The same 54.5 mgd (2,400 l/s) of capacity is 

now able to serve 181,667 ERCs with no additional investment in potable water capacity. This equates to 

25,953 additional ERCs being served due to reclaimed 

water use – or a potable water capacity avoidance at the 

350-gpd (1,325 l/d) level of service of 9.1 mgd (400 l/s). 

Assuming a cost of $5.25 per gpd for additional potable 

water capacity based on desalination treatment, the potable water capacity cost avoided is approximately $47.78 

million. 

The Department has 8 wastewater treatment plants with 

a total permitted treatment capacity of 48.5 mgd (2,125 

l/s). These treatment plants have permitted effluent disposal capacity in the form of a surface-water discharge 

Table 6-7. Reclaimed Water Impact Fees 

for 24 mgd (1,050 l/s). The difference of 24.5 mgd (1,075 

l/s) is the effluent disposal benefit obtained from reclaimed water. Using a cost of $2.40 per gpd for either 

land application or deep-well injection methods for alternate effluent disposal, this results in an effluent disposal 

cost avoided of approximately $58.8 million. 

Using these calculations, the total cost avoided for both 

water and wastewater is $106.58 million. The potable 

water capacity cost avoided and the effluent disposal 

cost avoided were each divided by this total cost to determine the allocation of reclaimed water project costs 

associated with water and wastewater. This resulted in 

a reclaimed water project cost split of 45 percent to water 

and 55 percent to wastewater. 

The current North service area capacity fee is $1,335 

for water and $1,815 for wastewater. For the South/Central service area, the current capacity fee is $1,440 for 

water and $1,970 for wastewater. Table 6-7 provides the 

percentage of the capacity fees that have been attributed to reclaimed water projects in these service areas. 

6.7.6 How Much Does it Cost and Who 

Pays: A Look at Florida’s Reclaimed 

Water Rates 

Reclaimed water is becoming an increasingly valuable 

water resource in Florida in terms of groundwater recharge, conservation of potable quality water, and drinking water cost savings to the consumer (since reclaimed 

water is usually less expensive than drinking water to 

the consumer). In fact, reuse has become so popular 

that some utilities have had trouble keeping up with the 

demand. 

In order to meet the high demand for reclaimed water, 

some utilities have used other sources (i.e., groundwater, surface water, etc.) to augment their reclaimed water 

supply. Others deal with high reclaimed water demand 

by imposing watering restrictions on reuse customers, 

and/or limiting or prohibiting new customer connections 

to the reuse system. Many reclaimed water suppliers 

used these methods to try to meet demands when the 

Service Area Percent of Water Capacity Fee 

Allocated to Reclaimed Water 

Percent of Wastewater Fee 

Allocated to Reclaimed Water 

North 8 29 

South/Central 6 18 

216
state was faced with a drought, but a few suppliers still 

struggled. The need to conserve and properly manage 

reclaimed water as a valuable resource became very clear. 

In the past, many utilities provided reclaimed water at no 

cost to the customer or based on a fixed monthly charge, 

regardless of use. Since the water was free or sold at 

low flat rates, customers used as much as they wanted, 

which was usually more than they needed. Now, many 

utilities are moving towards volume-based charges for 

reclaimed water service. Although the main intent of 

charging reuse customers for reclaimed water is to recover the costs associated with reuse facilities, reuse 

customers that are charged by the gallon for reclaimed 

water service tend to be more conservative in their use 

of the water supply. 

1999 Florida Reclaimed Water Rates 

Every year, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection publishes the Reuse Inventory that contains a 

good deal of useful information regarding water reclamation facilities in Florida, including reuse rates charged by 

facilities. The 1999 Reuse Inventory (FDEP, 2000) compiles rates under 2 categories, Residential and Non-Residential. A survey based on information from the 1999 

Reuse Inventory for 176 reuse systems revealed the following: 

Non-Residential Category: Forty-five percent of the reuse systems provided reclaimed water free of charge, 

33 percent charged by the gallon, about 10 percent 

charged a flat rate, and 12 percent incorporated the base 

facility charge and the gallonage charge. 

Residential Category: Eight percent of the systems 

surveyed provided reclaimed water free of charge, 12 

percent by the gallon, 22 percent charged a flat rate, and 

about 10 percent utilized the base facility charge and the 

gallonage charge. (48 percent of the systems surveyed 

did not provide residential service.) The average rates 

associated with each rate type are shown in Table 6-8. 

According to an AWWA survey, reuse rates are developed in many different ways. Out of 99 facilities surveyed, 19 percent set the rate at a percentage of the 

potable water rate, 14 percent base the rate on the estimated cost of the reuse service, 24 percent set the rate 

to promote use, 9 percent base the rate on market analysis, and 33 percent use other methods to develop reuse 

rates. The survey also revealed what percentages of 

costs were recovered through reuse rates for these facilities as shown in Table 6-9. 

Fifty-three percent of 97 facilities surveyed charge a uniform rate for reclaimed water, approximately 6 percent 

charge inclining block rates, 2 percent charge declining 

block rates, and 6 percent charge seasonal rates. The 

other 33 percent used some other type of rate structure 

(AWWA, 2000). The survey shows that the majority of 

reuse customers are metered. The average metered rate 

of 16 surveyed facilities was $1.12/1,000 gallons. 

In order to determine the relationship between how much 

reclaimed water a reuse customer used and how much 

they were charged for the service, the Southwest Florida 

Water Management District (SWFWMD) conducted a 

survey of utilities in Pinellas County that provided reclaimed water to residential customers. This survey revealed that residential customers who were charged a 

flat rate used an average of 1,112 gallons of reclaimed 

water per day, while residential customers who were 

charged per 1,000 gallons only used an average of 579 

gallons per day (Andrade, 2000). The average metered 

rate charged by these utilities was $0.61/1000 gallons. 

The average flat rate charged by these utilities was $9.77/ 

month. Based on the average usage of 1,112 gallons per 

day reported for residential customers, this flat rate translates to a metered rate of $0.29/1000 gallons. 

Source: Coleman and Andrade, 2001 

Table 6-8. Average Rates for Reclaimed Water Service in Florida 

Non-Residential Residential 

Flat Rate 1* $19.39/month $6.85/month 

Flat Rate 2** $892,89/month Not Applicable 

Metered Rate $0.26/1,000 gallons $0.39/1,000 gallons 

Flat Rate with Metered 

Rate $29.99/month+$0.39/1,000 gallons $7.05/month+$0.34/1,000 gallons 

217 
Table 6-9. Percent Costs Recovered Through Reuse Rates 

Percent of Costs Recovered Percent of Utilities 

Recovering Costs 

Under 25 Percent 32 

25 to 50 Percent 5 

51 to 75 Percent 5 

76 to 99 Percent 14 

100 Percent 13 

Unknown 31 

6.7.7 Rate Setting for Industrial Reuse in

San Marcos, Texas 

The newly expanded San Marcos 9-mgd (395-l/s) advanced tertiary wastewater treatment plant is a state-ofthe-art facility that produces some of the highest quality 

effluent in the State of Texas. The permit requirements 

are the toughest the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission deploys: 5/5/2/1/6 (BOD5/TSS/NH3/ 

PO4/DO). Since coming on-line last year, the quality of 

the effluent has consistently been better than the permit 

limits require. In this region of the state, the use of groundwater is discouraged and surface water is becoming less 

available and more costly; therefore, reclaimed water is 

becoming a marketable commodity. In January 1999, 

Figure 6-2. Comparison of Rate Basis for 

San Marcos Reuse Water 

American National Power approached the City of San 

Marcos, as well as other cities in the Central Texas area 

between Austin and San Antonio, with a list of resources 

required for the power co-generation facility they were to 

build – The Hays Energy Project (HEP) – in anticipation 

of the imminent electrical power deregulation in Texas. 

Principal on the list was a reliable, economical source of 

both potable and process water, and a means of disposing of their domestic wastewater and process wastewater. The City had no existing wastewater treatment plant 

effluent customers and no historical basis for setting a 

rate to charge the HEP for delivering to them basically 

the City’s entire effluent flow. 

218
In considering rates to this industrial customer, the City 

of San Marcos investigated both the actual cost of producing and delivering reclaimed water as well as the 

market value of reclaimed water. By including only those 

facilities over and above what was required for normal 

wastewater treatment and disposal, the actual cost of 

delivering reclaimed water was determined to be between $0.25 to $0.54/1,000 gallons. A review of the existing costs of alternate suppliers of water in the region 

was then conducted to define the market value of reclaimed water to the industrial customers. This investigation included reuse rates charged elsewhere in the 

state and determined that the cost of alternate water 

supplies might range from $0.40 to $0.90/1,000 gallons. 

The results of this investigation are summarized in Figure 6-2. 

Based on the results of this investigation, the City was 

able to consider reclaimed water as a commodity and 

set the charges as a function of available supplies, the 

demand for water and the benefits of the service. 

Through this process, the City established a charge of 

$0.69/1,000 gallon as shown in Figure 6-2. 

Source: Longoria et al., 2000. 

6.8 References 

Andrade, Anthony. 2000. “Average Reclaimed Water 

Flows for Residential Customers in Pinellas County.” 

Brooksville, FL: Southwest Florida Water Management 

District. 

American Water Works Association. 2000. “AWWA/WEF 

Water Reuse Rates and Charges Survey Report.” American Water Works Association. 

Personal Communication with Dennis Cafaro, 2003. 

California State Water Resources Control Board. 1991. 

Water Recycling 2000: California’s Plan for the Future. 

Office of Water Recycling, Sacramento, California. 

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. and Orange County Water 

District, 2004. Project team consists of Richard Corneille, 

Robert Chalmers, and Mike Marcus. 

City Of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 

Urban Water Management Plan Fiscal Year 1997-1998 

Annual Update – page 19. 

Coleman, L.W., A. Andrade. 2001. “How Much Does it 

Cost and Who Pays: A Look at Florida’s Reclaimed Water Rates,” Technical Program and Proceedings of the 

76th Annual Florida Water Resources Conference, Jacksonville, Florida. 

Collins, J.M. 2000. “The Price of Reclaimed Water in 

Reno, Nevada,” 2000 Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas. 

Farabee, D.L., P.S. Wilson, J. Saputo. 2002. “How Volume Pricing Affects Residential Reuse Demands,” 

WEFTEC 2002, Proceedings of the 75th Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

2002.2001 Reuse Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999 

Reuse Inventory. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection. 2000. 

Gray, B. P., M. Craig, B.E. Hemken. 1996 “Integrated 

Water Resources Planning for Scottsdale, Arizona,” 

Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado. 

Gorrie, J.M., V.P. Going, M.P. Smith and J. Jeffers. 2003. 

“Impact Fee Development Considerations for Reclaimed 

Water Projects,” 2003 FWRC Proceedings, Tampa, 

Florida. 

Lindow, D., J. Newby. 1998. “Customized Cost-Benefit 

Analysis for Recycled Water Customers,” Water Reuse 

Conference Proceedings, American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado. 

Longoria, R.R., D.W. Sloan, S.M. Jenkins. 2000. “Rate 

Setting for Industrial Reuse in San Marcos, Texas,” 2000 

Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, San Antonio, 

Texas. 

Martinez, P.R. 2000. “San Antonio Water System Recycled Water Program: An Alternative Water Supply – 

Short Term Management Resources,” 2000 Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas. 

Sheikh, B., E. Rosenblum, S. Kosower, E. Hartling.1998. 

“Accounting for the Benefit of Water Reuse,” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, American Water Works 

Association, Denver, Colorado. 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. Annual 

Alternative Water Supply Report FY 2003. Southwest 

Florida Water Management District, 2003, Brooksville, 

Florida. 

219
Washington State Department of Ecology. Focus Sheets. 

August 2001. 

Water Environment Research Foundation. 2001. Management Practices for Nonpotable Water Reuse. Project 97-

IRM-6. Alexandria, Virginia. 

WateReuse Association. 1999. “Use of Recycled Water 

to Augment Potable Supplies: An Economic Perspective.” http://www.watereuse.org/Pages/information.html

220 
7.1 

CHAPTER 7

Public Involvement Programs

In the years since this manual was first developed, the 

world has seen ever-increasing demands for water, often from competing interests, and often in the face of 

declining water supplies. As a result, water quality and 

quantity have become important public topics in many 

arenas, and regulatory agencies often require some level 

of stakeholder involvement in water management decisions. This is strikingly different from the past when 

members of the public were often informed about 

projects only after final decisions had been made. Today, responsible leaders recognize the need to incorporate public values with science, technology, and legal 

aspects to create real, workable solutions tailored to 

meet specific needs. 

In the area of water reuse, the opportunities for meaningful public involvement are many. This chapter provides 

an overview of the key elements of public planning, as 

well as several case studies illustrating public involvement and/or participation approaches. 

Why Public Participation? 

Public involvement or participation programs work to identify key audiences and specific community issues at a 

very early stage, offering information and opportunities 

for input in a clear, understandable way. Effective public 

involvement begins at the earliest planning stage and 

lasts through implementation and beyond. 

Public participation begins with having a clear understanding of the water reuse options available to the community. Once an understanding of possible alternatives is 

developed, a list of stakeholders, including possible users, can be identified and early public contacts may begin. Why begin contacting stakeholders before a plan is 

in place? These citizen stakeholders can provide early 

indications regarding which reuse program will be best 

accepted on a community-wide level. Beyond that, informed citizens can help identify and resolve potential 

problems before they occur and develop alternatives 

that may work more effectively for the community. 

In general, effective public participation programs invite 

two-way communication, provide education, and ask for 

meaningful input as the reuse program is developed and 

refined. Depending on the project, public involvement 

can involve limited contact with a number of specific 

users, or can be expanded to include the formation of a 

formal advisory committee or task force. Often, public 

information efforts begin by targeting the most impacted 

stakeholders. Over time, as an early education base is 

built among stakeholders, the education effort then 

broadens to include the public at large. Regardless of 

the audience, all public involvement efforts are geared 

to help ensure that adoption of a selected water reuse 

program will fulfill real user needs and generally recognized community goals including public health, safety, 

and program cost. 

The term, “two-way communications flow” cannot be too 

highly emphasized. In addition to building community 

support for a reuse program, public participation can 

also provide valuable community-specific information to 

the reuse planners. Citizens have legitimate concerns, 

quite often reflecting their knowledge of detailed technical information. In reuse planning, especially, where one 

sector of “the public” comprises potential users of reclaimed water, this point is critical. Potential users generally know what flow and quality of reclaimed water 

are acceptable for their applications. 

7.1.1 Informed Constituency 

By taking time during the planning stages to meet with 

citizens, communities will have a much greater opportunity to develop a successful reuse program. Many citizens may have a pre-conceived notion about reclaimed 

water and its benefits. It is important to identify each 

stakeholder’s issues and to address questions and concerns in a clear, matter-of-fact way. This two-way dialogue will lead to informed input regarding reuse alternatives. 

221
A public participation program can build, over time, an 

informed constituency that is comfortable with the concept of reuse, knowledgeable about the issues involved 

in reclamation/reuse, and supportive of program implementation. Ideally, citizens who have taken part in the 

planning process will be effective proponents of the selected plans. Having educated themselves on the issues involved in adopting reclamation and reuse, they 

will also understand how various interests have been 

accommodated in the final plan. Their understanding of 

the decision-making process will, in turn, be communicated to larger interest groups – neighborhood residents, 

clubs, and municipal agencies – of which they are a 

part. Indeed the potential reuse customer who is enthusiastic about the prospect of receiving service may become one of the most effective means of generating 

support for a program. This is certainly true with the 

urban reuse programs in St. Petersburg and Venice, 

Florida. In these communities, construction of distribution lines is contingent on the voluntary participation of 

a percentage of customers within a given area. 

In other communities where reuse has not been introduced in any form, the focus may begin with very small, 

specific audiences. For instance, a community may work 

closely with golf course owners and superintendents to 

introduce reuse water as a resource to keep the golf 

course in prime condition, even at times when other 

water supplies are low. This small, informed constituency can then provide the community with a lead-in to 

other reclaimed water options in the future. Golf course 

superintendents spread the word informally, and, as 

golfers see the benefits, the earliest of education campaigns has subtly begun. Later, the same community 

may choose to introduce an urban system, offering reclaimed water for irrigation use. 

Since many reuse programs may ultimately require a 

public referendum to approve a bond issue for funding 

reuse system capital improvements, diligently soliciting 

community viewpoints and addressing any concerns 

early in the planning process can be invaluable in garnering support. Public involvement early in the planning 

process, even as alternatives are beginning to be identified, allows ample time for the dissemination and acceptance of new ideas among the constituents. Public 

involvement can even expedite a reuse program by 

uncovering any opposition early enough to adequately 

address citizen concerns and perhaps modify the program to better fit the community. 

Defining the “Public” 

Many contemporary analyses of public involvement 

define “the public” as comprising various subsets of “publics” with differing interests, motivations, and approaches 

to policy issues. For example, in discussing public participation for wastewater facilities and reuse planning 

the following publics may be identified: general public, 

potential users, environmental groups, special interest 

groups, home owners associations, regulators and/or 

regulating agencies, educational institutions, political 

leaders, and business/academic/community leaders. In 

an agricultural area, there may be another different set 

of publics including farmers. 

For example, several government agencies in California 

held a Reuse Summit in 1994, at which they endorsed 

the creation of the public outreach effort by creating the 

following mission statement (Sheikh et al., 1996): 

“To activate community support for 

water recycling through an outreach 

program of educating and informing 

target audiences about the values 

and benefits of recycled water.” 

During that summit they also identified 8 public audiences: 

Local Elected Officials, Regulatory Agency Staff, General Public, Environmental Community, City Planning 

Staffs, Agricultural Community, Schools, and Newspaper 

Editorial Boards. 

From the outset of reuse planning, informal consultation 

with members of each of the groups comprising “the public”, and formal presentations before them, should both 

support the development of a sound base of local water 

reuse information and, simultaneously, build a coalition 

that can effectively advocate reuse in the community. 

Keeping in mind that different groups have different interests at stake, each presentation should be tailored to the 

special needs and interests of the audience. 

If a reuse program truly has minimal impact on the general public, limited public involvement may be appropriate. For example, use of reclaimed water for industrial 

cooling and processing – with no significant capital improvements required of the municipality – may require 

support only from regulatory, technical, and health experts, as well as representatives from the prospective 

user and its employees. Reuse for pastureland irrigation in isolated areas might be another example warranting only limited public participation. 

7.3 Overview of Public Perceptions 

One of the most tried and true methods of determining 

the public’s perception of reuse programs is surveys. 

Surveys can determine whether or not there will be a large 

enough consumer base to sustain a program, if the pro222

7.2 
gram will be favorable enough to progress to the conceptual and design stage, and the overall success of the 

project after implementation. The following projects highlight different survey strategies and results across the 

nation. 

7.3.1 Residential and Commercial Reuse 

in Tampa, Florida 

A survey done by the City of Tampa for its residential 

reuse project included a direct mailing and public opinion survey. Information was sent to 15,500 potable water customers in the conceptual project area. Out of the 

pool of potential reuse customers, 84 percent of the residential users and 94 percent of the commercial users in 

the South Tampa area thought that reclaimed water was 

safe for residential and commercial landscape irrigation. Of the same group, 84 percent of the residential 

responders and 90 percent of the commercial responders replied that the project was appealing. The responses met the design criteria of 90 percent participation (Grosh et al., 2002). 

7.3.2 A Survey of WWTP Operators and

Managers 

A study done by Hall and Rubin in 2002 surveyed 50 

wastewater operators and managers. Seventy percent 

of the responders stated that they believed that reuse 

would be an important part of their operation in 5 years. 

The majority (66 percent) thought that water reuse 

should be considered as an element of all water and 

wastewater expansion facility permits. Ninety percent 

wanted funding agencies to consider financial incentives 

to encourage more water reuse. Table 7-1 lists the survey results (in percentages) to the inquiry for potential 

use alternatives for reclaimed water. 

7.3.3 Public Opinion in San Francisco,

California 

The City of San Francisco, California, surveyed the general public to measure public acceptance of a proposed 

reclaimed water project. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 graphically 

demonstrate the responses that were collected. The overall majority strongly felt that reclaimed water was beneficial. Figure 7-2 shows that the responders felt positively 

about all of the proposed uses of reclaimed water: fire 

fighting, irrigation of golf courses and parks, street cleaning, toilet flushing, and drought protection. 

7.3.4 Clark County Sanitation District 

Water Reclamation Opinion Surveys 

Clark County (Las Vegas, Nevada) conducted a series 

of 4 different surveys. The surveys included a face-toface intercept survey at the Silver Bowl Park, a direct 

mail survey with local residents in the Silver Bowl Park 

area, a direct mail survey to local residents in the Desert 

Breeze Park vicinity, and face-to-face intercepts with 

attendees of the EcoJam Earth Day Event. A total of 

883 persons participated in the survey (Alpha Communications Inc., 2001). 

The majority (63.8 to 90.1 percent) of the responses were 

very positive, replying that the “...overall benefits of reclaimed water usage are very beneficial.” There was a 

small minority who had concerns with “...environmental 

safety, bacteria, or germ build-up and general health risks 

to children” (Alpha Communications Inc., 2001). Figure 

7-3 shows a graphical representation of the average public opinion responses from the 4 surveys regarding reuse 

for 4 different uses: golf course irrigation, park irrigation, 

industrial cooling, and decorative water features. 

Another portion of the survey asked if there were any 

benefits of using reclaimed water at park facilities. Table 

7-1 lists the responses. 

There is no question that the public’s enthusiasm for reuse (as noted in the cited studies) could reflect the hypothetical conditions set up by the survey questions and 

interviews used rather than signify a genuine willingness 

to endorse local funding of real programs that involve 

distribution of reclaimed water for nonpotable use in their 

neighborhood. Survey results do indicate, however, that, 

at least intellectually, “the public” is receptive to use of 

reclaimed water in well thought out programs. The results also support conclusions that this initial acceptance 

hinges in large measure on: 

 The public’s awareness of local water supply problems and perception of reclaimed water as having 

a place in the overall water supply allocation scheme 

 Public understanding of the quality of reclaimed water and how it would be used 

 Confidence in local management of the public utilities and in local application of modern technology 

 Assurance that the reuse applications being considered involve minimal risk of accidental personal exposure 

223
7.4 

Table 7-1. Positive and Negative Responses to Potential Alternatives for Reclaimed Water 

Use Yes No 

Irrigation of Athletic Fields 84 16 

Irrigation of Office Parks and Business Campuses 82 18 

Irrigation of Highway Right-of-way 85 15 

Residential Landscape Irrigation and Maintenance 74 26 

Golf Course Irrigation 89 11 

Irrigation of Agricultural Crops 82 18 

Irrigation of Crops for Direct Human Consumption 30 70 

Vehicle Wash Water 76 24 

Concrete Production 90 10 

Dust Control 82 18 

Stream Augmentation 67 33 

Toilet Flushing 80 20 

Fire Protection 84 16 

Ornamental Ponds/Fountains 56 44 

Street Cleaning 87 13 

Industrial Process Water 78 22 

Wetland Creation 84 16 

Pools/Spas 15 85 

Potable Reuse – Direct 18 82 

Potable Reuse – Indirect 40 60 

Adapted from Hall and Rubin, 2002 

Involving the Public in Reuse

Planning 

Even where water reclamation is common, there is a 

need to establish a flow of information to and from potential reuse customers, so that they can have a clear 

understanding of the program and provide input regarding their needs and concerns. Equally important is the 

need to address these concerns and answer any questions in a timely manner. This can help assure the public that their issues are being heard and that reuse planners are being forthcoming in their efforts. 

Probably the most important step in encouraging the 

public acceptance is to establish and communicate the 

expected project benefits. If the project is intended to 

extend water resources, then preliminary studies should 

address how much water will be made available through 

reclamation and compare the costs to those needed to 

develop other potable water sources. If reclamation costs 

are not competitive, then overriding non-economic issues must exist to equalize the value of the 2 sources. 

When reclamation is considered for environmental reasons, such as to reduce or eliminate surface water discharge, then the selected reuse alternative must also be 

competitive with other disposal options. Above all, the 

public must be aware of and understand all of the benefits. 

However, most potential reuse programs invoice choices 

among systems with widely different economical and 

environmental impacts, which are of varying degrees of 

224
Figure 7-1. Public Beliefs and Opinions 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Agree 

Disagree 

Reclaimed Wasteful to Reclaimed Reclaimed Government Government Reclaimed Reclaimed City Doesn’t 

Water Will Help Discharge Water Will Water Will Will Make Cannot Be Water Will Cost Water is Need Extra 

in Dry Years Reclaimed Save Money Maintain Lake Reclaimed Trusted With Too Much Unsafe Water 

Water into the in Long Run Water Levels Water Safe Reclaimed 

Ocean 

Adapted from Filice 1996 

Figure 7-2. Support of Recycled Water Program Activities 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30

20

10

0 

Fight Fires Water Parks & Clean Streets Flush Toilets Reduce Rationing 

Golf Courses in Buildings (During Droughts) 

Support 

Oppose 

Adapted from Filice 1996 

225 
Figure 7-3. Survey Results for Different Reuse 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Golf Courses 

Parks 

Industrial Cooling 

Water Features 

% Response 

Very Beneficial Some Benefit 

Data Source: Alpha Communications 2001 

importance to many segments of the public. That is why 

development of the expected project benefits is so important because once they are firmly established, they 

become the plants of a public information program – 

the “why” the program is necessary and desirable. Without such validation, reclamation programs will be unable to withstand public scrutiny and the likelihood of 

project failure increases. In addition, only after the “why” 

is established can the “who” and “how” in public involvement truly be determined. 

7.4.1 General Requirements for Public 

Participation 

Figure 7-4 provides a flow chart of a public participation program for water reuse system planning. 

The following items suggest an example approach that 

a community might consider in developing a reuse program. Note that information tools will vary depending 

upon how broad or involved an information program is 

needed. 

 Determine, internally, the community’s reuse goals 

and the associated options and/or alternatives to 

be further considered. 

 Identify any scientific/technical facts that exist, or 

are needed, to help explain the issues and alternaNeutral Little Benefit Not at all Beneficial 

tives. If additional facts or studies are needed, consider beginning them in the earliest stages so that 

additional scientific data can be made available later 

in the process. Unanswered questions can damage 

the credibility of the program effort. 

 Create a master list of stakeholders, including agencies, departments, elected officials, potential customers, and others who will be impacted in some 

way. It might be helpful to identify the level of interest different individuals and groups will have in the 

reuse planning process. 

 Begin public outreach to specific target audiences 

in the form of informal meetings involving direct 

contact, limiting the number invited at any one time 

so that individual discussion is more easily accomplished 

 Determine whether a task force or advisory committee is needed. If so, take steps to formally advertise and be sure to include representatives from 

the target audience groups. Plan a schedule and 

target date for reaching consensus on reuse alternatives; then plan well-prepared meetings that invite two-way communications. Bring in outside experts, such as scientists, to answer questions when 

needed. 

226
Figure 7-4. Public Participation Program for Water Reuse System Planning 

Specific 

Users 

Survey 

General 

Survey 

Project 

Implementation 

Plan 

Selection 

Plan of 

Study 

Alternatives 

Identification 

& Evaluation 

Preliminary 

Investigation 

CustomerSpecific Public 

Notification/ 

Involvement 

Customer-Specific 

Information Workshops Program(s)

Target Broader 

Audience Public Group 

Table 7-2. Survey Results for Different Reuse 

Purpose Tools 

Communitywide News media, editorial boards, program web site, traveling exhibits, brochures, educational 

Education/Information videos, school programs, open houses 

Direct Stakeholder or 

Citizen Contact 

Neighborhood meetings, speeches and presentations to citizen/stakeholder groups, direct 

mail letters and surveys, program “hotlines” for answering information or managing 

construction complaints 

Formalized Process Public workshops, public meetings, presentations to elected bodies, public hearings, 

advisory committees, special task forces 

From the task force or advisory committee, the community should be able to identify public issues that need 

further attention, and determine which additional public 

information tools will be needed. Table 7-2 outlines a 

number of public information tools that can be used in 

the public participation process. 

Once the issues are identified and public reaction is 

anticipated, the following tools may be useful in conveying information to the broader public: 

 Citizen survey. Can be conducted via direct mail or 

telephone and might be accompanied by media releases to help increase the number of surveys returned or calls answered. In the early stages, a general distribution survey may be helpful in identifying 

level of interest, potential customers, and any initial 

concerns that the population might have. Where 

specific concerns are identified, later public information efforts can be tailored to address them. 

These tailored efforts could include participation by 

other public agencies that can provide information 

on water reuse and regulatory requirements, informal discussions with some potential users to determine interest or fill data gaps, and initial background 

reports to appropriate local decision- making bodies. 

 As the program progresses to alternative identification and evaluation, another survey might be considered. This survey could help confirm earlier re227 
sults, monitor the effectiveness of the ongoing education program, or target specific users. Note that 

the percentage of citizens who take the time to participate in a survey varies widely from one community to another. This should not be the only tool relied upon in gathering input. 

 Open houses. Advertise periodic public open houses 

where information is made available and knowledgeable people are on hand to answer questions. Maps, 

displays, and brief slide demonstrations are all useful 

open house tools. 

 Program website. Increasingly, citizens are turning 

to websites as important information sources. Such 

a website can be purely informational or it can invite 

citizens to ask questions. The website should be 

updated on a regular basis and can include: its own 

survey or results of a citizen survey, answers to frequently asked questions, information regarding other 

successful programs in nearby communities, or a 

slideshow-style presentation that outlines the program goals and alternatives being considered. 

 Media relations. In addition to project news releases, 

it can be very helpful to spend extra time with reporters who will be covering the topic on a regular 

basis, providing added background data, plant tours, 

and informal updates at appropriate times. This 

helps to provide accurate, balanced reports. The 

media can also be helpful in making survey data 

known, and in posting maps of construction areas 

once program implementation is underway. 

 Direct mail updates or occasional newspaper inserts. 

These updates allow the community to address 

questions or issues - not relying specifically on a 

media report. 

 Briefings for government officials. Because water 

reclamation programs often end up with a vote by a 

city council, county commission, or other elected 

body, it is vital that each elected official be wellinformed throughout the reuse planning process. 

Therefore, informal briefings for individual officials 

can be an invaluable tool. These briefings are often 

conducted prior to public workshops and formal 

votes, and allow questions to be answered in advance of a larger, public setting. 

 Plant or project tours. During the education process, 

a tour of an existing project that is similar to the one 

proposed can be an especially useful tool in providing information to key stakeholders, such as an advisory committee, elected body, or the media. 

Once a reuse program has been determined, additional 

public information efforts will be needed throughout the 

implementation phase, including notification to citizens 

prior to construction occurring near their home or business. Then, as the reuse program goes on-line, additional media relations and direct mailings will be needed. 

In the case of urban reuse, this will include information 

to help homeowners through the connection process. 

The City of Tampa’s residential reclaimed water project 

(Florida) is one example of a successful comprehensive 

public participation program. The City used the services 

of Roberts Communication to conduct a targeted public 

education program, which included the following elements 

(Grosh et al., 2002): 

 Opinion leader interviews 

 Public opinion survey 

 Speakers bureau 

 Direct mail to potential customers 

 Newsletter article for homeowner association newsletters 

7.4.1.1 Public Advisory Groups or Task Forces 

If the scope or potential scope of the reuse program 

warrants (e.g., reclaimed water may be distributed to 

several users or types of users, or for a more controversial use), a public advisory group or task force can 

be formed to assist in defining system features and resolving problem areas. In its regulations for full-scale 

public participation programs, EPA requires that such 

group membership contain “substantially equivalent” 

representation from the private (non-interested), organized, representative, and affected segments of the 

public. It is recommended that, for reuse planning, group 

membership provide representation from potential users and their employees, interest groups, neighborhood 

residents, other public agencies, and citizens with specialized expertise in areas (such as public health) that 

pertain directly to reclamation/reuse. 

The advantage of an advisory group or task force is 

that it offers an opportunity to truly educate a core group 

that may later become unofficial “spokespersons” for 

the project. For such a group to be successful, members must see that their input is being put to meaningful 

use. Depending upon the community need, either an 

advisory committee or task force may be appropriate. 

Advisory committees are generally formed for an indeterminate period to continuously provide input regard228
ing issues related to the topic. So, if an advisory committee is formed for reuse water, the committee may be 

kept as a recommending body to city council, county 

commission, or other elected body, regarding all future 

reclaimed water projects or issues. Often, members of 

the advisory group are designated to serve 2-year terms. 

With the development of a task force, the objectives are 

clearly defined and the task force disbands once the 

objectives have been met. Often, a task force can be a 

better short-term solution. 

Whether a community chooses a task force or advisory 

committee, it is very important to take steps to institutionalize the group and its activities so that its efforts 

are formally recognized as meaningful by the elected 

body. This group can effectively focus on the task at 

hand—planning and implementation of a reuse program 

in which the legitimate interests of various sectors of 

the public have been fully considered and addressed. 

In order to achieve this, the proposed formation of the 

advisory group or task force should be publicized to 

solicit recommendations for, and expression of interest 

in, membership. Often, the community and its leadership will be aware of candidates who would be ideal to 

fulfill this role. 

Whether a short-lived task force or a longer-term advisory committee, the group’s responsibilities should be 

well-defined. Its meetings should be open to the public 

at times and places announced in advance. Interpretive 

meeting minutes should be kept and made available to 

the public. During an initial meeting, the group’s members should designate a single individual who can serve 

as a contact point for the news media. The group should 

fully recognize its shared responsibility for developing a 

sound reuse program that can serve both user requirements and community objectives. In subsequent public 

meetings, the group will assert its combined role as a 

source of information representing numerous interests, 

and an advocate of the reuse program as it gains definition. 

7.4.1.2 Public Participation Coordinator 

EPA regulations for full-scale public participation programs require appointment of a public participation coordinator – an individual skilled in developing, publicizing, and conducting informal briefings and work sessions as well as formal presentations for various community groups. The appointment of a public participation coordinator helps ensure that one accurate source 

of information is available, and that individuals who show 

interest are given an opportunity to provide meaningful 

input. Such a person, whether an agency staff member, 

advisory group member or specialist engaged from the 

larger community, should be thoroughly informed of the 

reuse planning process, be objective in presenting information, and have the ‘clout’ necessary to communicate and get fast response on issues or problems raised 

by citizens involved in the process. 

To accomplish this goal, many communities involved in 

urban and agricultural reuse have created a dedicated 

reuse coordinator position. The responsibilities of such 

a position will vary according to specific conditions and 

preferences of a given municipality. In many programs, 

the reuse coordinator is part of the wastewater treatment department. However, the position can be associated with the water system, or independent of either 

utility. 

7.4.2 Specific Customer Needs 

As alternatives for water reuse are being considered, 

the customers associated with each alternative should 

be clearly identified, and then the needs of these customers must be ascertained and addressed. In the past, 

failure to take this step has resulted in costly and disruptive delays to reclamation projects. Early involvement 

of citizen stakeholders is a key to program success and 

is based on tailoring a program to the specific user type 

and type of reuse system. 

7.4.2.1 Urban Systems 

In urban reuse programs, the customer base may consist of literally thousands of individuals who may be 

reached through the local media, publicly advertised 

workshops, open houses, or neighborhood meetings. 

Identification of homeowner associations and civic organizations may allow for presentations to a larger number of potential customers at a single time. 

The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency 

(MRWPCA) is one example of a public information program that reaches a large urban audience. It has an 

active school education program with classroom demonstrations to about 2,300 children each year. Booths 

at the County Fair and other local events reach another 

7,500 people. Speeches to civic and service groups 

reach another 900 people. Together with the 800 people 

who tour the water reclamation plant each year, 5 percent of the service area population is being educated 

each year. Bimonthly billing inserts add to the local understanding and appreciation of water reclamation. 

7.4.2.2 Agricultural Systems 

In agricultural reuse programs, the issues of concern may 

differ from those of the urban customer. In such pro229
grams, the user is concerned with the suitability of the 

reclaimed water for the intended crop. Water quality issues that are of minor importance in residential irrigation 

may be of significant importance for agricultural production. For example, nitrogen in reclaimed water is generally considered a benefit in turf and landscape irrigation. 

However, as noted in the Sonoma Case Study in Chapter 3, the nitrogen in agricultural reclaimed water could 

result in excessive foliage growth at the expense of fruit 

production. Similarly, while turf grass and many ornamental plants may not be harmed by elevated chlorides, 

the same chloride levels may delay crop maturation and 

affect the product marketability, as occurred in the strawberry irrigation study for the Irvine Ranch Water District 

discussed in Section 3.4. 

For these reasons and others, it is necessary to modify 

the public participation approach used for the urban 

customer when developing an agricultural program. 

Agencies traditionally associated with agricultural activities can provide an invaluable source of technical 

information and means of transmitting information to the 

potential user. Local agricultural extension agents may 

prove to be the most important constituency to communicate as to the benefits of reclamation to the agricultural community. The agents will likely know most, if not 

all, of the major agricultural sites in the area. In addition, they will be familiar with the critical water quality 

and quantity issues facing the local agricultural market. 

Finally, the local farmers usually see the extension office as a reliable source of information and are likely to 

seek their opinion on issues of concern, as might be the 

case with new reclamation projects. The local extension agent will be able to discuss the issues with local 

farmers and hopefully endorse the project if they are 

familiar with the concept of reuse. The local soils conservation service may also prove an important target of 

a preliminary information program. Lack of endorsement 

from these agencies can hinder the implementation of 

agricultural reclamation. 

7.4.2.3 Reclaimed Water for Potable Purposes 

While “reuse” of water has occurred naturally over the 

ages, the concept of treating wastewater to a level that 

is acceptable for drinking is the most difficult type of 

water reuse to gain public acceptance. In such cases 

public health and safety issues are of utmost importance 

and citizen questions will need to be fully addressed. 

Therefore, a comprehensive public participation effort 

will be required, initially focusing on the water problems 

to be addressed, and then turning to a thorough look at 

possible solutions. 

Regulatory agencies, health departments, and other 

health and safety-related groups will be key audiences 

throughout the process. These are groups the public turns 

to for answers; therefore, it is very important to develop 

strong working relationships. Representatives from local 

agencies are also most likely to understand the issues 

that need to be addressed and can provide meaningful 

input regarding reuse options. Endorsement from these 

agencies is critical to program acceptance by the public. 

7.4.3 Agency Communication 

As noted in Chapters 4 and 5, the implementation of 

wastewater reclamation projects may be subject to review and approval by numerous state and local regulatory agencies. In locations where such projects are common, the procedures for agency review may be well-established. Where reclamation is just starting, formal review procedures may not exist. In either case, establishing communication with these agencies early in the project 

is as important as addressing the needs of the potential 

customers. Early meetings may serve as an introduction 

or may involve detailed discussions of the permitability 

of a given project. As with all other types of stakeholders, the proposed project must be understood and endorsed by the permitting agencies. 

It may also be appropriate to contact other agencies that 

may still become involved with a public education program. In fact, early coordination with key agencies, such 

as a community health department, is an important consideration for a couple of reasons. First, the agency may 

not be well-informed about the community’s reuse goals. 

Early discussions can help to answer questions and identify issues at a time when the issues can most easily be 

addressed. Second, because the public often turns to 

these agencies for information, early meetings will help 

to ensure that citizens receive accurate, consistent answers. If a citizen were to ask one agency a question 

and receive a different answer than the community representative gave, credibility of the program can be undermined. 

Where multiple departments in the same agency are involved, direct communication with all concerned departments will ensure coordination. It is worthwhile to establish a master list of the appropriate agencies and departments that will be copied on status reports and periodically asked to attend review meetings. And while this 

communication will be beneficial in developing any reclamation project, it will be critical when specific regulatory 

guidance on a proposed project does not exist. Such a 

condition is most likely to occur in states lacking detailed regulations or in states with very restrictive regulations that discourage reuse projects. 

230
7.4.4 Public Information Through

Implementation 

No matter the type of reclaimed water project, some 

level of construction will be involved at the implementation stage. Citizens who may not have had an opinion 

prior to construction could become negative if the process does not go smoothly. This can be especially challenging in urban reuse programs when citizen “disruptions” are more visible. Whenever possible, minimal disruption to sidewalks and driveways should be planned, 

along with a speedy restoration effort. It will be worthwhile for the community to have a formal construction 

complaint process in place that offers one phone number to call regarding problems, and a tracking system 

that documents how quickly complaints are resolved. 

Public information regarding construction activities can 

be made available through the local media. The community will also need an information program regarding 

connections to the system, with emphasis on making 

the process as simple as possible for each customer. 

7.4.5 Promoting Successes 

In communities where the use of reclaimed water is new, 

short-term project successes can become a strong selling point for later, larger programs. Such is the case 

with communities that may begin an urban program by 

using reclaimed water in highly visible public medians. 

Citizens who drive pass these medians are likely to note 

improvements over time and see “reclaimed water” signs 

posted at the site. Over time, as a reuse program becomes more established, the public information specialists will need to look for other opportunities to talk about 

how the program is helping the community. These follow-up information efforts provide an important role in 

making reuse water a long-term solution for the community. 

Reclaimed water has been actively and successfully 

used in urban applications for more than 30 years. These 

long-term successes have helped to encourage more 

and more communities to make use of this resource. 

As citizens have grown to accept and embrace the use 

of reclaimed water, a new need for education has arisen 

because the supply of reclaimed water is limited and 

should not be wastefully used any more than potable 

water should not be over-used. The problem of reclaimed 

water over-use seems to be especially true in communities that do not have metering systems to track the 

specific amount of water used. Metering systems, and 

a sliding scale for payment according to the amount 

used, are examples of approaches that some communities use to encourage conservative use of the reclaimed water. In Cape Coral, Florida, where urban reuse has been in place for more than 10 years, the City 

launched an education campaign gently reminding citizens to conserve. 

7.5 Case Studies 

7.5.1 Accepting Produce Grown with

Reclaimed Water: Monterey, 

California 

For many years some vegetables and fruits have been 

grown in foreign countries with reclaimed water and then 

sold in the U.S. This practice suggests acceptance on 

the part of the distributors and consumers. In Orange 

County, California, the Irvine Company has been furrow 

irrigating broccoli, celery, and sweet corn with reclaimed 

water for over 20 years. 

In 1983, as part of the Monterey Wastewater Reclamation Study for Agriculture (see description in Section 3.8), 

individuals involved with produce distribution were interviewed regarding the use of reclaimed water for vegetable irrigation. One hundred and forty-four interviews 

were conducted with: 

 Brokers and receivers at terminal markets throughout the U.S. and Canada 

 Buyers for major cooperative wholesalers in principal cities 

 Buyers, merchandisers, and store managers with 

small, medium, and large chains 

The primary focus of the interviews was the need or 

desire to label produce grown with reclaimed water. The 

results are given in Table 7-3. 

The responses indicated the product would be accepted, 

and that labels would not be considered necessary. 

According to federal, state, and local agency staff, the 

source of the water used for irrigation was not subject 

to labeling requirements. Produce trade members indicated labeling would only be desirable if it added value 

to the product. Buyers stated that good appearance of 

the product was foremost. An abbreviated update of the 

1983 survey was conducted in 1995 and led to these 

same conclusions. 

Since 1998, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) has been providing reclaimed water for nearly 12,000 acres (4,900 hectares) of vegetables 

and strawberries. Growers, especially those with a world 

known brand, are reluctant to advertise the source of 

water used on their crops. They believe the water is as 

231
Table 7-3. Trade Reactions and Expectations Regarding Produce Grown with Reclaimed Water 

Reaction or Expectation Respondents Knowledgeable About 

Reclaimed Water 

Respondents Not Aware of 

Reclaimed Water 

Would Carry 64% 50% 

Would Not Carry 20% 25% 

Don’t Know 16% 25% 

TOTAL 100% 100% 

Would Not Expect it to be Labeled 68% 67% 

Would Expect it to be Labeled 20% 25% 

Don’t Know 12% 8% 

TOTAL 100% 100% 

Total Number of Respondents=68 

Source: Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, 2002 

good as or better than other irrigation water but are concerned with perception issues. Consequently, 3 approaches are being followed to address these concerns: 

operating the treatment plant beyond the regulatory requirements, low profile education of local residents, and 

planning for real or perceived problems with the produce. 

MRWPCA strives to meet Title 22 requirements (<2 NTU, 

>5 ppm chlorine residual, <23 MPN max.) when the water enters the distribution system. This is usually 1 day 

after being held in an open storage pond following treatment. During the peak growing season, chlorine residual 

is maintained in the water until it is applied to the crops. 

The storage pond is sampled for fecal coliform, emerging pathogens, Clostridium, and priority pollutants. All 

the results are shared with the growers via the 

MRWPCA’s website (www.mrwpca.org) and through 

monthly grower meetings. 

MRWPCA has an active school education program with 

classroom demonstrations to about 2,300 children each 

year. Booths at the county fair and other local events 

reach another 7,500 people. Speeches to civic and service groups reach another 900. Along with 800 people 

coming to tour the water reclamation plant each year, 5 

percent of the service area population is being educated 

each year. Bimonthly billing inserts add to the local understanding and appreciation of water reclamation. 

The Water Quality and Operations Committee is a group 

consisting of project growers, the county health department, and the reclaimed water purveyors. It meets monthly 

and decides policy issues for the project. That group hired 

a public relations firm to plan for a crisis, and a crisis 

communication manual was prepared. The committee is 

editing the manual, continuing to prepare for different possible scenarios, and preparing to train members on how 

to deal with the press. The growers are still concerned 

about perception issues, but are confident that they have 

prepared for most possibilities. 

7.5.2 Water Independence in Cape Coral -

An Implementation Update in 2003 

The City of Cape Coral, Florida, is one of the fastest 

growing communities in the country. At 33 years old, 

this southwest Florida community has a year-round population of more than 113,000 people. However, like many 

Florida communities, the population fluctuates with more 

than 18,000 additional residents in the winter months. 

What makes the City truly unique is its vast developerplanned canal system, with platted lots throughout the 

community. City planners knew well in advance that they 

would eventually need to supply water to more than 

400,000 residents. 

Water supply concerns, coupled with a need to find an 

acceptable method for ultimately disposing of 42 mgd 

of wastewater effluent, prompted the City to develop a 

program called, “Water Independence in Cape Coral” 

(WICC). WICC includes a unique dual-water system designed to provide potable water through one set of pipes 

and secondary, irrigation water through a second set of 

pipes. This secondary water would be provided through 

reclaimed water and freshwater canals. 

Implementation of WICC did not come easy. The WICC 

master plan was prepared, presented, and adopted by 

the City with relatively little interest from the public. However, when attempts were made to move forward with 

232
Phase 1 (issuance of special property assessment notices), some members of the public became very vocal 

and were successful in delaying the project. From the 

time the City committed to proceed, it took 6.5 years to 

start up Phase 1. Table 7-4 lists the chronology of the 

WICC implementation and highlights the challenges faced 

by the City in moving forward. 

The City began using the secondary water system in 

1992. Had a public awareness campaign been launched 

in the early years, it could have addressed citizen concerns prior to finalizing the special assessment program. 

Cape Coral’s experience provides a valuable lesson to 

other communities introducing reuse water. 

During the first 8 years of using secondary water, Cape 

Coral was able to conserve more than 4 billion gallons 

(15 million m3

) of potable water that would previously have 

been used for irrigation purposes. The system works by 

pumping reclaimed water from storage tanks to the distribution system. Five canal pump stations transfer surface water from freshwater canals, as needed. Variable 

speed effluent pumps respond to varying customer deTable 7-4. Chronology of WICC Implementation 

mands. The secondary water is treated and filtered before going into the distribution system. 

In 2002, the City successfully used secondary water to 

irrigate more than 15 miles (24 km) of landscaped medians. Other benefits have included the availability of 

year round irrigation at a reasonable price to customers, the deferred expansion of a City wellfield, the deferred construction of a second reverse osmosis water 

treatment facility by a number of years, and nearly zero 

discharge of effluent into the nearby Caloosahatchee 

River. 

As Cape Coral residents came to accept secondary water as an irrigation source, the City found a need to launch 

an entirely different kind of education campaign. In response to “over-watering” by some customers and concerns by regulatory agencies, the City began to enforce 

limited watering days and times, just as with potable 

water. The City’s new education campaign underscored 

the message that secondary water should be recognized 

as a resource, not a “disposal issue.” The City created a 

friendly “Cape Coral Irrigator,” using a smiling alligator, 

November 1985 City WICC report prepared 

WICC concept is born 

January 1988 WICC master plan adopted 

April 1988 Assessment hearing with 1,200 vocal citizens 

WICC program stopped 

City Council election 

November 9, 1988 Pro-WICC/Anti-WICC campaign 

Low voter turnout/Anti-WICC prevailed 

Deadlocked City Council 

November 1988 -

October 1989 

State water management threatens potable allocation cutback 

Supportive rate study 

Supportive citizen's review committee 

Requested increase to potable water allocation denied 

WICC referendum 

November 1989 60% voter turnout 

WICC wins 2-to-1 

December 1989 Second assessment hearing 

February 1990 Construction started for Phase I 

March 1992 Phase 1 starts up 

September 1992 Phase 2 start up is scheduled 

October 1994 Phase 3 start up is scheduled 

233
to remind homeowners about dry season watering times 

and good conservation practices. The City also created 

an Irrigator Hotline for people to call to confirm watering 

schedules, and the City’s Code Enforcement began issuing citations to violators to make the message clear. 

As Cape Coral continues to grow, the City is looking to 

expand its secondary system at the same time that crews 

bring water and sewer service to new areas of this 114-

square-mile (295-km2) community. In another creative 

endeavor, the City is working to increase the supply of 

secondary water through weir improvements by seasonally raising weirs to store more water in the canals. These 

weir improvements may make it possible to supply secondary water to an even larger customer base. Cape Coral 

has one of the largest, fully integrated water management systems in the country and will bear watching in 

the future. 

7.5.3 Learning Important Lessons When

Projects Do Not Go as Planned 

Over the last decade, reclaimed water proponents have 

been highly successful in convincing the public about 

the benefits of reclaimed water for irrigation. That 

“hurdle” has, for the most part, been surpassed. But 

public questions and concerns continue to emerge about 

using reclaimed water for anything related to potable 

supplies. Today, science and technology make it possible to treat reclaimed water to drinking water standards. But, even as an indirect water supply source, 

case studies continue to find hesitation by citizens to 

embrace highly treated reclaimed water as a potable 

water source. This is especially true when other water 

supply options become available. Over time, and as 

more successes in the potable reclaimed water arena 

are achieved, this hurdle may also be surpassed. 

The following 2 case studies illustrate some of the challenges that can emerge as programs strive to move forward from the conceptual stage. 

7.5.3.1 San Diego, California 

In 1993, the City of San Diego began exploring the feasibility of using highly treated wastewater, or reclaimed 

water, to augment imported water supplies. The concept of this “Water Repurification Project” was to treat 

reclaimed water to an even higher standard and then 

pipe it into a surface water reservoir. There, the reclaimed water would blend with the raw water supply, 

thus increasing the water supply available. 

Some positive public involvement efforts undertaken by 

the Water Repurification Project team included: 

 Convening a public advisory committee early in the 

project’s development, which included a broad cross 

section of community interests 

 Engaging members of the advisory committee and 

others, including the Sierra Club, County Medical 

Society, and Chamber of Commerce, to speak on 

behalf of the project 

 Developing easy-to-understand information materials and disseminating them widely to potential stakeholders

 Making presentations to community groups and held 

numerous workshops and open houses 

 Taking members of the public and key stakeholders 

on tours of the pilot plant where taste tests were 

held using repurified water 

 Briefing policy-makers and their staffs 

While the project team worked to educate and involve 

stakeholders in the process from the early planning 

stages, the following “outside” factors emerged and may 

have influenced public perception: 

 Once the project moved from concept to design, 

the City of San Diego’s wastewater department took 

over as the lead agency. This may have served to 

portray the project as a wastewater disposal solution rather than a water supply solution. 

 Lesson to consider: If possible, stay with the same 

project team, especially leadership, from inception 

through completion. Keep the project goal clear and 

unchanging. Try to avoid sending mixed messages. 

 During the 5 years from concept to design, another 

water supply alternative emerged. Proponents of an 

agricultural water transfer positioned it as a superior alternative to indirect potable reuse and 

launched an aggressive promotional campaign. In 

fact, the 2 projects were complementary, one providing a new source of imported water, the other a 

locally controlled water source. 

Lesson to consider: If a new alternative is proposed 

in a public forum, it needs to be formally recognized 

and evaluated before the original or an enhanced 

concept can move forward. Otherwise, the credibility of the original concept may be harmed. In some 

instances, ideas can be blended through public involvement to develop a more tailored community solution. The goal is to partner with others wherever 

234
possible and to avoid an “us versus them” environment. 

 The time when the project was ready for final approval from the San Diego City Council coincided 

with several competitive elections. The project became a political issue. Key votes were delayed until 

after the election. 

Lesson to consider: Much time is often dedicated to 

educating community leaders about a project. Elections can disrupt the timing of implementation because added time is then needed to educate new 

leaders. When possible, big picture planning should 

consider key election dates, timing project deadlines 

and approvals prior to any major shifts on a council 

or commission. 

 A State Assembly member running for re-election 

called for special state hearings on the project, providing a forum for the candidate’s allies to attack 

the project. The same candidate sent a direct-mail 

“survey” to constituents asking if they supported 

“drinking sewage.” An underdog City Council candidate raised the issue of environmental justice by 

stating, inaccurately, that while the wastewater 

source was the affluent part of the city, the water 

recipients were in lower economic and ethnically 

diverse neighborhoods. Even though this was not 

true, the misinformation spread with the help of local radio talk show personalities and African-American activists. Several African-American ministers 

appeared at City Council hearings to protest politicians “using them as guinea pigs.” 

Lesson to consider: If the public hears a particular 

“fact” as little as 3 times, then, regardless of whether 

or not the information is true, this “fact” will begin to 

be perceived as truth. This is why it is so important 

to correct inaccuracies whenever possible, as quickly 

as possible. If, for instance, a newspaper article provides incorrect facts about a project and no one calls 

the reporter to correct the story, then the report is 

filed in the newspaper archives as factual. The next 

time a story is needed about the project, a different 

reporter then uses the previous story for background 

information. This article is very likely to repeat the 

wrong information. 

 Even after briefings, the lead editorial writer for water 

issues at The San Diego Union-Tribune felt any kind 

of water reuse was too costly and ill advised. News 

reporters borrowed the “Toilet to Tap” description 

(used by media covering a groundwater project in 

Los Angeles) in their ongoing coverage. 

Lesson to Consider: Developing ongoing relationships 

with knowledgeable reporters and editorial boards is 

critical. 

 The National Research Council issued a report on 

indirect potable reuse just prior to the project’s consideration by the San Diego City Council. While the 

report was largely favorable, the executive summary 

included a statement that indirect potable reuse 

should be considered an “option of last resort.” That 

comment made national news and was viewed as 

scientific validation that the project was unsafe. 

 Spurred by local media coverage and direct mail 

from political candidates criticizing the project, a 

group of County residents formed to actively oppose the project. The “Revolting Grandmas” attended all hearings and public meetings to speak 

against the project and wrote letters to the media 

and elected officials. Members of the Revolting 

Grandmas lived outside the City’s jurisdiction and, 

therefore, had not been included on project mailing 

lists to receive accurate information for the past 5 

years. 

Lesson to Consider: While it may be impossible to 

identify every stakeholder group in the process, this 

situation highlights just how critical early identification of a complete list of stakeholders can be. 

 A private developer of gray water systems attacked 

the project repeatedly with elected officials and the 

media, claiming gray water was a superior water 

supply option. The company president argued gray 

water was safer and more cost-effective than indirect 

potable reuse. 

Lesson to Consider: Sometimes, providing a direct 

response to a party with an opposing view can be 

the correct response. But, at other times, providing 

a response may serve to validate the other person’s 

claims in the eyes of the public. It is important to 

evaluate the level of response needed on a caseby-case basis. 

7.5.3.2 Public Outreach May not be Enough: 

Tampa, Florida 

In the late 1990s, the City of Tampa, Tampa Bay Water, 

and the SWFWMD, in cooperation with the EPA, studied 

the feasibility of developing a water purification project 

for the area. Reclaimed water, treated further at a supplemental water reclamation treatment facility, would be 

blended with surface water and treated again at the City’s 

water treatment facility. A public outreach program was 

235
developed to enhance and improve the public’s understanding of the region’s water problem, its long history of 

conflict over water issues, and public perceptions about 

government and indirect potable reuse. While there were 

significant challenges to overcome, a public information 

program began to make headway through the use of the 

following efforts: 

 Identified and interviewed key stakeholders, conducted 

focus groups, and conducted a public opinion survey 

 Developed project fact sheets, frequently asked questions materials, and brochures 

 Drafted a comprehensive communication plan for the 

project 

 Formed a public working committee and developed 

its operating framework 

 Developed a project video, website, and layperson’s 

guide to the Independent Advisory Committee’s recommendations. 

 Supported the Ecosystem Team Permitting process 

that resulted in permit issuance 

 Conducted public meetings, open houses, and workshops 

Although the outreach program reached a broad audience and the project was permitted, it has yet to be 

implemented. Several factors contributed to the lack of 

implementation, including a lack of support among 

agency policymakers and senior staff. Specific examples 

include: 

 Policymakers viewed the project as a choice among 

seawater desalination, creating a new reservoir in 

an old phosphate pit, and developing the purified 

water project. Many policymakers considered desalination the preferred option. 

 The City of Tampa Department of Sanitary Sewers 

was the main project proponent, positioning the 

project from the wastewater side. The City of Tampa 

Water Department was not actively involved. 

 A general manager of a local water agency vocally 

opposed the project. Tampa Bay Water, the region’s 

water agency, did not speak out to counter the opposition. 

 A National Research Council report critical of indirect potable reuse was released just prior to when 

the Tampa Bay Water Board was called upon to 

approve the project. The report created a perception that the scientific community was not in favor of 

indirect potable reuse. 

The Tampa project shows the importance of gaining 

support of policymakers, senior staff and elected officials. It may be worthwhile to consider these among the 

first target audiences, before working toward a broader 

public involvement effort. 

7.5.4 Pinellas County, Florida Adds 

Reclaimed Water to Three R’s 

of Education 

When Pinellas County Utilities renovated the South 

Cross Bayou Water Reclamation Facility, the department saw an opportunity to use the new facility as a 

learning laboratory to teach “real-life” science to students and other County residents. The effort to make the 

vision a reality began more than a year ago with the construction of an Educational/Welcome Center that is now 

home to a multifaceted, hands-on educational program. 

Initially focusing on high school science students and 

adult visitors, utility officials worked closely with County 

high school teachers to develop “Discover a Cleaner 

Tomorrow” as an appropriate curriculum to enhance 

classroom learning. The curriculum was designed to 

support National Science Standards, Sunshine State 

Standards, and student preparedness for the Florida 

Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) tests. 

Through a partnership with the Pinellas County School 

Board, a certified science educator modifies the curriculum for each visiting class and teaches the scientific 

principles and methods involved in water reclamation. 

Before they visit the South Cross Bayou site, students 

are introduced to the topic of wastewater treatment 

through an animated video focusing on the role of bacteria. The video sets the tone for serious learning through 

humor in the light-hearted production. When they arrive 

at the site, students are introduced to the facility tour 

with a second short feature, a sequel to the classroom 

video. A third video was developed for the general public. Titled “Undissolved Mysteries,” it features a detective/narrator who roams through the facility uncovering 

the mysteries of water reclamation. 

After the video presentations, visitors board a tram that 

transports them through the 35-acre site. Hands-on investigation helps students and other visitors gain a better understanding of wastewater treatment processes. 

236
Students test the wastewater at 2 different locations for 

dissolved oxygen, nitrates, nitrites, and total suspended 

solids. They compare their results with those from the 

professional on-site laboratory, as well as those from other 

high school groups, adding a competitive element to the 

tour. Students must each complete an exercise and observation notebook as they take the tour, creating accountability in meeting specific learning objectives. 

Visitors to the facility develop a better understanding of 

the science involved in water reclamation, the role citizens play in managing limited water resources, the importance of clean water, and the range of career opportunities in wastewater treatment and management. 

7.5.5 Yelm, Washington, A Reclaimed 

Water Success Story 

The City of Yelm, Washington, boasts an $11 million 

water reclamation facility that has gained statewide recognition and become a local attraction. Yelm recycles 

200,000 gpd (760 m3

/d) of water, with plans to eventually recycle 1 mgd (3,800 m3

/d). The system has been 

producing Class A reclaimed water since its inception 

in August 2001; however, the jewel of the facility is an 

8-acre (3-hectare) memorial park and fishing pond. At 

the park, a constructed wetlands system de-chlorinates, 

re-oxygenates, and further cleans, screens, and moves 

the water through a wetland park of several ponds, including a catch-and-release fishing pond stocked with 

rainbow trout. City representatives say the park has become a good place for fishing and viewing wildlife. There’s 

even been a wedding held on site. The City also uses 

the reclaimed water for irrigation at a middle school and 

a number of churches. The water is also used to wash 

school buses and to supply a number of fire hydrants. 

Yelm is actively promoting public awareness about reclaimed water. Twenty-five elementary and middle 

school students entered a city-sponsored contest to see 

who could come up with the most creative water reuse 

mascot. The winning mascot, designed by a fifth grader, 

was a purple pipe aptly named, “Mike the Pipe.” Students and teachers then took the concept a step further 

and created an interactive skit using Mike the Pipe and 

other characters to talk about what can be done with 

water that is poured down a drain. Some of the other 

characters included, “Water Sprite,” “Sledge,” and “Little 

Bug.” 

The City of Yelm Water Reclamation Facility has won 

awards from the American Public Works Association, 

the Association of Washington Cities, and, in 2002, the 

Department of Ecology presented the City with an Environmental Excellence Award. 

7.5.6 Gwinnett County, Georgia – Master 

Plan Update Authored by Public 

Population and economic growth, as well as an extended 

drought, forced Gwinnett County, Georgia, to reassess 

its water strategy. While simultaneously building the 20-

mgd North Advanced Water Reclamation Facility 

(NAWRF), the county also initiated a multi-stakeholder 

program to update its Water and Wastewater Master 

Plan in order to combat growing water problems. 

The NAWRF is an 11-step reclamation facility that includes primary, secondary, and advanced treatment as 

well as a 20-mile (32-km) pipeline to discharge plant effluent to the Chattahoochee River. Unit processes at the 

plant include: clarifying tanks, biological treatment, membrane filters, sand and activated carbon filters, and ozone 

gas disinfection. During construction, projections led the 

County to begin plans to renovate the plant to double its 

capacity to 40 mgd (1,750 l/s). 

As part of the multi-stakeholder program to update the 

master plan, the county created an Advisory Panel. The 

panel, created in 1996, had meetings facilitated by the 

Gwinnett County Department of Public Utilities (DPU) 

with assistance from an environmental consulting firm. 

Polls were held at public meetings to identify 7 categories of stakeholder groups (Hartley, 2003): 

 Homeowner associations 

 Business community 

 Development interests 

 Large water users 

 Gwinnett County cities 

 Environmental organizations 

 Citizens-at-large 

Representatives were selected from each of these stakeholder groups and were responsible for attending meetings and conveying information to and from their respective groups. Public meetings were held the first Tuesday 

of each month for 18 months. The following list of goals 

and objectives were developed by the Advisory Panel 

throughout the 18-month discourse (Hartley, 2003): 

 Improve reliability of water and sewer system 

 Develop strong maintenance and rehabilitation programs 

237
 Protect public health and the environment 

 Plan for water and sewer capacity proactively 

 Minimize the negative impact of new facilities on 

neighborhoods and the environment 

 Develop alternate water sources 

 Pursue regional opportunities 

 Manage water and wastewater demand 

 Provide a high level of service at an optimum cost 

One of the major items of dissent among the regulatory 

agencies, Gwinnett County, and members of “the public” was effluent disposal from the NAWRF. The original 

plant included a pipeline to discharge effluent to the 

Chattahoochee River; however, fears of low quality effluent and recent raw sewage spills and fish kills led many 

groups and individuals to be against discharge to the 

river. The second alternative was to discharge effluent 

to Lake Lanier, which feeds the local water treatment 

plant, in turn, a form of indirect potable reuse. And although the state did approve discharge into Lake Lanier, 

it is illegal in the State of Georgia to perform direct potable reuse (Hartley, 2003). 

The Advisory Panel recommended the following items 

for water supply (Hartley, 2003): 

 Preference for the continued use of Lake Lanier as 

a water supply source in the near-, mid-, and longterm 

 Blended reuse was considered a secondary alternative in the long-term 

The group created a second set of recommendations for 

wastewater (Hartley, 2003): 

 Given the quality of treated wastewater effluent from 

the NAWRF, nonpotable reuse should be “pursued 

vigorously” through all time periods 

 Continue to seek conversions from septic tanks to 

public wastewater treatment 

 Discharge into the Chattahoochee River in the nearterm was preferred, with a second option being discharge into Lake Lanier 

 Increased preferences for blended reuse in reservoirs for the mid- and long-term planning horizons 

These items were included in the update to the master 

plan that the Advisory Panel members “...actively wrote 

and edited...” (Hartley, 2003). 

In addition to the creation of the Advisory Panel, Gwinnett 

County created a separate Citizen Advisory Board to 

oversee responsibilities at the NAWRF, especially proper 

operations and meeting effluent limits. This board was 

created in response to the concern that lower-standard 

effluent would have detrimental effects on the 

Chattahoochee River and Lake Lanier. 

“While there were a few common members with the 

master planning process Advisory Panel, the Citizen 

Advisory Board is in independent group with a distinct 

role. It serves as a communication channel between the 

public and the utility. The Citizen Advisory Board controls its own $50,000/year budget. The Citizen Advisory 

Board has spent the funds on sampling, technical review of plans and designs, and other oversight activities” (Hartley, 2003). 

The Citizen Advisory Board has been successful in both 

facilitating communications with other citizens, as well 

as being instrumental in ensuring premium operations 

and maintenance at the NAWRF. Most recently they 

succeeded in adding a new resolution to include annual 

budgeting for the retraining of the operations and maintenance staff at the plant (Hartley, 2003). 

7.5.7 AWWA Golf Course Reclaimed Water 

Market Assessment 

In 1998, the AWWA Water Reuse Committee commissioned a study to survey golf course superintendents 

regarding their perceptions and experiences using reclaimed water. With the increasing need to turn to reclaimed water for non-domestic uses, the water industry was interested in determining if the existing systems 

providing reclaimed water to golf courses were satisfactory or needed improvement so that this information 

could be used by providers when developing future reclaimed water systems. 

A survey creation group was formed with members of 

the USGA Green Section, certified golf course superintendents, and a member of the University of Nevada at 

Las Vega (UNLV) research staff. This group developed a 

37-question survey focused primarily on the technical 

aspects of water quality issues, irrigation system issues, 

management issues, provider issues, and the perceptions of golfers, superintendents, and the public. 

The survey was beta tested in 2000 with the AWWA CA/ 

NV Recycled Water Committee and the NWEA user sub238
committee of Reuse Nevada to ensure that the time commitment and survey content were appropriate. A website 

was built to disseminate the survey, providing a readily 

available place for soliciting input from superintendents 

across the nation. The website, www.gcrwa.com, was 

opened in September of 2000 and the necessary programming was completed to allow the survey data to be 

downloaded to a secure database so that the results could 

be evaluated. 

Since January 2003, data has been received from 15 

states and British Columbia with the majority of the survey responses coming from Florida, Arizona, and Nevada. Knowing that the USGA list of effluent-using golf 

courses in 1994 numbered 220 and the number in Southern Nevada alone has grown from 5 to 17 since then, it 

is estimated that the number of golf courses in the U.S. 

that use reclaimed water might easily exceed 300 today. Based on this expected sample population, the most 

significant observation has been the slow response rate 

from golf course superintendents — only 88 have been 

received. Internet responses as of January 2003 numbered 62, while returns by fax or mail number 26, indicating that 30 percent of the superintendents either do 

not have access to the Internet or prefer to respond with 

hard copy. 

Figure 7-5. Survey Reponses 

The survey responses have come from private courses 

(47 percent) and public courses (53 percent). Most of 

the courses (78 percent) were standard 18-hole courses 

and ranged between 660 and 7,200 yards (600 and 

6,580 meters) in length. About 55 percent of the courses 

use reclaimed water all or part of the time. The remaining 45 percent of the courses use potable, well, storm, 

canal, river water, or combinations thereof to irrigate 

their courses. 

Significant to the intent of the survey, was the response 

regarding the opinions of golfers, nearby residents, and 

superintendents to the use of reclaimed water. Negative comments about reclaimed water appear to be limited to about 10 percent of each of the groups, with odors 

being the only repetitive comment. The overwhelming 

majority (90 percent) appears to be very positive and 

supportive of reclaimed water use. Algae, pondweeds, 

and odors were the 3 most troublesome problems for 

superintendents associated with both reclaimed water 

irrigation systems and aesthetic ponds. 

Irrigation quantity and timing was most often influenced 

by turf color, followed by soil sampling and on-site 

weather stations. Total dissolve solids (TDS) is generally claimed to be a large concern with turf irrigation water, so it was interesting to find that only 31 percent of 

Is course designed to use reclaimed water?

TDS (total dissolved solids) of the reclaimed water?

Salt tolerant turfgrasses (halophytes) on the property?

Are you satisfied with the TDS?

Do you have problems with operation lakes?

Do you have problems with decorative lakes?

Do you have problems with sprinkler heads? 

Survey Responses 

No 

Did Not Respond Responses (%) 

Is it mandatory to use reclaimed water on your course? 

Yes 

The 

239
the survey respondents claimed to know what the actual 

TDS of their water was, yet 59 percent were either satisfied or dissatisfied. Satisfied outnumbered the dissatisfied by a ratio of 2 to 1. A graphical representation of the 

survey responses is presented in Figure 7-5. 

7.6 References 

Alpha Communications, Inc. 2001 Water Reclamation 

Public Opinion Surveys. Researched for: Clark County 

Sanitation District. Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Curran, T.M. and S.K. Kiss. 1992. “Water Independence 

in Cape Coral: An Implementation Update.” In: Proceedings of Urban and Agricultural Water Reuse, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia. 

Filice, F.V. 1996. “Using Public Opinion Surveys to Measure Public Acceptance of a Recycled Water Program 

– San Francisco, CA.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. AWWA. Denver, Colorado. 

Grosh, E.L., R.L. Metcalf, and D.H. Twachtmann. 2002. 

“Recognizing Reclaimed Water as a Valuable Resource: 

The City of Tampa’s First Residential Reuse Project.” 

2002 WateReuse Annual Symposium, Orlando, Florida. 

September 8-11, 2002. 

Grinnell, Gary K., and Ram G. Janga. 2003. “AWWA 

Golf Course Reclaimed Water Market Analysis.” 2003 

AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings, Anaheim, California. 

75

Hall, W.L. and A.R. Rubin. 2002. “Reclaimed Water: A 

Public Perception.” WEFTEC 2002, Proceedings of the th Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois. 

Hartley, Troy W. 2003. Water Reuse: Understanding Public Perception and Participation. Alexandria, Virginia: Water Environment Federation and IWA Publishing. 

Kadvany, John, and Tracy Clinton. 2002. “A Decision Analysis Toolkit for Engineering and Science-Based Stakeholder 

Processes.” WEFTEC 2002, Proceedings of the 75th 

Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois. 

Sheikh, B., J. Kelly and P. MacLaggan 1996. “An Outreach Effort Aimed at Increasing Water Recycling in 

California.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. 

AWWA. Denver, Colorado. 

240 
Chapter 8

Water Reuse Outside the U.S.

The need for alternative water resources, coupled with 

increasingly stringent water quality discharge requirements, are the driving forces for developing water reuse 

strategies in the world today. Water reuse enables practitioners to manipulate the water cycle, thereby creating 

needed alternative water resources and reducing effluent 

discharge to the environment. The growing trend is to 

consider water reuse as an essential component of integrated water resources management and sustainable 

development, not only in dry and water deficient areas, 

but in water abundant regions as well. In areas with high 

precipitation where water supply may be costly due to 

extensive transportation and/or pumping, water reuse has 

become an important economic alternative to developing 

new sources of water. 

Reuse of wastewater for agricultural irrigation is practiced today in almost all arid areas of the world. Numerous countries have established water resources planning 

policies based on maximum reuse of urban wastewater. 

In many dry regions, particularly in developing countries 

in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, unplanned use of inadequately treated wastewater for irrigation of crops continues today and is often confused with planned and regulated reuse. This major health concern makes it imperative to governments and the global community to implement proper reuse planning and practices, emphasizing 

public health and environmental protection, during this 

era of rapid development of wastewater collection and 

treatment. Within the next 2 decades, 60 percent of the 

world’s population will live in cities. As increasingly ambitious targets for sewage collection are pursued, massive and growing volumes of wastewater will be disposed 

of without treatment to rivers and natural water bodies. 

The challenges will be particularly acute in mega-cities 

(cities with a population of 10 million or more), over 80 

percent of which will be located in developing countries. 

This chapter provides an overview and examples of water reuse in countries outside of the U.S., including the 

implementation of reuse in developing countries where 

the planning, technical, and institutional issues may differ considerably from industrialized countries. 

8.1 Main Characteristics of Water 

Reuse in the World 

Increased water shortages and new environmental policies and regulations have stimulated significant development in reuse programs in the past 20 years. According to the conclusions of various water reuse surveys 

(Lazarova et al., 2001 and Mantovani et al., 2001), the 

best water reuse projects, in terms of economic viability 

and public acceptance, are those that substitute reclaimed water in lieu of potable water for use in irrigation, environmental restoration, cleaning, toilet flushing, 

and industrial uses. The main benefits of using reclaimed 

water in these situations are conservation of water resources and pollution reduction. 

A project commissioned by the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), Mantovani et al. (2001) surveyed nonpotable water reclamation planning and management practices worldwide. The study reviewed 65 international nonpotable water reuse projects to document 

planning and management approaches for agricultural, 

urban, and industrial water reuse projects in both advanced 

and developing countries in the arid and semi-arid belts 

around the globe. The survey findings confirmed that in 

addition to operational performance, sound institutional 

arrangements, conservative cost and sales estimates, 

and good project communication are the basis for project 

success. By the same token, institutional obstacles, inadequate valuation of economic benefits, or a lack of public 

information can delay projects or cause them to fail. 

Table 8-1 shows the average volumes of reclaimed water 

produced in several countries, as well as the relative contribution of water reuse to the total water demand. Recent projections show that in Israel, Australia, and Tunisia, the volume of reclaimed water will satisfy 25 percent, 

11 percent, and 10 percent, respectively, of the total water demand within the next few years (Lazarova et al., 

241
Table 8-1. Sources of Water in Several Countries 

Country 

Total Annual Water Withdrawal Annual Reclaimed Water Usage Reclaimed Water as 

Percent of Total 

Year Mm3 MG Year Mm3 MG 

Algeria 1990 4,500 1,188,900 - - - -

Bahrain 1991 239 63,144 1991 15 3,963 6% 

Cyprus 1993 211 55,746 1997 23 6,077 11% 

Egypt 1993 55,100 14,557,420 2000 700 184,940 1% 

Iran 2001 81,000 21,400,200 1999 154 40,687 0.20% 

Iraq 1990 42,800 11,307,760 - - - -

Israel 1995 2,000 528,400 1995 200 52,840 10% 

Jordan 1993 984 259,973 1997 58 15,324 6% 

Kuwait 1994 538 142,140 1997 80 21,136 15% 

Kyrgyzstan 1990 11,036 2,915,711 1994 0.14 37 0% 

Lebanon 1994 1,293 341,611 1997 2 528 0.20% 

Libya 1994 4,600 1,215,320 1999 40 10,568 1% 

Morocco 1991 11,045 2,918,089 1994 38 10,040 0.30% 

Oman 1991 1,223 323,117 1995 26 6,869 2% 

Qatar 1994 285 75,297 1994 25 6,605 9% 

Saudi Arabia 1992 17,018 4,496,156 2000 217 57,331 1% 

Syria 1993 14,410 3,807,122 2000 370 97,754 3% 

Tajikistan 1989 12,600 3,328,920 - - - -

Tunisia 1990 3,075 812,415 1998 28 7,398 1% 

Turkey 1992 31,600 8,348,720 2000 50 13,210 0% 

Turkmenistan 1989 22,800 6,023,760 - - - -

U. A. Emirates 1995 2,108 556,934 1999 185 48,877 9% 

Yemen 1990 2,932 774,634 2000 6 1,585 0% 

Sources: Adapted from World Bank, 2001 with updates from Hamdallah, 2000. 

Note: (-) indicates that data was not available. 

2001). In Jordan, reclaimed water volumes must increase 

more than 4 times by the year 2010 in order to meet 

demands. By 2012, the volume of reclaimed water in Spain 

will increase by 150 percent. The reclaimed water volume in Egypt is expected to increase by more than 10 

times by the year 2025. A number of countries in the 

Middle East are planning significant increases in water 

reuse to meet an ultimate objective of reusing 50 to 70 

percent of the total wastewater volume. 

Water Reuse Drivers 

The main drivers for water reuse development worldwide 

are: 

 Increasing water demands to sustain industrial and 

population growth. This is the most common and 

important driver for dry and water-abundant regions 

in developed, developing, and transitional countries. 

 Water scarcity and droughts, particularly in arid 

and semi-arid regions. In this case, reclaimed water 

is a vital and drought-proof water source to ensure 

economic and agricultural activities. 

 Environmental protection and enhancement in 

combination with wastewater management needs 

represent an emerging driver, in a number of industrialized countries, coastal areas, and tourist regions. 

In areas with more stringent wastewater discharge 

standards, such as in Europe, Australia, and South 

Africa, wastewater reuse becomes a competitive 

alternative to advanced water treatment from both 

economic and environmental points of view. 

 Socio-economic factors such as new regulations, 

health concerns, public policies, and economic incentives are becoming increasingly important to the 

implementation of water reuse projects. For example, 

242

8.2 
the increase in the cost of potable water will help 

promote the implementation of wastewater reuse. 

 Public health protection is the major driver in developing countries where lack of access to fresh water supplies coupled with high market access in urban and peri-urban areas, drives untreated reuse in 

agriculture. Public health protection and environmental risk mitigation are key components of any reuse 

program under these conditions. 

8.2.1 Increasing Water Demands 

Population growth, urbanization, and industrial development contribute to water shortages by perpetually pushing up demand. In addition, these same factors increase 

water pollution, add to potable water treatment costs, 

and most likely, have adverse health effects. Urban growth 

impacts in developing countries are extremely pressing. 

Whereas only 1 in 3 mega-cities were located in developing countries in 1950, in the year 2002, 14 of 22 such 

cities were in developing countries. By 2020, more than 

half the total population of Asia, Africa, and Latin America 

will be living in cities, and all of these cities will need 

additional water supplies. (See Figure 8-1). 

8.2.2 Water Scarcity 

The most common approach used to evaluate water availability is the water stress index, measured as the annual renewable water resources per capita that are availFigure 8-1. World Populations in Cities 

able to meet needs for domestic, industrial, and agricultural use. Based on past experiences in moderately developed countries in arid zones, renewable freshwater 

resources of 1,700 m3

/capita/year (0.45 mg/capita/year) 

has been proposed as the minimum value at which countries are most likely to begin to experience water stress, 

which may impede development and harm human health 

(Earth Trends, 2001). Below 1,000 m3

/capita/year (0.26 

mg/capita/year) of renewable freshwater sources, chronic 

water scarcity appears. According to some experts, 

below 500 m3/capita/year (0.13 mg/capita/year), countries 

experience absolute water stress and the value of 

100 m3/capita/year (0.026 mg/capita/year) is the minimum survival level for domestic and commercial use 

(Falkenmark and Widstrand, 1992 and Lazarova, 2001). 

Projections predict that in 2025, 2/3 of the world’s population will be under conditions of moderate to high water 

stress and about half of the population will face real constraints in their water supply. 

Population Action International has projected the future 

water stress index for 149 countries and the results indicate that 1/3 of these countries will be under water stress 

by 2050. Africa and parts of western Asia appear particularly vulnerable to increasing water scarcity. This data 

also shows that a number of Middle Eastern countries 

are already well below the absolute water stress of 500 m3

/ 

capita/year (0.13 mg/capita/year) and by 2050 will reach 

the minimum survival level of 100 m3/capita/year (0.026 

mg/capita/year) for domestic and commercial use. In 

addition, numerous nations with adequate water resources 

have arid regions where drought and restricted water supply are common (north-western China, western and southern India, large parts of Pakistan and Mexico, the western coasts of the U.S. and South America, and the Mediterranean region). 

A high concentration of population within individual countries also causes water stress. The North China Plain 

(surrounding Beijing and within the river basins Hai, Huai, 

and Yellow River) contains most of the country’s population, such that the water availability is only about 5 

percent of the world average, while China, as a whole, 

has about 25 percent of the world average. 

Another important criterion for evaluating water stress is 

water withdrawal as a percentage of the annual internal 

renewable water resources. Water management becomes 

a vital element in a country’s economy when over 20 percent of the internal renewable resources are mobilized 

(Earth Trends, 2001). This is currently occurring in several European countries (Figure 8-2a) such as France, 

Spain, Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Belgium, the Netherlands, 

and Hungary. The Mediterranean region, North Africa, 

Morocco, Tunisia, Israel, and Jordan are facing high risks 

243
244

of water scarcity, meaning that in these areas, the major

portion of the renewable resources are withdrawn. A number of arid and semi-arid countries meet water demands

by seawater desalination or by withdrawals from non-renewable deep aquifers with extracted volumes 2 to 30

times higher than available renewable resources (Figure

8-2b).

Improving the efficiency of water use, water reclamation, and reducing distribution losses are the most affordable solutions to relieve water scarcity. For a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa, where

current fresh water reserves are, or will be, at the survival level, reclaimed wastewater is the only significant,

8-2a. Countries with Chronic Water Stress Using Non-Renewable Resources

8-2b. Countries with Moderate Water Stress
low cost alternative resource for agricultural, industrial, 

and urban nonpotable purposes. 

8.2.3 Environmental Protection and 

Public Health 

In spite of the economic and ecological advantages associated with wastewater reuse, the key issue remains 

public health safety. The reuse of raw wastewater, still 

widely practiced in several regions in China, India, Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Nepal, Vietnam and most of South 

America, leads to enteric diseases, helminthic infections, 

and dangerous epidemics. In addition to public health 

risks, insufficiently treated effluent may also have detrimental effects on the environment. For example, high 

salinity levels in effluent can lead to a decrease in productivity for certain crops and destabilization of the soil 

structure. Another possible adverse effect is groundwater 

pollution. In the Mezquital Valley, north of Mexico City, 

1,027 mgd (45 m3/s, or 1.15 million acre-feet/year) of 

untreated wastewater from the capital city of Mexico City 

is used for agricultural irrigation in a 222,400-acre (90,000-

hectare) area, year-round (IWA, 2002). This huge wastewater irrigation project, believed to be the largest in the 

world, has given rise to inadvertent and massive recharge 

of the local aquifers, and unintended indirect potable reuse of water from that aquifer by a population of 300,000 

inhabitants. 

8.3 Water Reuse Applications – Urban

and Agriculture 

Agriculture is the largest user of water, accounting for 

approximately 80 percent of the global demand. Consequently, agricultural irrigation is the major water reuse application worldwide. In a number of arid and semiarid countries - Israel, Jordan, and Tunisia – water reuse 

provides the greatest share of irrigation water. Israel is 

the world’s leader in this area, with over 70 percent of 

collected and treated wastewater reused for agricultural 

purposes (Kanarek and Michail, 1996). 

Urban water reuse is developing rapidly, particularly in 

large cities, coastal, and tourist areas. Japan is the 

leader in urban water reuse, with 8 percent of the total 

reclaimed water (about 2,113 mgd or 8 millions m3

/year) 

used for urban purposes. The most common urban uses 

are for the irrigation of green areas (parks, golf courses, 

and sports fields), urban development (waterfalls, fountains, and lakes), road cleaning, car washing, and 

firefighting. Another major type of reuse is on-site water 

reuse within commercial and residential buildings. For 

example, Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom use treated domestic wastewater for toilet flushing. 

Golf course irrigation is reported as the most rapidly growing application of urban water reuse in Europe (Lazarova, 

1999), while replenishment of river flows for recreational 

uses is becoming increasingly popular in Spain and Japan. 

There are several advantages to implementing urban reuse versus agricultural reuse: 

 Most urban reuse, such as toilet flushing, vehicle 

washing, stack gas cleaning, and industrial processing is nonconsumptive; therefore, the water can be 

reused again for subsequent consumptive uses in 

agriculture or industry. 

 The urban markets for water reuse are generally 

closer to the points of origin of the reclaimed water 

than are the agricultural markets. 

 Urban reuse water generally holds a higher value 

than agricultural reuse because it can be metered 

and appropriate charges levied. 

Wastewater treatment for reuse may have a lower cost 

than developing new water supply sources, particularly 

for low-quality reuse in toilet flushing and similar 

nonpotable urban uses. Agricultural irrigation will probably continue to dominate water reuse practices for many 

years into the future, especially in developing countries. 

However, reclamation projects are not likely to be built 

to serve agriculture. Over recent years, there has been 

increasing interest in indirect potable reuse in a number of industrialized countries (Australia, Belgium, 

France, Spain, South Africa, Singapore, and the U.S.) for 

water supply augmentation through the replenishment of 

surface reservoirs, aquifers, and salt intrusion barriers in 

coastal areas. 

Untreated reuse water is a large and rapidly growing problem practiced in both low- and middle-income countries 

around the world. The International Water Management 

Institute (IWMI), based in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and the 

International Development Research Centre (IDRC), based 

in Ottawa, Canada held a workshop to discuss the use of 

untreated reuse water, at which a range of case studies 

were presented from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and 

Latin America. At the workshop the Hyderabad Declaration on Wastewater Use in Agriculture was adopted. 

The conference organizers are preparing an official, peerreviewed publication based on this declaration. As previously mentioned, there are parts of the world where the 

wastewater management systems do not allow for the 

development of water reuse. In some regions untreated 

wastewater is improperly used for irrigation, usually illegally. The declaration recognizes that in situations where 

245
wastewater treatment to produce usable reuse water is 8.4 Planning Water Reuse Projects 

not available, there are alternatives to improve the management of water reuse. The Hyderabad Declaration on Numerous state-of-the-art technologies enable wastewaWastewater Use in Agriculture is reproduced below. ter to become a complementary and sustainable water 

14 November 2002, Hyderabad, India 

1. Rapid urbanization places immense pressure on the world’s fragile and dwindling fresh water 

resources and over-burdened sanitation systems, leading to environmental degradation. We as water, health, environment, agriculture, and aquaculture researchers and practitioners from 27 international and national institutions, representing experiences in wastewater management from 18 countries, recognize that: 

1.1 Wastewater (raw, diluted or treated) is a resource of increasing global importance, 

particularly in urban and peri-urban agriculture. 

1.2 With proper management, wastewater use contributes significantly to sustaining livelihoods, 

food security and the quality of the environment. 

1.3 Without proper management, wastewater use poses serious risks to human health and the 

environment 

2. We declare that in order to enhance positive outcomes while minimizing the risks of wastewater 

use, there exist feasible and sound measures that need to be applied. These measures include: 

Cost-effective and appropriate treatment suited to the end use of wastewater, supplemented 

by guidelines and their application 

Where wastewater is insufficiently treated, until treatment becomes feasible: 

livelihoods, public health and the environment 

practices that limit risks to farming communities, vendors and consumers 

disseminate these measures 

Health, agriculture and environmental quality guidelines that are linked and implemented in 

a step-wise approach 

Reduction of toxic contaminants in wastewater, at source and by improved management 

3. We declare that: 

3.1 Knowledge needs should be addressed through research to support the measures outlined above 

3.2 Institutional coordination and integration together with increased financial allocations are required 

4. Therefore, we strongly urge policy-makers and authorities in the fields of water, agriculture, aquaculture, health, environment and urban planning, as well as donors and the private sector to: 

risks and conserve water resources by confronting the realities of wastewater use in agriculture through the adoption of appropriate policies and the commitment of financial resources 

The Hyderabad Declaration on Wastewater Use in Agriculture 

2.1 

2.2 

(a) Development and application of guidelines for untreated wastewater use that safeguard 

(b) Application of appropriate irrigation, agricultural, post-harvest, and public health 

(c) Education and awareness programs for all stakeholders, including the public at large, to 

2.3 

2.4 

Safeguard and strengthen livelihoods and food security, mitigate health and environmental 

for policy implementation. 

246
resource for a number of purposes in both developed 

and emerging countries, thus allowing utilities to reserve 

high quality and often scarce freshwater for domestic 

uses. The development and implementation of water reuse projects, however, remains difficult due to issues 

such as institutional discord, economics, funding, public 

health and environmental issues and, in some cases, a 

lack of public acceptance. 

8.4.1 Water Supply and Sanitation 

Coverage 

Despite increasing efforts to improve water supply and 

sanitation coverage in the world during the past 10 years, 

numerous regions and many large cities still do not have 

sufficient infrastructure (Table 8-2). According to a 2000 

survey (Homsi, 2000), wastewater treatment coverage 

remains lower than water supply coverage and still represents an important constraint to implementing water 

reuse projects: 

Sewage network coverage: 

 Developed countries: 76 percent, except Japan, 54 

percent and Portugal, 55 percent 

 Developing countries: 35 percent, except Chile, 

greater than 90 percent 

Wastewater treatment coverage: 

 Developed countries: 75 percent, except Portugal, 

36 percent 

 Developing countries: greater than 10 percent 

The situation becomes critical in a number of African 

and Asian countries, where water supply and sanitation 

coverage do not exceed 30 percent and 45 percent, respectively, including Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, 

Chad, Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Laos, Mauritania, and 

Rwanda. Despite these numbers, it is important to stress 

that more and more countries have effectively achieved 

total water supply and sanitation coverage, such as Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, 

Cyprus, Finland, South Korea, Lebanon, Netherlands, 

New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, 

Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Significant strides have also been made in a number of developing countries (Figure 8-3a) and it is expected that 

these figures will improve in several other countries with 

water resource problems (Figure 8-3b) due to governmental policies and increased investments. 

8.4.2 Technical Issues 

Treatment technology, another key aspect of the planning process, varies between planning a reuse project 

in an emerging country and planning a reuse system in 

a more industrialized country. In industrialized countries, 

where stringent control of water quality and operational 

reliability are the main requirements, modern, high cost 

technology may be more beneficial. In developing countries, relatively inexpensive labor and higher capital costs 

dictate that a facility, which can be built and operated 

with local labor, will be more cost effective than a facility 

utilizing more modern, capital-intensive technology. 

Table 8-2. Wastewater Flows, Collection, and Treatment in Selected Countries in 1994 (Mm3/Year) 

Country 

Generation Rate Collection Treatment Treated, As 

Percent of 

Total 

Treated, As 

Percent of 

Collected 

Mm3/yr MG/yr Mm3/yr MG/yr Mm3/yr MG/yr 

Cyprus 24 6,341 15 3,963 15 3,963 63% 100% 

Egypt 1700 449,140 1138 300,660 950 250,990 55% 83% 

Jordan 110 29,062 95 25,099 45 11,889 41% 47% 

Morocco 500 132,100 400 105,680 170 44,914 34% 43% 

Saudi Arabia 700 184,940 620 163,804 580 153,236 83% 94% 

Syria 480 126,816 480 126,816 260 68,692 54% 54% 

Tunisia 200 52,840 180 47,556 155 40,951 78% 86% 

Turkey 2,000 528,400 1,700 449,140 1,100 290,620 55% 65% 

Source: Table created from World Bank Working documents (UNDP, 1998) 

247 
Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage in Selected Countries 

Figure 8-3a. Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage over 80 Percent 

Figure 8-3b. Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Over 50 Percent 

Source: Figures for this table were assembled from WorldBank working documents (UNDP, 1998) 

248 
This section provides an overview of some of the technical issues associated with water reuse in developing countries that may differ from those presented in Chapter 2 

for the U.S. Many of these issues result from the different technical solutions that are appropriate in a laborintensive economy as compared with the capital-intensive economy of industrialized countries. Other differences result from dissimilarities in financial, material, 

and human resources, as well as in existing wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities. 

8.4.2.1 Water Quality Requirements 

Water reuse standards or guidelines vary with the type 

of application, the regional context, and the overall risk 

perception. Depending on the project specifications, 

there will be different water quality requirements, treatment process requirements, and criteria for operation 

and reliability. However, the starting point for any water 

reuse project for any application is ensuring public health 

and safety. For this reason, microbiological parameters 

have received the most attention in water reuse regulations. Since monitoring for all pathogens is not realistic, 

specific indicator organisms are monitored to minimize 

health risks. 

Table 8-3 provides a summary of water quality parameters of concern with respect to their significance in water 

reuse systems, as well as approximate ranges of each 

parameter in raw sewage and reclaimed water. The 

treatment of urban wastewater is typically designed to 

meet water quality objectives based on suspended solids (Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or turbidity), organic 

content (BOD), biological indicators (total or fecal 

coliforms, E.coli, helminth eggs, enteroviruses), nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorus) and, in some cases, 

chlorine residual. Additional water quality parameters for 

irrigation include salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, boron 

concentration, heavy metals content, and phytotoxic 

compounds content. The use of reclaimed municipal water 

for industrial purposes may require effluent limits for dissolved solids, ammonia, disinfection byproducts and other 

specific inorganic and organic constituents. 

Different countries have developed different approaches 

to protecting public health and the environment, but the 

major factor in choosing a regulatory strategy is economics, specifically the cost of treatment and monitoring. Most developed countries have established conservatively low risk guidelines or standards based on a high 

technology/high-cost approach, such as the California 

standards. However, high standards and high-cost techniques do not always guarantee low risk because insufficient operational experience, OM&R costs, and regulatory control can have adverse effects. A number of developing countries advocate another strategy of controlling health risks by adopting a low technology/low-cost 

approach based on the WHO recommendations. A summary of select guidelines and mandatory criteria for reclaimed water use in a variety of U.S. states and other 

countries and regions is presented in Table 8-4. 

Historically, water reuse standards are based on reuse 

for agricultural irrigation. The countries that have adopted 

the WHO recommendations as the basis for their agricultural reuse standards use both fecal coliforms (FC) and 

helminth eggs as pathogen indicators, respectively, at 

1000 FC/100 ml and 1 helminth egg/l for unrestricted irrigation. The WHO recommends more stringent standards 

for the irrigation of public lawns than for the irrigation of 

crops eaten raw (fecal coliform count at 200 FC/100 ml, 

in addition to the helminth egg standard). Recent work, 

based on epidemiological and microbiological studies 

performed in Mexico and Indonesia support the WHO 

fecal coliform limit of less than 103 FC/100 ml, but recommends a stricter guideline value of less than 0.1 egg 

of intestinal nematode per liter (Blumenthal et al., 2000). 

In the absence of recommendations for particulate matter, these standards use TSS at concentrations varying 

between 10 and 30 mg/l. 

WHO recommends stabilization ponds or an equivalent 

technology to treat wastewater. The guidelines are 

based on the conclusion that the main health risks associated with reuse in developing countries are associated with helminthic diseases; therefore, a high degree 

of helminth removal is necessary for the safe use of 

wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. The intestinal nematodes serve as indicator organisms for all of 

the large settleable pathogens. The guidelines indicate 

that other pathogens of interest apparently become nonviable in long-retention pond systems, implying that all 

helminth eggs and protozoan cysts will be removed to 

the same extent. The helminth egg guidelines are intended to provide a design standard, not an effluent testing standard. 

The original 1973 WHO recommendations were more 

stringent than the 1989 recommendations. With respect 

to fecal coliforms, the standard rose from 100 FC/100 ml 

to 1000 FC/100 ml. The WHO guidelines are currently 

undergoing further revision. A draft guideline proposed 

by Bahri and Brissaud (2002) recommends massive revisions in the WHO guidelines, making them somewhat 

more restrictive, while maintaining the objective of 

affordability for developing countries. For example, in the 

draft guidelines, the helminth egg concentration limit is 

reduced from the current guideline of 1 egg/L to 0.1 egg/ 

L for unrestricted irrigation. The proposed draft guidelines also cover various options for health protection, 

249
---

---

---

Table 8-3. Summary of Water Quality Parameters of Concern for Water Reuse 

Parameter Significance for Water Reuse Range in Secondary Effluents Treatment Goal in Reclaimed 

Water 

Suspended solids Measures of particles. Can be related to 

microbial contamination. Can interfere with 

5 mg/L - 50 mg/L <5 mg SS/L - 30 mg SS/L 

Turbidity 

disinfection. Clogging of irrigation systems. 

Deposition. 1 NTU - 30 NTU <0.1 NTU - 30 NTU 

BOD5 10 mg/L - 30 mg/L <10 mg BOD/L - 45 mg BOD/L 

COD 

Organic substrate for m crobial growth. Can 

favor bacterial regrowth in distribution systems 

and microbial fouling. 

i

50 mg/L -150 mg/L <20 mg COD/L - 90 mg COD/L 

TOC 5 mg/L - 20 mg/L <1 mg C/L - 10 mg C/L 

Total coliforms <10 cfu/100mL -107 cfu/100mL <1 cfu/100mL - 200 cfu/100mL 

Fecal coliforms Measure of risk of infection due to potential 

i

<1-106 cfu/100mL <1 cfu/100mL - 103 cfu/100mL 

Helminth eggs cooling systems. 

presence of pathogens. Can favor biofouling n 

<1/L - 10/L <0.1/L - 5/L 

Viruses <1/L - 100/L <1/50L 

Heavy metals 

Specific elements (Cd, Ni, Hg, Zn, etc) are toxic 

to plants and maximum concentration limits 

exist for irrigation 

<0.001 mg Hg/L 

<0.01 mg Cd/L 

<0.1 mg Ni/L - 0.02 mg Ni/L 

Inorganics High salinity and boron (>1mg/L) are harmful for 

irrigation >450 mg TDS/L 

Chlorine residual 

To prevent bacterial regrowth. Excessive 

amount of free chlorine (>0.05) can damage 

some sensitive crops 

0.5 mg Cl/L - >1 mg Cl/L 

Nitrogen Fertilizer for irrigation. Can contribute to algal 

i

10 mg N/L - 30 mg N/L <1 mg N - 30mgN/L 

Phosphorus (P). 

growth, corros on (N-NH4) and scale formation 

0.1 mg P/L - 30 mg P/L <1 mg P/L - 20 mg P/L 

Source: Adapted from Lazarova, 2001; Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Pettygrove and Asano, 1985 

such as treatment of wastewater, crop restrictions, application controls, and control of human exposure. The 

multi-barrier approach throughout the water cycle is also 

considered an important element. WHO wastewater reuse initiatives are considering 4 categories of reuse: (a) 

agriculture, (b) aquaculture (shellfisheries), (c) artificial 

recharge exclusively for potable supply, and (d) urban use. 

The premise is that better health protection can be 

achieved by not only implementing stringent water quality limits but also by defining other appropriate practices 

that could provide additional barriers for pathogens depending on the type of reuse. Such an approach has 

been proposed in the new Israeli standards (Shelef and 

Halperin, 2002). In 1999, new standards were issued by 

the Israeli Ministry of Health (Palestine Hydrology Group, 

1999), defining 5 qualities of reclaimed water, as follows: 

1. Effluents of very high quality, suitable for

unrestricted irrigation—no barriers required

2. Effluents of high quality—2 barriers required for irrigation 

3. Oxidation pond effluents—2 to 3 barriers required

for irrigation 

4. Effluents of medium quality—3 barriers required for

irrigation 

5. Effluents of low quality—only specific “no-barrier”

crops are allowed to be irrigated 

These standards set a low coliform limit of less than 10 

E. coli/100 ml for very high quality reclaimed water that 

does not require additional barriers (the first quality listed 

250
-- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- --

--

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

--

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- --

--

--

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

-- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- --

-- -- --

-- -- -- -- --

--

-- -- --

Table 8-4. Summary of Water Recycling Guidelines and Mandatory Standards in the United States 

and Other Countries 

Country/Re gion 

Fe cal 

Colifor m s 

(CFU/100m l) 

Total 

coliform s 

(cfu/100 m l) 

He lm inth 

eggs 

(#/L) 

BOD5 

(ppm ) 

Tur bidity 

(NTU) 

TSS 

(ppm ) 

DO 

(%of Sat) pH 

Chlor ine 

residual 

(ppm ) 

Aus tralia (New South Wales) <1 <2/50 >20 <2 

Arizona <1 1 4.5-9 

California 2.2 2 

Cyprus 50 10 10 

EC bathing water 100 (g) 500 (g) 2 (g) 80-120 6-9 

2,000 (m) 10,000 (m) 1 (m) 

France <1000 <1 

25 for any 

Florida (m) sample for 20 5 1 

75% 

Germany (g) 100(g) 500 (g) 20 (g) 1-2 (m) 30 80-120 6-9 

Japan (m) 10 10 10 5 6-9 

Israel 2.2 (50%) 

12(80%) 15 15 0.5 0.5 

Italy 

Kuwait 

Crops not eaten raw 10,000 10 10 1 

Kuwait 

Crops eaten raw 100 10 10 1 

Oman 

11A <200 15 15 6-9 

Oman 

11B <1000 20 30 6-9 

South Africa 0 (g) 

Spain (Canary islands) 2.2 10 2 3 6.5-8.4 1 

Tex as (m) 75(m) 5 3 

Tunisia <1 30 30 7 6.5-8.5 

UAE <100 <10 <10 

United Kingdom 100 (g) 500 (g) 2 (g) 80-120 6-9 Bathing Water Criteria 2000 (m) 10000 (m) 1 (m) 

14 for any 

US EPA (g) sample, 0 for 10 2 6-9 1 

90 % 

WHO (lawn irrigation) 200 (g) 

1000 (m) 

Note: (g) signifies that the standard is a guideline and (m) signifies that the standard is a mandatory regulation 

Source: Adapted from Cranfield University, 2001. Urban Water Recycling Information Pack, UK 

above) and can be used for irrigation of vegetables eaten 

raw. Additional barriers are identified as: 

 Physical barriers, such as: buffer zones, plastic 

groundcovers and underground drip irrigation 

 Crops or fruits that are normally treated under high 

temperature and/or are eaten only cooked (e.g., 

wheat), as well as those with an inedible peel or shell 

(e.g., citrus, banana, nuts) 

No-barrier crops are defined in the following categories: 

(1) industrial crops (such as cotton or fodder); (2) crops

whose harvestable parts are dried in the sun for at least 

60 days after the last irrigation (including sunflower, 

wheat, chickpeas intended for cooking); (3) watermelon 

for edible seeds or for seeds that are irrigated before 

flowering; (4) woody crops or plants with no public contact; and, (5) grass for sale with no public access to the 

plot. 

251
The government of Tasmania, Australia, issued the tenth 

draft of its, “Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania” (Tasmanian website). These 

guidelines are intended to provide a framework to allow 

sustainable water reuse in a manner that is practical and 

safe for agriculture, the environment, and the public while 

also remaining consistent with industry standards and 

best environmental practice management (Dettrick and 

Gallagher, 2002). Issues of soil sustainability, including 

permeability hazard, salinity hazard, groundwater protection, and crop health, are discussed in the guidelines. A 

comprehensive health risk management framework is provided that gives different levels of risk management for 

3 quality classes of wastewater including: backflow prevention, public access and withholding, safety for workers dealing with reclaimed water, food safety issues, and 

grazing animal withholding. The Tasmanian guidelines 

identify 3 categories of reclaimed water: 

z Class A Recycled Water: No restriction on public access less than 10 cfu /100 ml 

z Class B Reclaimed Water: Limited restrictions apply 

less than 100 cfu /100 ml or less than 1,000 cfu/100 ml 

depending upon type of application 

z Class C Treated Water: Access restricted less than 

10,000 cfu/100 ml 

No potable reuse or body contact with reclaimed water is 

addressed in the Tasmanian guidelines because of the 

high level and cost of treatment necessary to produce 

the requisite quality reclaimed water. Irrigation of treated 

wastewater to riverside land less than 6 miles (10 kilometers) upstream of a town water supply intake is generally 

not permitted. 

8.4.2.2 Treatment Requirements 

Wastewater treatment is the most effective way to reduce the health, environmental, and other risks associated with the use of reclaimed water. Choosing the most 

appropriate treatment technology for water reuse is a 

complex procedure that must take into consideration 

various criteria, including technical and regulatory requirements, as well as social, political, and economic 

considerations specific to the local conditions. It is important to stress that economic and financial constraints 

have to be taken into account in countries where reclaimed water is a vital water resource for sustainable 

development. 

Depending on water quality objectives, plant capacity, 

land availability, and climate conditions, extensive lowtech technologies, also known as non-conventional processes, can be used in water reuse facilities. Wastewater treatment processes, such as stabilization ponds or 

lagooning, infiltration-percolation, soil-aquifer treatment, 

and wetlands, are well adapted to the climate conditions 

in tropical and subtropical zones. Their relatively low 

OM&R costs and easy upkeep are important advantages 

for developing countries. However, these treatment technologies require large land availability, are associated 

with high evaporation losses resulting in high salinity concentrations, and are recommended predominantly for 

small treatment units, with less than 5000 population 

equivalents (700 m3

/d or 0.2 mgd) (Lazarova et al., 2001). 

Over the last decade, an increased number of studies 

conducted in different countries have shown that stabilization pond systems in series can produce effluent with 

microbiological water quality suitable for unrestricted 

irrigation (WHO guidelines category A, less than 1000 

FC/100 ml and less than 1 helminth egg/L) (Lazarova, 

1999). The hydraulic residence time varies in the range 

of 20 to 90 days according to the climate conditions and 

the optimal lagoon depth is 1.2 to 1.5 meters. Under optimal operating conditions, the disinfection efficiency is 

3 to 5 log removal, with maximum values up to 5 to 6 log 

removal for fecal coliforms. A removal rate of 5 to 6 log 

of fecal coliforms in stabilization ponds can only be 

achieved if maturation ponds are provided. Stabilization 

ponds operating in Brazil have been shown to provide a 

3-log removal of intestinal nematodes (Mara and Silva, 

1986). 

One of the drawbacks of using a stabilization pond system is the restricted operation flexibility, especially during flow and seasonal variations. Activated sludge treatment used in conjunction with tertiary treatment ponds 

has proven to be a reliable and efficient method for disinfection with the elimination of fecal coliform, viruses, 

and helminth eggs. The ponds also provide the required 

storage capacity for irrigation. High evaporation rates, 

particularly in dry and windy zones, are the major disadvantage of this treatment technology. 

The increased use of constructed wetlands in developing countries has been slow, despite favorable climate 

conditions. Adequate wetlands systems designs for tropical and subtropical zones have not yet been developed. 

Several field studies performed in constructed wetlands 

for secondary treatment show that the pathogen reduction (2 to 3 log reduction of fecal coliforms and coliphages) is not sufficient to satisfy the WHO water quality 

guidelines for irrigation. 

Larger cities with existing sewage systems are the most 

promising locations for implementing water reuse. Conventional treatment is likely to be the treatment of choice 

252
because of limited land availability, the high cost of land, 

the considerable transmission distance to reach the 

treatment site, and lack of public acceptability, particularly as city growth nears the vicinity of the treatment 

sites. 

With the increased concern for public health, choosing 

a disinfection technology is recognized as one of the 

critical steps in developing a water reclamation system. 

The treatment quality upstream of disinfection has a 

great impact on the doses required for a given disinfection level. Therefore, if a stringent regulation must be 

met, disinfection alone cannot make up for inefficient 

upstream treatment and often must be coupled with tertiary filtration or other advanced treatment processes. 

The growing use of ultraviolet (UV) technologies for disinfection in wastewater reuse plants worldwide is largely 

attributed to low costs, as well as the absence of toxic 

byproducts. One drawback to using UV disinfection in 

reuse systems is the lack of disinfection residual, which 

is mandatory in distribution tanks, holding tanks, and 

reservoirs. 

In addition to appropriate treatment technology, adequate 

monitoring is also important. Although not always feasible in developing countries, on-line, real-time monitoring is preferable to sampling and laboratory analysis 

where the results arrive too late to take corrective action. A simple and useful measurement of water quality 

for reclaimed water is turbidity. Experience can relate 

turbidity to other parameters of interest but, more importantly, a sudden increase in turbidity beyond the operating standard provides a warning that corrective action is required. For example, practice in the U.S. often 

requires that, should the turbidity exceed 2 NTU for more 

than 10 minutes, the reclaimed water be diverted to storage to be retreated. 

Treatment cost is an extremely important consideration 

everywhere, but especially where financial resources 

are very limited. A recent analysis by Lazarova (2001) 

summarized the unit costs of various treatment levels 

for a 40,000 population-equivalent size treatment plant. 

The results are shown in Table 8-5. The treatment costs 

for producing reclaimed water are highly influenced by 

local constraints, such as the price of the building site, 

distance between the production site and the consumers, and whether or not there is a need to install a dual 

distribution system or retrofit an existing system. 

8.4.3 Institutional Issues 

Planned water reuse is best accomplished through the 

collaboration of at least 2—and often more—institutions. 

Without collaboration, only unplanned or incidental water 

reuse might occur. The institutions with a stake in water 

reuse include those responsible for water supply, wastewater management, water resources management, environmental protection, and public health and, in many 

cases, agriculture. Furthermore, these agencies may 

have responsibilities at local, regional and national levels. More often than not, there is a wide chasm between 

these agencies. Acknowledging that the ideal situation 

rarely exists, and that there is an institutional barrier to 

developing a new water reuse initiative, overcoming barriers and forgoing the necessary links among agencies 

should be the first step in any planning effort. An administrative reorganization may be necessary to guarantee 

the development of water reuse into a general water management group. Examples of such changes include those 

taking place in developing countries like Tunisia, Morocco, and Egypt. Ideally, it would be most desirable to 

have just one agency in charge of the entire water cycle 

in a given hydrologic basin. 

A critically important “partner” in a safe and successful 

water reuse program is the independent regulatory 

agency with oversight and enforcement responsibility 

over all the partners involved in water reuse. It would 

be a conflict of interest for either the water supplier or 

the wastewater manager to have this regulatory role; 

therefore, the most logical “home” for the regulatory function is with the agency charged with protection of public 

health and/or the environment. 

8.4.4 Legal Issues 

There are 2 basic types of legal issues relevant to water 

reuse: (1) water rights and water allocation; and (2) the 

protection of public health and environmental quality. 

Other legal issues may also be relevant in specific circumstances. 

8.4.4.1 Water Rights and Water Allocation 

Diverting existing wastewater flows to a treatment facility will, at a minimum, change the point at which the flow 

is discharged to surface waters, and may change the 

amount of water available to current users further downstream. A water reuse project may completely deprive 

existing users of their current supply if reclaimed water 

is sold to new users (e.g., industrial facilities) or allocated to new uses (e.g., municipal use). 

Traditional practice and customary law in most developing countries recognizes that a water user acquires vested 

rights. Changing the amount of water that is available to 

a current user may entitle the user to some type of remedy, including monetary compensation or a supplemental water supply. A proposed water reuse project needs 

253
Table 8-5. Life-Cycle Cost of Typical Treatment Systems for a 40,000 Population- Equivalent Flow of 

Wastewater 

Treatment System 

Unit Cost1 

per m3 per AF per MG 

Stabilization Ponds (Land Cost not Included) $0.18 $222.00 $0.68 

Activated Sludge (Secondary) $0.34 $420.00 $1.29 

Activated Sludge + Filtration + UV Irradiation $0.42 $518.00 $1.59 

Additional Cost of Full Tertiary Treatment (Title 22) $0.24 $296.00 $0.91 

Additional Cost of Disinfection $0.07 $86.00 $0.26 

Lime Pretreatment + Reverse Osmosis 

(After secondary treatment) $0.75 $926.00 $2.84 

Microfiltration + Reverse Osmosis 

(After secondary treatment) $0.54 $667.00 $2.04 

1 Cost in U.S. Dollars

Adapted from Lazarova, 2001

to consider the impact on current patterns of water use 

and determine what remedies, if any, are available to or 

should be created for current users if the project interferes with their water uses. 

8.4.4.2 Public Health and Environmental 

Protection 

The use of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation and 

various municipal uses may result in human exposure 

to pathogens or chemicals, creating potential public 

health problems. Water reclamation and reuse, and the 

disposal of sludge from wastewater treatment, may also 

have adverse effects on environmental quality if not 

managed properly. 

Planning for water reuse projects should include the 

development and implementation of regulations that will 

prevent or mitigate public health and environmental problems. Such regulations include: 

 A permit system for authorizing wastewater discharges 

 Water quality standards for reclaimed water that are 

appropriate for various uses 

 Water quality standards for river discharge when water reuse is seasonal, intermittent, or less than the 

effluent rate of the wastewater treatment facility 

 Controls that will reduce human exposure, such as 

restrictions on the uses of reclaimed water 

 Controls on access to the wastewater collection system and controls to prevent cross-connections between the distribution networks for drinking water 

and reclaimed water 

 Regulations concerning sludge disposal and facility 

location 

 Mechanisms for enforcing all of the above regulations, 

including monitoring requirements, authority to conduct inspections, and authority to assess penalties 

for violations 

A number of other legal issues discussed in Chapter 5 

are also relevant to developing countries. 

8.4.5 Economic and Financial Issues 

The economic justification for water reuse depends principally on either offsetting the costs of developing additional water sources or on reducing the overall wastewater treatment costs. The full cost of developing and 

managing the water supply, wastewater management 

system, and water reuse system needs to be understood 

in order to conduct a rigorous economic analysis. 

The economic rationale for water reuse outside of the 

U.S. does not differ much from that set out in Chapter 6.

Benefits associated with water reuse include savings from 

not having to develop new water sources, reduced treatment requirements, and the economic value of the reclaimed water. 

254
The enterprises responsible for water supply services in 

developing countries function with varying degrees of 

success, but increasingly, the utility companies recover 

their operating costs through user fees. User fees and/or 

public funds also have to fund the wastewater treatment 

system, if provided by the same institution. 

8.5 Examples of Water Reuse 

Programs Outside the U.S. 

Based on a review of water reuse projects outside the 

U.S., it can be concluded that the number of countries 

investigating and implementing water reuse has increased over the past decade. Hence, water reuse is 

growing steadily not only in water-deficient areas (Mediterranean region, Middle East, Latin America), but also 

in highly populated countries in temperate regions (Japan, Australia, Canada, North China, Belgium, England, 

Germany). The suitability of water reuse, especially in 

arid and semi-arid regions, is now nearly universally 

recognized. However, the societal ability and willingness 

to make the necessary investment for infrastructure 

improvement depends on local circumstances and varies considerably from country to country. 

The principal reuse application remains agricultural irrigation, especially in developing countries. Urban, 

nonpotable reuse, such as reuse for, landscape irrigation, road cleaning, car washing, toilet flushing, and river 

flow augmentation, is developing rapidly in high density 

urban and tourist areas. Indirect potable reuse and the 

use of reclaimed water for industrial purposes have also 

been receiving increased attention in several industrialized countries. The only existing example of direct potable water reuse remains the Windhoek plant in 

Namibia. There have not been any adverse public health 

impacts reported during the 34 years of the plant’s successful operation. 

This section illustrates the applications of water reuse in 

several industrialized countries as well as several developing countries where an interest in reuse is just beginning. This inventory is intended to be illustrative rather 

than exhaustive. For the convenience of the reader, the 

case studies have been listed in alphabetical order. 

8.5.1 Argentina 

Argentina is characterized by various climatic zones: 

tropical, humid climate in the northeastern region with 

large rivers such as the Parana and Uruguay; mild and 

humid climate in the central flat region of the pampas 

with few sources of surface water; and arid and semiarid regions in the west and south. 

Only 35 percent of the population is connected to sewer 

systems and only part of the collected sewage undergoes appropriate treatment (Pujol and Carnabucci, 

2000). Large-scale reuse of untreated wastewater has 

been occurring since the beginning of the 20th century 

in densely populated areas in the western regions of 

the country for the purpose of agricultural irrigation. Argentina requires that water reuse practices must be in 

compliance with the WHO standards, but in some regions, raw wastewater or minimally treated effluent are 

still being used for irrigation (Kotlik, 1998). In the large 

cities, there are plans to use trickling filters and activated 

sludge systems. In the arid areas, conventional stabilization ponds are used for treatment for agricultural reuse. 

Driven by water scarcity, the largest water reuse system 

in Argentina is located in the arid region of Mendoza, in 

the western part of the country near the Andes. Over 

160,000 m3/d (42.3 mgd) of urban wastewater (1 million 

inhabitants, 100 Mm3/year or 26,400 mg/year) is treated 

by one of the largest lagooning systems in the world at 

the Campo Espejo wastewater treatment plant with a total area of 290 hectares (643 acres) to meet the WHO 

standards for unrestricted irrigation by means of facultative stabilization ponds (Kotlik, 1998). Reuse water in 

this region is a vital water resource, enabling the irrigation of over 3,640 hectares (8,995 acres) of forests, vineyards, olives, alfalfa, fruit trees and other crops. Improved 

water reuse practices are under development to avoid 

contamination of aquifers, including establishment of special areas for restricted crops and restrictions in the choice 

of irrigation technologies. An extension of this water reuse system is planned in the northern region of the 

Mendoza City Basin, where the treated effluent from the 

Paramillo wastewater treatment plant (100,000 m3/d or 

26.4 mgd, series of stabilization ponds) is diluted with

the flow from the Mendoza River and used for irrigation 

of a 20,000-hectare (49,420-acre) oasis. 

8.5.2 Australia 

8.5.2.1 Aurora, Australia 

Aurora is a proposed new 650-hectare development to 

be located in the outer northern suburbs of Melbourne, 

Australia. The development is intended to showcase 

sustainable development principles. A key feature will 

be water conservation, with a plan to utilize recycled 

treated wastewater for nonpotable use. The work undertaken so far indicates that with water reuse and demand 

management combined, there is the potential to reduce 

the demand on the potable reticulated system in the order of 70 percent. Construction was planned to commence 

in 2003, with an estimated 15 years before full develop255
ment, at which stage, around 9,000 dwellings will exist, 

housing a population of 25,000. 

Reuse systems completed to date convey wastewater 

to a decentralized treatment plant and distribute it via a 

separate, metered pipe system back to each dwelling. 

At present, Melbourne’s typical separate water systems 

include potable water supply, wastewater collection, and 

storm water collection. The recycled pipes will therefore represent a fourth system that will be plumbed for 

irrigation and toilet flushing. 

Wastewater will need to be treated to Class A standards 

to meet the state’s Environmental Protection Agency 

and Department of Health requirements for the intended 

use. Class A standards require treated effluent to 

achieve the following standards: 

 10 E.coli per 100 ml 

 1 helminth per liter 

 1 protozoa per 50 liters 

 1 virus per 50 liters 

It is envisioned that the project will utilize surface storage; however, aquifer recharge and recovery is being 

investigated as another mechanism for water balancing. Despite these 2 potential methods, it is anticipated 

that there will be continual need for the facility to discharge treated effluent into the local waterway during times 

of high rainfall. An environmental impact study is being 

conducted for both the groundwater and stream to determine adequate water quality standards for discharge to 

occur. At this stage, it appears that discharge targets for 

the stream releases will need to meet Class A standards, 

as well as to keep phosphorus and nitrogen below 0.1 

mg/L and 1 mg/L, respectively. 

8.5.2.2 Mawson Lakes, Australia 

Mawson Lakes will be an innovative urban development 

12 kilometers (7.5 miles) north of Adelaide, designed to 

integrate evolutionary strategies into economic, social, 

and environmental activities. The development is designed 

for 8,000 to 9,000 residents in 3,200 dwellings, and includes a town center and commercial properties. 

A key component of the development is to create a reclaimed water supply system that will reduce household 

potable demand by at least 50 percent by providing reclaimed storm water and wastewater for outdoor, domestic, and municipal irrigation. Stormwater run-off from roofs, 

paths, roads, and the general area, as well as treated 

wastewater will be collected and treated, and then stored 

in groundwater aquifers for reuse. Houses have both a 

potable water main connection and a reclaimed water 

connection. The reclaimed water will be used for toilet 

flushing, garden irrigation, and car washing. Public open 

space will also be irrigated with reclaimed water. 

Stormwater is to be harvested from the 620-hectare (1,532-

acre) development site plus an equivalent area of adjoining industrial land. An established wetland adjacent to 

the development will augment the proposed system and 

provide additional storage for the harvested stormwater. 

Prior to entering the wetland system, the stormwater will 

be screened through a combination of gross pollution 

traps and wetland basins. 

8.5.2.3 Virginia Project, South Australia 

The Virginia pipeline project was built to transport over 

20,000 megaliters (5,284 million gallons) of reclaimed 

water (approximately 20 percent of the wastewater produced in the Adelaide area) from the Bolivar Treatment 

Plant just north of Adelaide to the Virginia area. The 

secondary effluent from the treatment plant receives 

further treatment after transmission in a Dissolved Air 

Flotation Filtration (DAFF) system which improves the 

water quality to less than 10 E. Coli/ 100 ml – the Australian standard for irrigation for crops eaten raw. The reclaimed water system serves over 220 irrigators in the 

Virginia area - the majority of the customers are horticultural farmers who produce root and salad crops, brassicas, wine grapes, and olives. 

The project was developed in response to 3 problems: 

nutrients in the secondary effluent were damaging an 

environmentally sensitive gulf, irrigators were experiencing declining yields, and there was an increase in salinity 

in underground aquifers. The reduced water resource 

was expected to cause reduced production and employment in an area which already faced high unemployment. 

Even though there were 3 drivers for a reclaimed water 

system, the project remained in the planning stages until 

4 major issues were overcome: (1) project financing; (2) 

a public-private partnership; (3) water quality standards; 

and, (4) marketing. Multiple stakeholders including government, the water authority, regulatory authorities, potential customers, and the project developer further complicated the project; however, the common goal to see 

the project proceed overcame the individual interests of 

each party. 

The project has been operating since 2000 and the owners are considering extending the system to meet demand that was unable to be met in the original development. There have been no public health concerns and 

256
--- ---

Table 8-6. Summary of Australian Reuse Projects 

Project 

Annual Volume 

W ater Quality1 Application Comment 

(ML) (MG) 

Built to overcome problems from nutrient 

Virginia 22,000 5,815 A Unrestricted irrigation of horticultural 

crops including salad crops 

discharges and declining aquifer. Largest 

operating reuse project in Australia – completed 

in 2000. 

South East 

Queensland 100,000+ 26,420 A and C 

Class A water similar to Virgina project in 

major horticultural region. Class C to 

cotton and cereal farms. 

Major engineering, financial, economic, and 

social impact study recently completed 

estimating using all of Brisbane’s wastewater – 

however, smaller project more likely to proceed. 

Hunter Water Up to 3,000 Up to 795 C and B Coal washing and electricity generator 

cooling. 

Operating in a location where labor relations are 

typically difficult. 

Stage 1 - horticulture , public spaces, and 

Eastern Irrigation 

Scheme 10,000 2,645 C golf courses. 

Stage 2 - distribution to homes for 

Stage 1 water sold and project is under 

construction. 

household gardens and toilet flushing. 

Barwon Water 

Sewer Mining Up to 1,000 Up to 265 Agricultural and industrial uses. Feasibility study only. 

McClaren Vale Up to 8,000 Up to 2,115 Class C Application to vines for producing 

premium quality wine grapes. 

System in operation. Annualized water price 

exceeds that for potable water. 

Reclaimed water distributed to 15,000 

Rouse Hill Up to 1,500 Up to 400 Class A households using a dual distribution 

system. Future plans to serve a total of System in operation. 

35,000 households. 

Georges River 

Program 

15,000 to 

30,000 

3,960 to 

7,925 

Varying standards 

based on 

application 

50 kilometers (31 miles) Reclaimed water 

pipeline to serve existing potable water 

customers and new residential 

developments 

Environmental Impact Statement completed and 

projected is to begin construction in 2004. 

Other projects All Class B or 

Class A 

Applications include wine grapes, sugar, 

pasture and fodder, including that for 

dairy cattle, water cooling for an oil 

refinery, golf course and recreational area 

watering, tree lots, and dust suppression. 

While exact numbers are not known there is 

likely to be more than 50 schemes and individual 

applications in Australia. Most state 

governments and water authorities have policies 

on reuse and devote efforts to developing new 

applications. 

1 Class A Water = less than 10 E. Coli/100 ml 

Class B Water = less than 100 E. Coli/100 ml

 Class C Water = less than 1,000 E. Coli/100 ml 

there is continuous monitoring for environmental impacts 

such as accession of irrigation water to the water table 

and build-up of salts in the soil profile. Table 8-6 gives 

a summary of this project and other reuse projects in 

Australia. 

8.5.3 Belgium 

Belgium has one of the lowest water availabilities among 

the countries of the European Union (EU) with 2000 m3/ 

capita/year (528,300 gallons/capita/year). Only 45 percent of the sewage is currently treated, with plans to 

treat almost all wastewater by 2006. The amount of 

wastewater reuse remains limited; nevertheless, using 

reclaimed water is becoming increasingly attractive to 

industries such as power plants and food processing 

plants. Other industries with high rates of water utilization or industries located in areas of dropping water tables 

or high summer water demand are also moving more towards water reuse. The elimination of wastewater discharge in environmentally sensitive areas is another incentive for developing water reuse projects. 

There is one indirect potable reuse project that has proven 

to be a cost-effective and environmentally beneficial solution. The system not only provides additional water, 

but also provides a saltwater intrusion barrier. At the 

Wulpen wastewater treatment plant, up to 2.5 Mm3

/year 

(660 mg/year) of urban effluent is treated by microfiltration 

(MF) and reverse-osmosis (RO), stored for 1 to 2 months 

in an aquifer, and then used for water supply augmentation. 

257
There was another attempt to reuse 10,000 to 24,000 m3

/ 

d (2.6 to 6.3 mgd) of wastewater to recharge an aquifer in 

Heist; however, infiltration could not be achieved through 

the soil due to low hydraulic conductivity. The only other 

option was to do direct reuse. In the end, the project 

team decided to use surface water as the raw water 

source. 

A third possible water reuse project is still under study. It 

involves the treatment of about 8,000 m3

/d (2.1 mgd) of 

effluent from the Waregem wastewater treatment plant 

for direct reuse in the neighboring textile industry. The 

technical feasibility study has shown that the required 

effluent quality can be obtained through the use of a combined process of sand filtration, MF, and RO. 

8.5.4 Brazil 

Brazil is one of the countries with the most abundant 

water resources (8 percent of the world’s fresh water, 

equivalent to about 40,000 m3/capita/year or 10.5 mg/ 

capita/year in 2000). In spite of this, 80 percent of the 

fresh water in Brazil is in the Amazon basin in the northern region of the country, leaving 20 percent bounded to 

the area that concentrates about 65 percent of the population (southeastern, southern, and central-western Brazil) as seen in Table 8-7. Despite having a great potential of water, water conflicts occur in some areas of the 

country. For example, the Upper Tietê River Basin has 

about 18 million inhabitants and is one of the world’s 

largest industrial complex, yet the region only has a 

specific water availability of only 179 m3/capita/year 

(47,290 mg/capita/year). On the other hand, irrigation is 

growing steadily in the country, reaching a consumptive 

use of about 69 percent at national level. 

The Law no 9,433 of January, 1997, established the National Water Resources Policy and created the National 

Water Resources Management System. Since then, the 

country has had a legal instrument to ensure future generations the availability of water in adequate conditions. 

In July, 2000, the Law no 9,984 created the National Water Agency, linked to the Ministry of the Environment, 

but with administrative and financial autonomy. Among 

several other attributions, the Agency will supervise, 

control, and evaluate the actions and activities resulting 

from compliance with the federal legislation; grant, by 

means of licensing, the right to use water resources in 

bodies of water that are in the Union domain; encourage 

and support initiatives to institute River Basin Committees; and collect, distribute, and apply revenues obtained 

by billing for the use of water resources in the Union 

domain, etc. 

In a country with a population of 173 million in 2001, a 

full 60 percent of the population was not connected to 

sewer systems. Only 34 percent of the wastewater flow 

collected that was collected was treated in 1996. The 

situation has a clearly visible negative impact on the environmental quality of many of Brazil’s urban river basins 

and public health. However, it is important to underline 

that Brazil achieved substantial progress with regard to 

the coverage of water supply and sanitation services over 

the past 3 decades, much of this effort being the fruit of 

the Government’s National Water and Sanitation Program. 

In urban areas, access to potable water supplies rose 

from 50 percent in 1968 to 91 percent in 1997. Sewage 

coverage increased from 35 percent to 43 percent in the 

same period. The sewage coverage in urban areas was 

significantly improved to 85 percent in 2000. 

There are a great deal of wastewater reuse planning and 

actions being implemented in Brazil. Most of them are 

associated with industrial projects: resource recovery, 

demand management, and minimization of effluent discharge. Municipalities recognize the benefits of nonpotable urban reuse and have started to make plans to optimize the use of local water resources. On the other 

hand, unplanned (and sometimes unconscious) agricultural reuse is performed in many parts of the country, 

particularly for the irrigation of fodder crops and vegetables. Water is diverted from heavily polluted sources 

to be applied to crops without treatment or adequate agronomic measures. It is expected that the new regulations to be placed into law by the Agency will regulate 

the practice nationwide, promoting at the same time, the 

implementation of public health and environmental safeguards to new projects. 

8.5.4.1 São Paulo, Brazil 

Metropolitan São Paulo, a city with 18 million people and 

a very large industrial complex, is located in a plateau in 

the heads of the Tietê River. A small amount of local 

water availability has forced the region to survive on the 

importation of water resources from neighboring basins. 

Two sources of water have been considered for reuse: 

municipal wastewater (which contains a significant 

amount of industrial effluents) and the volumes retained 

in flood control reservoirs. The available volumes for reuse and the corresponding quality of the treated effluents are shown in Table 8-8. 

Three potential types of water reuse applications have 

been identified. 

 Industrial use, for cooling towers, boiler feed water, 

process water in metallurgic and mechanical industries, floor washing, and irrigation of green spaces 

258
Table 8-7. Water Demand and Water Availability per Region in the Year 2000 

Region Inhabitants 

Specific W ater 

Dem and 

(m3

/capita/yr) 

Specific W ater 

Demand 

(gal/capita/yr) 

Specific W ater 

Availability 

(m3/capita/yr) 

Specific W ater 

Availability 

(mg/capita/yr) 

Dem and 

(% of Available) 

North 12,900,704 204 53,890 513,102 135.5 0.04% 

Northeast 47,741,711 302 79,780 4,009 1.1 7.53% 

Southeast 72,412,411 436 115,180 4,868 1.3 8.96% 

South 25,107,616 716 189,150 15,907 4.2 4.50% 

Central West 11,636,728 355 93,780 69,477 18.4 0.51% 

Brazil 169,799.17 414 109,370 40,000 10.6 1.03% 

Table 8-8. Effluent Flow Rate from Wastewater Treatment Plants in Metropolitan Sao Paulo 

WWTP 

Design Flow Treated Flow a 

(Mm3/day) (mgd) (Mm3/day) (mgd) 

ABC 0.26 68.47 0.13 35.38 

Barueri 0.82 216.83 0.57 151.78 

Parque Novo Mundo 0.22 57.06 0.13 33.32 

São Miguel 0.13 34.24 0.05 13.69 

Suzano 0.13 34.24 0.07 18.94 

Total Flow 1.6 410.84 0.96 253.12 

a data from operational data, March 2002 

 Restricted urban use, for toilet and urinal flushing, 

vehicle, floor and street washing, decorative water 

features such as fountains, reflecting pools and waterfalls, cleaning sewer and flood galleries, preparation of concrete and soil compaction, irrigation of 

sports fields, parks, and gardens 

 Unrestricted urban use, for irrigation of green areas where public access is restricted, as well as, 

irrigation of industrial and fodder crops and pastures. 

8.5.4.2 São Paulo International Airport, Brazil 

The São Paulo International Airport of Guarulhos has 2 

terminals, each one handling about 7 million passengers 

per year. Terminal 3 will serve an additional 16 million 

passengers per year, to reach the saturation level of about 

30 million passengers per year by 2030. An additional 

water demand, in the order of 3,000 m3

/d (792,500 gallons/d) will produce a total wastewater flow of 6,400 m3/ 

d (1.7 mgd). Groundwater is the sole source of water, 

and due to excessive pumping, the aquifer is recessing, 

increasing the potential for ground subsidence. A wastewater reuse project is in development to serve the uses 

listed in Table 8-9. 

The second phase of the reuse project will include additional treatment units to provide effluents with conditions 

to allow for artificial aquifer recharge in the vicinity of the 

airport. Column testing is being conducted to design recharge basins and to define the level of pollutant removal 

on the unsaturated layer. 

8.5.5 Chile 

Water resources in Chile are abundant (61,007 m3

/capita/ 

year or 16.1 mg/capita/year), with a strong prevalence of 

surface water with inhomogeneous geographical distribution. In 1997, water supply and sewage coverage were 

comparable to those in Europe, with over 99 percent in 

urban areas and 90 percent in rural areas (Homsi, 2000). 

Moreover, 90.8 percent of rural settlements are equipped 

with water supply systems. Wastewater treatment coverage is lower, at about 20 percent, with strong governmental efforts for coverage to more than double that capacity in the near future. Consequently, the driving fac259
tor for water reuse at a national level, and in particular in 

large cities such as Santiago de Chile, is pollution control. 

Wastewater reuse has been practiced for years near the 

large cities. In the past, 70 to 80 percent of Santiago’s 

raw wastewater has been collected into an open drainage canal and then distributed for irrigation. The irrigated area immediately outside the city provided almost 

all the salad vegetables and low-growing fruits to the 

population of Santiago, having a large negative impact on 

public health. In order to improve this situation and implement sound water reuse practices, plans have been made 

to treat all the wastewater from greater Santiago in 3 large 

and 13 smaller sewage treatment plants. The first large 

facility, in operation since November 2001, El Trebol, 

has an average capacity of 380,000 m3

/d (100 mgd). Another treatment plant, La Farfana, will have a capacity of 

760,000 m3/d or 200 mgd when completed. Five smaller 

sewage treatment works are also in operation, all using 

activated sludge processes for treatment. Treatment facilities constructed before the 1980s mainly used stabilization ponds for treatment. 

8.5.6 China 

Water reuse in China primarily occurs when rivers downstream from cities are used for irrigation. Most pollution 

is produced in the industrialized cities; therefore, pollution control was first aimed at industries. Over the last 

10 years, increasing attention has been paid to municipal wastewater treatment. In 2001, there were 452 wastewater treatment plants, of which approximately 307 provided secondary or higher treatment. These plants served 

all or parts of 200 cities of the 667 cities in China. The 

total volume of wastewater generated was 42.8 billion m3 

(11,300 billion gallons), of which industry generated 20.1 

billion m3 (5,300 billion gallons) (47 percent) and nonindustrial (domestic, commercial, and institutional) 

sources generated 22.8 billion m3 (53 percent). In 2001, 

approximately 35 percent of municipal wastewater received treatment before discharge. Wastewater sector 

investment is rising dramatically; in 1999 the annual expenditure rose to over 12 billion RMB ($1.5 billion), an 8­

fold increase from 1996. 

Taiyuan, a city of 2 million people and the capital of the 

Shanxi Province, is located approximately 400 kilometers (249 miles) southwest of Beijing on the Fen River, a 

tributary to the Yellow River. The city stretches for 29 

kilometers (18 miles) within the narrow valley of the Fen 

River, where water availability is limited, sporadic, and 

greatly affected by high sediment loads from the Great 

Loess Plateau. Terracing for agriculture and destruction 

of natural ground cover on this plateau create large dust 

storms as well as limitations on water retention during 

major rainstorms. 

Under the $2 billion Yellow River Diversion Project 

(YRDP), partially funded by the World Bank, water is 

being conveyed 200 kilometers (125 miles) by tunnels 

and aqueducts from a reservoir on the Yellow River and 

pumped to a head of 600 meters (1,970 feet) into the Fen 

River, upstream from Taiyuan. Previously, the groundwater aquifer beneath the city supplied much of the domestic demand, as well as the large industrial self-supplied water demands of the steel, coal, and chemical 

industries in the city. Industries have made considerable 

progress in water reuse, with 85 percent of industrial water 

demand achieved through internal treatment and reuse 

of process water. The chemical industry has built an advanced centralized treatment facility to provide an additional source for industrial water reuse as well as 2 large 

power plants that reuse all effluent in slurry pipelines to 

ash disposal reservoirs. 

Taiyuan is implementing an environmental master plan, 

under which 7 enhanced secondary wastewater treatment 

plants will be built (or existing plants upgraded and expanded) to treat about 900,000 m3

/d (238 mgd) by 2010. 

Table 8-9. Water Reuse at the Sao Paulo International Airport 

Use 

Flow 

(m3/day) (gal/day) 

Toilets and Urinals in Terminal 3 2,175 574,575 

Cooling Towers (Air Conditioning) 480 126,800 

Airplane Washing 50 13,200 

Floor Washing 15 3,960 

Irrigation 10 2,640 

Total Flow 2,730 721,200 

260 
Approximately 500,000 m3/d (132 mgd) of effluent from 

these plants will be reused via groundwater recharge from 

the Fen River ponds. The ponds were built as an urban 

amenity under a subsidized public works program to provide work for the unemployed during a period of economic 

restructuring and plant closures. The Fen River ponds 

stretch nearly 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) along the river, for 

a total volume of 2 million m3

 (528 mg), and occupy about 

half the width of the riverbed. Inflatable dams and floodgates on the slope of the Fen River allow floods in excess of the 2-year flood flow to be passed through to the 

ponds. The course alluvium of the river bottom under the 

ponds is expected to allow sufficient recharge to meet 

industrial demands through the existing self-supplied wells. 

Groundwater levels have been dropping rapidly, and 

groundwater quality has deteriorated in the upper aquifer 

from the buildup of nitrates from untreated municipal wastewater, as well as salinity in the concentrated wastes in 

industrial wastewater after extensive recycling. As a result, water reuse from the aquifer recharge system will 

be primarily for nonpotable, industrial process water. 

In order to prevent a large buildup of salinity in the groundwater, a portion of the effluent from the municipal wastewater treatment plants will be discharged into the Fen 

River. However, downstream irrigation demands greatly 

exceed the available stream flow, and eventually Taiyuan 

may face restrictions on consumptive use to re-establish stream flow in the lower portions of the Yellow River. 

Currently the Yellow River runs dry seasonally over the 

last 300 kilometers (186 miles) of its length, which is 

detrimental to major cities and agricultural areas in the 

densely developed water-scarce North China Plain. 

8.5.7 Cyprus 

Cyprus is a mediterranean island with a population of 

700,000 and a vigorous tourism industry. The country is 

facing 2 major obstacles in its continued development: 

(1) a growing scarcity of water resources in the semi-arid

regions of the country and, (2) degradation of water at its 

beaches. The government has recognized that a water 

reuse program would address both problems. In addition, 

it is expected that reclaimed water will provide a reliable 

alternative resource for irrigation, which draws 80 percent 

of the total water demand (300 Mm3

/year or 79,250 mg/ 

year). 

The 25 Mm3

/year (6,600 mg/year) of wastewater generated by the main cities will be collected and used for 

irrigation after tertiary treatment (Papadopoulos, 1995). 

Since transmission costs will be high, most of the reclaimed water, about 55 to 60 percent, will most likely be 

used for amenity purposes such irrigation of greens areas in hotels, gardens, parks, golf courses and other 

urban uses. A reclaimed water supply of about 10 Mm3

/d 

(2,640 mgd) is conservatively estimated to be available 

for agricultural irrigation. 

The provisional water reuse standards in Cyprus are 

stricter than the WHO guidelines. The disinfection level 

required for urban uses with unrestricted public access 

is 50 FC/100 ml (80 percent of the time, with a maximum 

value of 100 FC/100 ml). For other uses with restricted 

access and for irrigation of food crops; the standard is 

200 FC/100 ml (maximum 1000 FC/100 ml), while for 

irrigation of fodder and industrial crops, the guideline 

values are 1000 and 3000 FC/100 ml, respectively. 

8.5.8 Egypt 

Approximately 96 percent of Egypt is desert; rains are 

rare, even in winter, and occur only in the north. In addition, oases and wells are limited and cannot accommodate water needs in the regions where they exist. Egypt 

relies heavily on the Nile River, which supplies essentially all of the country’s water. 

Presently, wastewater production is estimated at 4,930 

million m3/year (1.3 mg/year). There are 121 municipal 

wastewater treatment plants operating in Egypt treating 1,640 million m3

/year (0.43 mg/year). A total of 42,000 

hectares (104,000 acres) are irrigated with treated wastewater or blended water. Since 1900, wastewater has been 

used to cultivate orchards in a sandy soil area at ElGabal El-Asfar village, near Cairo. This area has gradually increased to about 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres). The 

most readily available and economic source of water 

suitable for reuse is the wastewater effluent from Greater 

Cairo, Alexandria, and other major cities. 

No reuse guidelines have yet been adopted in Egypt, but 

the 1984 martial law regulation prohibits the use of effluent for irrigating crops, unless treated to the required standards for agricultural drainage water. The irrigation of 

vegetables eaten raw with treated wastewater, regardless of its quality level, is also forbidden. As a result, a 

USAID-funded project is developing new codes for safe 

use of reclaimed water for irrigation of crops with a focus 

on those that cannot be contaminated, such as wood 

trees, palm trees, citrus, pomegranates, castor beans, 

olives, and field crops, such as lupins and beans. However, despite this code development, no adequate planning, monitoring, and control measures are being taken, 

and, because of this, spreading of Schistomiasis is quite 

common. 

261
8.5.9 France 

France’s water resources availability is 3,047 m3

/capita/ 

year (0.8 mg/capita/year) (Earth Trends 2001), and therefore, is considered to be self-sufficient. However, an uneven distribution of hydraulic resources and increasing 

global water demand have led to seasonal deficits in parts 

of the country. The average water consumption has increased by 21 percent in the past 10 years. The agricultural sector has experienced the greatest increase of water 

use, 42 percent, mainly due to an increase in land irrigation. Water consumption has also increased in resort areas where water is needed to irrigate golf courses and 

landscape areas. The industrial sector is the only sector 

that has seen a decrease in water consumption, due to 

increasing efforts to reuse industrial effluents and use 

more water-efficient technologies. Recently, there has 

been a reduction in domestic water consumption. 

France has been practicing nonpotable water reclamation since the 19th century. Its oldest projects are the 

Achères water reclamation plant (near Paris) and the 

Reims plant. The main drivers for water reuse in France 

are to: (1) compensate for water deficiencies, (2) improve 

public health, (3) to protect the environment, and (4) eliminate contamination in recreational and shellfish farming 

areas along the Atlantic coast. The majority of water reuse projects are found in the islands and in coastal areas 

in the southern part of the country. 

Numerous cases of unplanned indirect potable reuse exist in France, where surface water, diluted with wastewater, is used for potable water supply. An example is 

Aubergenville, in the Paris region, where the Seine River, 

which is 25 percent wastewater effluent, is treated and 

used to recharge the drinking water aquifer. 

Clermont Ferrand is a large agricultural reuse project that 

was implemented in 1999 as a response to water shortages and economic concerns. The wastewater treatment 

facility consists of an activated sludge process and maturation ponds for disinfection. Over 10,000 m3

/d (2.6 mgd) 

are used to irrigate 750 hectares (1,850 acres) of maize. 

One of the first examples in Europe of integrated water 

management with water reuse is on Noirmoutier Island. 

The lack of water resources, the 10-fold increase in tourist population during the summer, and the intensive agricultural activities required water reuse. Wastewater treatment on the island is achieved through 2 treatment plants 

with a total capacity of 6,100 m3/d (1.6 mgd). The plants 

have activated sludge systems followed by maturation 

ponds for storage and disinfection. Thirty percent of the 

treated wastewater (0.33 Mm3/year) is used for the irrigation of 500 hectares (1,235 acres) of vegetable crops. 

There are plans to reuse 100 percent of the wastewater 

flow in the near future. 

The country’s regulatory framework (Circular n° 51 of July 

22, 1991, of the Ministry of Health) is based on the WHO 

guidelines (1989). But France’s regulations are more stringent having additional requirements concerning irrigation 

management, timing, distance and other measures for 

preventing health risks related to human exposure and 

negative environmental impacts (i.e. the potential contamination of groundwater). New water reuse guidelines 

are under preparation with the introduction of some new 

microbiological indicators for unrestricted irrigation (i.e. 

Salmonella, Taenia eggs), as well as more stringent operational restrictions. 

8.5.10 Greece 

Greece has a severe water imbalance, particularly in the 

summer months, due to low precipitation and increased 

demands for irrigation and water use. Water demand in 

Greece has increased tremendously over the past 50 

years (Tchobanoglous and Angelakis, 1996). Despite adequate precipitation, water shortages are often experienced due to temporal and regional variations in precipitation, the increased water demand during the summer 

months, and the difficulty of transporting water through 

the mountainous terrain. As a result, the integration of 

water reuse into the water resources management is becoming a very important issue. 

In 2000, almost 60 percent of the population was connected to 270 wastewater treatment plants, with a total 

capacity of 1.30 Mm3

/d (345 mgd). An analysis of treated 

domestic wastewater distribution of showed that more 

than 83 percent of wastewater effluent is produced in 

regions with a deficient water balance (Tchobanoglous 

and Angelakis, 1996). This indicates that water reuse in 

these areas would satisfy a real water demand. Another 

important factor driving the use of reclaimed water is that 

88 percent of the wastewater effluents are located at a 

distance of less than 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) from farmland needing irrigation water; therefore, the additional cost 

for irrigation with reclaimed water would be relatively low. 

According to Tsagarakis et al. (2000), over 15 wastewater treatment plants are planning to reuse their effluents 

for agricultural irrigation. The major water reuse projects 

being planned or constructed are listed in Table 8-10. 

Unplanned reuse still occurs in some regions, where 

wastewater is discharged to intermittent rivers and, after 

infiltration, is pumped through adjacent wells by farmers. 

Guidelines for water reuse are under consideration by 

the Ministry of Environment and Public Works (Angelakis 

262
Table 8-10. Major Reuse Projects 

Plant Name Capacity Uses 

m3/day mgd 

Levadia 3,500 0.925 Irrigation of cotton 

Amfisa 400 0.106 Olive tree irrigation 

Palecastro 280 0.74 Storage, olive tree Irrigation 

Chalkida 13,000 3.434 Landscape and Forestry irrigation 

Karistos 1,450 0.383 Landscape and Forestry irrigation 

Ierisos 1,200 0.317 Landscape and Forestry irrigation 

Agios Konstantinos 200 0.053 Landscape and Forestry irrigation 

Kentarchos 100 0.026 Landscape and Forestry irrigation 

et al., 2000). Six water reuse categories are being considered: nonpotable urban, agriculture, aquaculture, industrial, environmental, and groundwater recharge. The 

criteria are more stringent requirements than the WHO 

guidelines. Secondary effluent quality criteria are used 

for discharging purposes (No E1b/221/65 Health Arrangement Action) and are independent of the disposal, 

reclamation, and reuse effort. 

8.5.11 India 

India is the second most populous country of the world, 

with a current population of over 1 billion that is projected to increase to 1.5 billion by 2050 (Worldwatch 

Institute, 1999). Almost 30 percent of the population lives 

in urban mega-cities, in particular, in the 7 giant conglomerates of Mumbai (formerly Bombay) (12.57 million), 

Calcutta (Kolkata) (10.92 million), Delhi (8.38 million), 

Chennai (formerly Madras) (5.36 million), Bangalore (4.09 

million), Hyderabad (6 million), and Ahmedabad (3 million). Fast depletion of groundwater reserves, coupled 

with India’s severe water pollution, have put India in a 

challenging position to supply adequate amounts of water to their growing population. In 2000, India’s total renewable water resources were estimated at 1,244 m3/ 

capita/year (328,630 gallons/capita/year) (Earth Trends, 

2001) and it was estimated that 40 percent of India’s 

water resources were being withdrawn, with the majority 

of that volume (92 percent), used for agricultural irrigation. 

As a result of the fast-growing urban population, service 

infrastructure is insufficient to ensure public health. In 

fact, about 15 percent of the urban population does not 

have access to safe drinking water and about 50 percent 

is not serviced by sanitary sewers. In 1997, the total 

volume of wastewater generated in India was 17 Mm3

/d 

(4,500 mgd), of which 72 percent was collected and only 

24 percent was ever treated. These conditions cause a 

high number of waterborne diseases in the country (more 

than 30 million life years according to the World Bank). 

The capital city of Delhi is one illustration of failing service infrastructure and deteriorating environment. The 

growing population in Delhi has led to an increase in 

the volume of wastewater, yet the current treatment 

capacity is only about 1.3 Mm3/d (3,400 mgd) – which is 

only 73 percent of the wastewater generated. Another 

example is Mumbai, where 2.3 Mm3/d (608 mgd) of raw 

sewage is discharged into the Arabian Sea. However, 

there have been some attempts at rectifying these situations. The large, $300 million, Bombay Sewage Disposal 

Project was approved in 1995 with the financial support 

of the World Bank. Other efforts have been made in the 

Calcutta metropolitan area, where 13 sewage treatment 

plants have been constructed with a total capacity of 

386,000 m3/d (102 mgd) using either activated sludge 

processes, trickling filters, or oxidation ponds. In addition, the Ganges River program is to include treatment 

facilities for 6 cities in Uttar Pradesh that will incorporate 

reuse for agriculture and forestry. 

In 1985, over 73,000 hectares (180,000 acres) of land 

were irrigated with wastewater on at least 200 sewage 

farms. There has been a dramatic increase in wastewater volumes discharged and used for agricultural irrigation in India. With its current population, Hyderabad 

can supply wastewater to irrigate an estimated 40,000 

hectares (99,000 acres). The law prohibits irrigation of 

salad vegetables with wastewater, yet the prohibited 

practice is widespread and government agencies reportedly do not actively enforce regulations governing reuse. 

Furthermore, in many states there is no microbiological 

standard and hence no parameter to control the level of 

263
treatment. Enteric diseases, anemia, and gastrointestinal illnesses are high among sewage farm workers. Consumers of salad and vegetable crops are also at risk. 

8.5.11.1 Hyderabad, India 

Hyderabad, the capital city of Andhra Pradesh, is the 

fifth largest and the fastest growing city in India with 6 

million inhabitants (2001). The city produces over 700,000 

m3 (185 mg) of wastewater per day, of which less then 4 

percent receives secondary treatment. The remaining 95 

percent of the wastewater is disposed, untreated in the 

Musi River. The Musi River is the main source of irrigation 

water for over 40,000 hectares (98,840 acres) of agricultural land. Agriculture is the sole livelihood of over 40,000 

farming families living within a 50-kilometer (31-mile) radius of Hyderabad. 

Downstream of Hyderabad, the Musi River water is diverted through a system of weirs into irrigation canals 

(see photo) that were originally designed to retain water 

for the dry season after the monsoon rain. Farming communities along the Musi River experience negative and 

positive impacts from the discharge of wastewater into 

the river. Perceived negative impacts include an increase 

in reported fever cases, skin rash, joint aches, and stomach problems. Positive impacts include savings in chemical fertilizer application and larger crops as a result of a 

year-round availability of water, which without the addition of wastewater, would have been confined to the 

monsoon season. The main crops grown are fodder, rice, 

and bananas, as well as different varieties of spinach 

and other vegetables. Data reported that water samples 

taken out of the Musi River, 40 kilometers (25 miles) 

downstream of Hyderabad, have normal river water quality parameter readings including a gradual reduction in 

BOD, COD, and coliform. The coliform counts reported 

were within the WHO guidelines set for unrestricted irrigation. 

8.5.12 Iran 

Iran is one of the largest countries in the Middle East, 

with an area of more than 165 million hectares (407 

million acres) and a population of over 60 million 

(Shanehsaz et al., 2001). The average annual precipitation over the country is less than 250 mm (10 inches). 

Distribution of rainfall in Iran is not uniform, with some 

very urbanized areas receiving even less than the average annual precipitation. 

In 1994, the volume of municipal wastewater generated 

in all urban and rural areas of the country (potentially 

reclaimable as a water resource if a collection system 

were in place) was estimated to be 3,100 Mm3

/year (2.5 

million acre-feet per year), and projected to increase to 

5,900 Mm3

/year (4.8 million acre-feet per year) by 2021. 

[Agricultural return flows and industrial wastewaters are 

not included in these figures.] These immense volumes 

are now largely disposed of at the point of generation, 

through cesspits, without treatment. If collected, properly treated, distributed, and safely utilized, these volumes of water could go a long way toward meeting the 

burgeoning demands for agricultural and industrial water 

demand of the nation. Planned water reuse projects currently produce 154 Mm3

/year (125,000 acre-feet per year) 

of reclaimed water. 

In fact, recently, the government of Iran approved a recommendation to establish and implement programs for, 

among other water-related initiatives, comprehensive reclamation and use of non-conventional water resources— 

such as reclaimed water. The public also accepts water 

reclamation and reuse as a sensible way to maximize 

the use of a limited resource. In the past, effluent was 

used primarily to fertilize the soil, but now wastewater 

effluent is increasingly used for improving water use efficiency, surface and groundwater pollution prevention, and 

to compensate for a shortage of irrigation water. Other 

driving forces for water reuse include expansion of 

greenbelts, soil erosion prevention by growing plants and 

improving soil quality, and control of the desertification 

process. 

Hyderabad, India – wastewater being diverted over weir 

into irrigation canals. Source: International Water Management Institute 

Iranian farmers generally consider wastewater an acceptable water resource for irrigation. There are studies in 

Iran examining the use of treated effluent for irrigation 

water in the suburban farms, mainly for fodder crops such 

as corn, millet, and alfalfa. Systematic studies have 

shown that there is a significant decrease in water use 

and fertilizer consumption due to nutrients in the effluent. 

264
At present, there is no national standard for the reuse of 

treated wastewater. The only existing wastewater code 

in Iran is the “Effluent Discharge Standard” developed by 

the Department of the Environment in 1994. This standard determines the allowable effluent discharges to surface waters, cesspits, and agricultural irrigation; however, 

the standard does not provide any criteria for the use of 

reclaimed water for industrial use, fisheries, or recreational 

activities. Microbiological criteria in this standard are inadequate for the purposes of water reclamation and reuse; therefore, reliable international standards, such as 

those developed by the WHO and by the EPA, are currently used to regulate water reuse. The responsibility 

and authority for water reuse is scattered and fragmented, 

as it is in many other parts of the world. Institutions responsible for the management of various aspects of water, wastewater, water reclamation and reuse in Iran are 

the Ministry of the Energy, Ministry of Jihad and Agriculture, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Ministry 

of Industries and Mines, and the Department of the Environment. 

Despite governmental edicts prohibiting the use of untreated wastewater in irrigation and agriculture, there 

are still some places in Iran where the farmers use raw 

wastewater, due to a shortage of fresh water supplies. 

Unplanned use of wastewater is observed in cities with 

no sanitary sewage systems and no wastewater treatment plants. The government, at all management levels, 

has struggled to maximize the benefits of reuse and is 

working to accomplish this by giving appropriate priorities to water use in various sectors, and by encouraging 

wastewater reclamation and reuse through allocation of 

the necessary financial resources. Considering that wastewater treatment and water reclamation are relatively new 

in Iran, 2 of the most important approaches used by the 

government are economical incentives and management 

tools. Operational permits are issued for the use of surface water or groundwater, municipal distribution networks, 

and the continuance of previously issued permits. These 

permits are now conditioned with requirements for implementation of sewage systems and wastewater treatment 

plants. Until such systems are implemented, entities that 

consume water are required to pay penalties in proportion to their discharge volumes and based on established 

tariffs. A percentage of the income from the collected 

penalties is channeled to the Department of Energy to 

fund water conservation and wastewater treatment construction projects. 

8.5.13 Israel 

The acute shortage of fresh water throughout most of 

Israel prompted the development of a nationwide integrated water management system. As a result of the 

water crisis, with repetitive droughts between 1996 and 

2002, Israel turned to water conservation and alternative 

water resources including the most widely practiced form 

of water reuse, reclaiming municipal water from medium 

and large cities for irrigation of agricultural crops. 

In several water reuse projects in Israel, deep, surface 

reservoirs are used to store effluent during the winter 

season and the water is then used during the summer 

irrigation season. There are approximately 200 of these 

reservoirs in operation throughout the country with a total storage capacity of 150 Mm3

 (40,000 mg). Most of 

these reservoirs also serve as surface water storage and 

additional treatment. The oldest, and by far the largest 

reuse project, is the Dan Region Project, which incorporates soil-aquifer treatment (SAT) and storage in a groundwater aquifer. 

Water reuse represents approximately 10 percent of the 

total national water supply and almost 20 percent of the 

total water supply for irrigation. Nearly 70 percent of the 

municipal wastewater collected is treated and reused for 

Pumps transfer water from the withdrawal wells to irrigation zones in the Negev Desert, Israel. Photo courtesy of 

Bahman Sheikh 

irrigation. As a result of this nationwide effort, Israel currently supports its increasing population, industrial growth, 

and intensive irrigation demand with a water supply of 

less than 400 m3/capita/year (105,700 gallons/capita/ 

year), while the benchmark value for water stress is available renewable water resources of 1700m3/capita/year 

(449,000 gallons/capita/year). Israel’s objective is to treat 

and reuse most of its wastewater by 2010 (400 Mm3 or 

106,000 mg per year, 20 percent of the country’s total 

water resources). Most of the reclaimed water would be 

used for the irrigation of crops and animal fodder in accordance with the regulations put forth by the Ministry of 

Health. 

265
The 2 largest reuse projects are the Dan Region Reclamation Scheme and the Kishon Scheme. The Kishon 

facilities treat 32 Mm3

/year (8,450 mg/year) of wastewater from the Haifa metropolitan area using a conventional 

activated sludge system. After treatment, the reclaimed 

water is conveyed to the Yiszre’el Valley, approximately 

30 kilometers (18.6 miles) east of Haifa, where it is 

blended with local waste and stormwater and then stored 

in a 12-Mm3

 (3,170-mg) reservoir for summer irrigation of 

15,000 hectares (37,000 acres) of cotton and other nonedible crops. The Dan Region reuse system serves the 

Tel Aviv metropolitan area of approximately 1.7 million 

inhabitants. The facilities include a 120-Mm3/year 

(31,700-mg/year) mechanical biological plant (Soreq 

wastewater treatment plant). After biological treatment, 

the wastewater is discharged to aquifer recharge basins 

and stored in the aquifer. The reclaimed water is then 

pumped from recovery wells and conveyed to irrigation 

areas on the southern coastal plain and the northern 

Negev area (see photo). Some areas only receive auxiliary irrigation of 4,000 to 8,000 m3

/hectares/year (0.4 to 

0.8 mg/acres/year); while more intensely irrigated areas

use 10,000 to 20,000 m3

/hectares/year (1.1 to 2.2 mg/ 

acres/year). 

There are 3 other significant reuse projects in the Jeezrael 

Valley (8 Mm3

/year or 2,100 mg/year), Gedera (1.5 Mm3/ 

year or 400 mg/year), and Getaot Kibbutz (0.14 Mm3/ 

year or 37 mg/year). All 3 of these reuse projects produce reclaimed water for the irrigation of over 40,000 

hectares (98,840 acres) of agricultural lands. 

8.5.14 Italy 

Like most Mediterranean regions, southern Italy (particularly Sicily, Sardinia, and Puglia) suffers from water shortage and lack of quality water due to recurrent droughts 

(Barbagallo et al., 2001). In addition, wastewater discharge into rivers or the sea has lead to significant environmental problems and eutrophication. Available water 

resources are estimated to be 2,700 m3

/capita/year 

(713,260 gallons/capita/year), with a water volume of about 

155 billion m3 (41,000 billion gallons). According to the 

recent estimates, the potential water resources in Italy 

are less than 50 billion m3 (13,200 billion gallons) when 

considering the actual hydraulic infrastructures with relatively low water availability of about 928 m3/capita/year 

(245,150 gallons/capita/year). 

The deficient and unreliable supply of irrigation water, 

besides reducing production most years, has strongly 

limited irrigation development. Forecasts for irrigation 

water demand show steady increases in many areas, 

not only in southern Italy and the islands. 

The reuse of untreated wastewater in Italy has been practiced since the beginning of the 20th century. Among the 

oldest and noted cases is the “marcite”, where water from 

the Vettabia River, which has a high content of industrial 

and urban raw wastewater, is used for irrigation. However, this practice has been decreasing due to poor water quality. The only negative impact reported is an instance where a high concentration of boron damaged very 

sensitive crops, such as citrus. 

The present lack of water resources and the growing demand for domestic, industrial, and agricultural consumption has prompted research into non-conventional supplies. Reclaimed water is beginning to be considered a 

cost competitive source, playing an increasingly important role in water resource management. A survey of Italian treatment plants estimated the total treated effluent 

flow to be 2400 Mm3/year (634,000 mg/year), all estimated to be potential reuse water. The medium to large 

plants in Italy treat approximately 60 percent of the urban wastewater flow and can produce reclaimed water to 

an adequate quality at a reasonable cost. 

Currently, reuse water is used mainly for agricultural irrigation of over 4,000 hectares (9,800 acres) of land. However, the controlled reuse of municipal wastewater in agriculture is not yet developed in most Italian regions because of stringent legislation, which ignores the findings 

of recent research works and experiences of uncontrolled 

reuse in Southern Italy. One of the largest reuse projects 

was implemented in Emilia Romagna where over 1,250 

m3/d (0.3 mgd) of treated effluent from the towns of 

Castiglione, Cesena, Casenatico, Cervia, and Gatteo are 

used for irrigation of more than 400 hectares (980 acres). 

According to a recent survey (Barbagallo et al., 2001), 

16 new water reuse projects for irrigation purposes have 

been selected for implementation in water-scarce regions. 

In Sicily, where uncontrolled wastewater reuse is very 

common, several new reuse systems have been planned, 

using seasonal storage reservoirs. In Grammichele, about 

1,500 m3

/d (0.4 mgd) of reclaimed water will be used for 

the irrigation of citrus orchards. Recently, 2 other projects 

have been authorized and financed on Palermo and Gela, 

where reuse water will be used for irrigation of several 

thousand hectares. 

Another industrial reuse project is at the Turin sewage 

treatment plant, which treats 500,000 m3

/d (132 mgd) 

with nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Approximately 8 

percent of the effluent will undergo tertiary treatment, 

filtration and chlorination, for agricultural and industrial 

reuse. 

266
8.5.15 Japan 

Because of the country’s density and limited water resources, water reclamation and reuse programs are not 

new to Japan. Only 40 percent of Japan’s total population (including the rural population) is sewered; however, by 1995, 89.6 percent of cities larger than 50,000 

people were sewered, and 72 percent of the inhabitants of these cities were served with a sewage collection system. Therefore, buildings being retrofitted for 

flush toilets and the construction of new buildings offer 

excellent opportunities for reuse. Initially, the country’s 

reuse program provided reclaimed water to multi-family, commercial, and school buildings, with a reclamation plant treating all of the wastewater for use in toiletflushing and other incidental nonpotable purposes. Later, 

municipal treatment works and reclaimed water systems 

were used together, as part of a dual system, providing 

more effective and economical treatment than individual 

reclamation facilities. 

In 1998, reclaimed water use in Japan was 130 Mm3/ 

year (94 mgd), according to Ogoshi et al. (2000) with 

distribution as shown in Table 8-11. At that time, about 

40 percent of the reclaimed water was being distributed 

in dual systems. Of this more than 1/3 was being used 

for toilet flushing, and about 15 percent each for urban 

irrigation and cleansing. A wide variety of buildings were 

fitted for reclaimed water use, with schools and office 

buildings being most numerous. In Tokyo, the use of 

reclaimed water is mandated in all new buildings larger in 

floor area than 30,000 m2 (300,000 ft2). 

Japan offers a very good reuse model for cities in developing countries because its historical usage is directly 

related to meeting urban water needs rather than only 

agricultural irrigation requirements. In addition, the 

country’s reclaimed water quality requirements are different from those in the U.S., as they are more stringent 

for coliform counts for unrestricted use, while less restrictive for other applications. 

Examples of large area water reclamation systems in 

Japan can be found in Chiba Prefecture Kobe City, and 

Fukuoka City. Outside the city limits of each of these 

urban areas, streams have been augmented, parks and 

agricultural areas have been irrigated, and greenbelts 

established with reclaimed water (Ogoshi et al., 2000). 

The price of reclaimed water in these cities ranges from 

$0.83/m3 for residential use to $2.99/m3 for business and 

other uses. This compares with a potable water price 

range of $1.08 to $3.99/m3. 

8.5.16 Jordan 

Jordan has very limited renewable water resources of 

only 102 m3

/capita/year (26,950 gallons/capita/year) 

(World Water Resources, 2000-2001), which is basically 

at the survival level (see Section 8.2.1). As a result, 

mobilization of non-conventional water resources is one 

of the most important measures that have been proposed 

to meet the increasing water demand of the growing population (3.6 percent/year, 6.5 million expected in 2010). 

Over 63 percent of the Jordanian population is connected 

to sewage systems. Seventeen wastewater treatment 

plants are in operation, with an overall capacity of 82 

Mm3/year (21,700 mg/year). The largest facilities (greater 

than 4,000 m3/d or 1.1 mgd) are As-Samra, Baqa’s, Wadi 

Arab, Irbid, and Madaba. Stabilization ponds and activated sludge processes are the most common treatment 

processes in addition to a few trickling filter facilities. 

More than 70 Mm3

 (57,000 acre-feet or 18,500 mg) of 

Jordan’s reclaimed water, around 10 percent of the total 

water supply, is either directly or indirectly reused each 

year. By the year 2020, the expected available volume 

Wadi Musa secondary treatment plant and storage ponds 

serving communities in the vicinity of Petra, Jordan. Photo 

courtesy of Bahman Sheikh 

of treated wastewater is estimated to be 265 Mm3

/year 

(70,000 mg/year), which is about 25 percent of the total 

water available for irrigation. To date, the majority of the 

reuse has been unplanned and indirect, where the reclaimed water is discharged to the environment and, after mixing with natural surface water supplies and freshwater supplies, used for agriculture downstream, primarily in parts of the Jordan Valley. The direct use of reclaimed water in the immediate vicinity or adjacent to 

the wastewater treatment plants is generally under the 

jurisdiction of the Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ), which 

is the entity that plans, builds, owns, operates, and maintains the plants. The majority of these sites are pilot 

projects with some research and limited commercial viability. A few direct water reuse operations, such as the 

267
Table 8-11. Uses of Reclaimed Water in Japan 

Use Pe rce nt Mm 3

/ye a r mg/yea r 

Environmental Water 54% 63.9 16,882.4 

Agricultural Irrigation 13% 15.9 4,200.8 

Snow Melting 13% 15.3 4,042.3 

Industrial Water 11% 12.6 3,328.9 

Cleansing Water 9% 11.2 2,959.0 

Source: Oqoshi et al., 2000. 

date palm plantations receiving reclaimed water from the 

Aqaba wastewater treatment plant, are separate and viable enterprises. 

In recent years, with an increasing population and industrialization, planned water reuse is being viewed as an 

important component of maximizing Jordan’s scarce 

water resources. As a result, the government of Jordan, 

with support from USAID, has been examining water reuse and its application in the integrated management of 

Jordan’s water resources, particularly to alleviate the demand on fresh water. The Water Resource Policy Support activity includes policy support and broad-based 

stakeholder participation on water reuse, specifically in 

the Amman-Zarqa Basin (McCornick et al., 2002). To 

further promote the commercial viability of direct water 

reuse, the government of Jordan, with support from 

USAID, also revisited the existing water reuse standards 

(Sheikh, 2001). Senior international water reuse and standards experts were consulted in coordination with government, agriculture, industry, and technical representatives, whose participation helped develop an appreciation of the constraints and concerns faced by all parties 

with respect to reclaimed water use. Jordan is now implementing a program that will demonstrate that direct water 

reuse is reliable, commercially viable, socially acceptable, environmentally sustainable, and safe. The program 

is focusing on 3 sites in Jordan including: Wadi Musa 

(see photo), Aqaba, and Jordan University of Science 

and Technology, each of which is at a different stage of 

development in wastewater treatment and reuse. 

8.5.17 Kuwait 

With a population estimated at about 2 million, most of 

Kuwait can be considered urban. The country is arid, 

with average annual rainfall less than 12.5 cm (5 inches). 

With no surface sources, water is drawn from groundwater at the rate of about 2270 m3

/d (0.6 mgd) for producing 

bottled water and for adding minerals to desalinized seawater from the Persian Gulf. Most water needs are met 

by desalination. About 90 percent of the urban population is connected to a central sewage system. 

According to Table 8-12, irrigation accounts for approximately 60 percent of Kuwait’s water use, while approximately 37 percent is withdrawn for domestic use. Irrigation water is primarily supplied from groundwater (61 

percent) and reclaimed water (34 percent). 

In 1994, the total volume of collected wastewater was 

119 Mm3/year (31,400 mg/year), 103 Mm3/year (27,200 

mg/year) of which was treated. The 3 main municipal 

treatment plants are Ardhiya, Reqqa, and Jahra, with a 

total capacity of more than 303,000 m3/d (80 mgd). Tertiary treatment – activated sludge, filtration, and chlorine 

disinfection – is provided. And while Kuwait has been 

practicing water reclamation and reuse for over 20 years 

as a means of extending its limited natural water supply, 

only about 10 percent of treated effluent is reused. 

While the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation 

is growing in urban areas, the main reuse application is 

agricultural irrigation (4,470 hectares or 11,046 acres in 

1997), representing 25 percent of the total irrigated area. 

Reclaimed water is only allowed for the irrigation of vegetables eaten cooked (potatoes and cauliflower), industrial crops, forage crops (alfalfa and barley), and irrigation of highway landscapes. Table 8-13 details the effluent quality standards established by the Ministry of Public Works for water reuse. 

The percentage of reclaimed water used for irrigation in 

Kuwait is relatively high; nevertheless, groundwater supplies used for irrigation are being stressed through excessive pumping. The result is increasing salinity of irrigation water. Irrigated lands are also experiencing salinization due to evaporation. In response to these irrigation concerns, Kuwait signed a forward-looking, 30-year, 

build-operate-transfer (BOT) concession contract in May 

2002 for the financing, design, construction, and operation of a 375,000-m3

/d (99-mgd) wastewater treatment 

268
and reclamation plant. The plant, due to commence operation in 2005, is located at Sulaibiya, near one of the 

most productive agricultural areas of Kuwait. Product 

water from the Sulaibiya plant must meet the concession contract requirements presented in Table 8-14. 

The product water from this plant will be very high quality 

and will allow Kuwait several choices for end use including unrestricted irrigation and replenishment of irrigation 

groundwater supplies. The Sulaibiya plant will achieve 

the high quality product water through the application of 

advanced treatment processes – biological nitrogen and 

phosphorus removal, followed by ultrafiltration and reverse-osmosis treatment. 

8.5.18 Mexico 

Like other Latin American countries, Mexico faces a major 

challenge in terms of providing drinking water, sewage 

connection, and wastewater treatment, due to the need 

to strengthen and expand its economic and social development. Therefore, efforts to reuse water for different 

purposes are extremely important to solving the increasing water shortage and environmental problems. Mexico 

has 314 catchment areas with an average water availability of 4,136 m3

/capita/year (1.1 mg/capita/year) (Water Resources 2000-2001) with uneven distribution. Average rainfall is 777 mm (30.6 inches) per year, and most 

of it occurs over only 4 months per year. 

At the national level, the rates of coverage for drinking 

water and sewage connection in December 1998 were 86 

percent and 72 percent, respectively. However, high discrepancies exist for the different regions, in particular for 

sewer connections with 32 percent for small communities and 92 percent for large cities. Approximately 22 

percent of all the wastewater flow from urban centers 

throughout the country, estimated at 187 m3/s (49,400 

gallons/s), are treated at 194 sewage treatment plants. 

The total urban wastewaters produced in Mexico are esTable 8-12. Water Withdrawal in Kuwait 

timated to be 14.7 Mm3

/d (3,880 mgd), of which 25 percent are currently treated prior to discharge. 

Towns and cities across Mexico generate wastewater 

that is reused in agriculture (Scott et al, 2000). The government has mandated treatment and wastewater quality standards that are set by the type of receiving waters. One of the major examples of agricultural reuse is 

Mexico City. Almost all collected raw wastewater (45 to 

300 m3/s dry and wet flows, respectively, or 11,900 to 

79,250 gallons/s), is reused for irrigation of over 85,000 

hectares (210,000 acres) of various crops (Jiménez, 

2001). Of the total wastewater generated, 4.25 m3/s 

(367,000 m3/d or 97 mgd) is reused for urban uses (filling 

recreational lakes, irrigating green areas, car washing, 

3.2 m3

/s (845 gallons/s) is used for filling a part of a dry 

lake called Texcoco, and for other local uses, and 45 m3/ 

s (12,000 gallons/s) is transported 65 kilometers (40 miles) 

to the Mezquital Valley for irrigation. The reuse of this 

wastewater for irrigation represents an opportunity for the 

development of one of the most productive irrigation districts in the country; however, health problems also are 

also a result from this practice. 

Although the necessity to treat wastewater is obvious, 

when the Mexican government started a wastewater improvement program for the Valley of Mexico, the farmers 

from the Mezquital Valley were opposed to it. The main 

argument was to keep the organics and nutrients (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other micronutrients) as 

fertilizer for the crops. 

Several projects have been conducted to determine the 

most appropriate treatment that would ensure adequate 

disinfection (to minimize epidemiological problems and 

illnesses), but keeping the nutrients in the reclaimed water to preserve the fertilizing property. According to the 

results obtained, it is concluded that advanced primary 

treatment (coagulation/flocculation plus disinfection) produces water of a consistent quality, independent of the 

Wa te r Use 

Annua l Qua ntity 

(M m 3) (m g) 

Agricultural 324 85,600 

Domestic 201 53,100 

Industrial 13 3,435 

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1997 

269 
Table 8-13. Reclaimed Water Standards in Kuwait 

Parameter Irrigation of Fodder and Food Crops 

Not Eaten Raw, Forestland 

Irrigation of Food Crops 

Eaten Raw 

Level of Treatment Advanced Advanced 

SS (mg/L) 10 10 

BOD (mg/L) 10 10 

COD (mg/L) 40 40 

Chlorine Residual (mg/L), 

After 12 hours at 20o

 C 1 1 

Coliform Bacteria 

(count/100 ml) 10,000 100 

Table 8-14. Effluent Quality Standards from the Sulaibiya Treatment and Reclamation Plant 

Characteristics Monthly Average Value 

pH 6 to 9 

TDS (mg/l) <100 

TSS (mg/l) <1 

VSS (mg/l) <1 

BOD (mg/l) <1 

NH3-N (mg/l) <1 

NO3-N (mg/l) <1 

PO4-P (mg/l) 2 

Sulfide (mg/l) <0.1 

Oil and Grease (mg/l) <0.05 

TOC (mg/l) <2 

Hardness (mg/l) as CaCO3 <10 

Color (unit) <1 

Enteric Viruses (Geometric Mean) 5 

Total Coliforms (colonies/100 ml) <2.2 

Source: State of Kuwait, Ministry of Finance (2000). 

variation in wastewater quality in the influent. This process may also be used for the treatment of wastewater 

destined for reuse in agriculture in accordance with the 

quality standards established. 

Another growing issue in Mexico is the reuse of municipal wastewater in industry. For example, in the Monterrey 

metropolitan area, 1.2 m3

/s (317 gallons/s) of reclaimed 

water (104,000 m3/d, 16 percent of the total volume of 

treated municipal wastewater), is reused as make-up 

water in cooling towers in 15 industries. Besides increasing pressure on water resources, this project is driven by 

economic concerns. The competitive cost of reclaimed 

water is $0.3/m3, compared to conventional sources of 

groundwater at $0.7/m3, and potable water at $1.4/m3. 

The improvement of sanitation, water resource management and water reuse in Mexico requires appropriate ad270
ministrative reorganization. One possible solution is the 

public-private partnership that was successfully established in Monterrey (Agua Industrial de Monterrey 

Sociedad de Usuarios) and more recently in Culiacan. 

8.5.19 Morocco 

Despite the influence of the Atlantic Ocean, which contributes to the area’s relatively abundant precipitation, 

Morocco is an arid to semi-arid country. Out of 150 billion m3

 (120 million acre-feet/year or 40,000 billion gallons/year) of annual rainfall, only 30 billion m3 (24 MAFY 

or 7,925 billion gallons/year) are estimated to be usable 

(70 percent as surface water and 30 percent from aquifers). In addition, these resources are unevenly distributed. The catchment areas of the Sebou, Bou Regreg, 

and Oum er Rbia wadis alone represent 2/3 of the hydraulic potential of the country (Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, 2001). 

Approximately 11.5 billion m3

 (9 million acre-feet per year 

or 3,000 billion gallons/year) of water are used annually, 

including 3.5 billion m3 (3 million acre-feet per year or 925 

billion gallons/year) from groundwater. Nearly 93 percent 

of this amount is used to irrigate 1.2 million hectares (3 

million acres), including 850,000 hectares (2 million acres) 

irrigated more or less permanently throughout the year. 

Most Moroccan towns are equipped with sewage networks that also collect industrial effluent. The volumes 

of wastewater collected were estimated at 500 Mm3

/year 

(360 mgd) in 1993 and are expected to reach 700 Mm3/ 

year (500 mgd) in 2020. For Casablanca alone, the annual production of wastewater is estimated at 250 Mm3/ 

year (180 mgd) in 1991, with forecasts of around 350 

Mm3 (275 mgd) in 2010. However, out of the 60 largest 

towns, only 7 have treatment plants, and the design and 

operation of those plants are considered insufficient. 

Most of the wastewater produced by inland towns is reused, mainly, as raw or insufficiently treated wastewater, to irrigate about 8,000 hectares (20,000 acres). Sometimes the wastewater is mixed with water from the wadis, into which it spills. A high proportion of the remaining water is discharged to the sea. The irrigated crops 

are mainly fodder crops (4 harvests of corn per year around 

Marrakech), fruit, cereals, and produce. If irrigated with 

wastewater, the growing and selling of vegetables to be 

eater raw is prohibited. 

The largest water reuse project in Morocco was implemented in 1997 in Ben Slimane (near Rabat), where 5600 

m3

/d (1.5 mgd) of wastewater is treated by stabilization 

ponds (anaerobic, facultative, and maturation ponds) and 

the disinfected effluent (absence of helminth eggs, less 

than 20 CF/100 ml) is used for golf course irrigation during the summer (average volume of reused water 1000 

m3/d or 0.26 mgd). The country does not yet have any 

specific wastewater reuse regulations and usually refers 

to the WHO recommendations. 

The lack of wastewater treatment before reuse in inland 

cities has resulted in adverse health impacts, and a high 

incidence of waterborne diseases exist in Morocco. Improvement in wastewater reuse methods and the quality 

of reuse water for irrigation is recognized as essential. 

Major improvements are urgently needed because of the 

strong migration of the rural population towards the towns 

and the very rapid demographic expansion. 

8.5.19.1 Drarga, Morocco 

The Morocco Water Resources Sustainability (WRS) 

Activity is a USAID-funded project that started in July, 

1996. The objectives of WRS are: (1) to assist the government of Morocco in undertaking water policy reforms, 

(2) to implement pilot demonstrations that introduce technologies which will foster the sustainability of water resources, and (3) to broaden public participation in water 

resources management. 

The Commune of Drarga, near Agadir, in southern Morocco, is rapidly expanding. The current population of 

10,000 is expected to double over the next few years. 

Prior to the start of the WRS project, the town of Drarga 

had a potable water distribution and wastewater collection system; however, raw wastewater was being discharged into the environment without any treatment, creating large cesspools and contaminating drinking water 

sources. 

The 1,000-m3

/d (0.26-mgd) Drarga wastewater treatment 

plant uses a re-circulating sand filtration system. After 

screening, the influent flow is treated in anaerobic basins 

with an average hydraulic retention time of 3 days. The 

flow is then sent to equalization storage where it is adjusted for release to sand filters. The third step of the 

treatment process, after the sand filters, is denitrification. Finally, the treated flow is sent to reed beds where 

the root systems of the reeds provide further filtration. 

The final effluent is stored in a storage basin before being 

pumped to irrigate adjacent fields. 

The implementation of a public participation program has 

been one of the cornerstones of the Drarga project. The 

fact that the public was consulted throughout each step 

of the project has resulted in overall public support for 

the project. Public opinion even led to a change in the 

plant’s location. 

271
Another key element of the Drarga pilot project was the 

establishment of an institutional partnership. A local 

steering committee, made up of all of the institutions 

involved with various aspects of water management at 

the local level, was created at the beginning of the 

project. The role of the steering committee was to follow each step of the pilot project and to provide assistance, when necessary, based on their specific area of 

expertise. After construction, a technical oversight committee was set up to oversee plant operations. 

In Morocco, nearly 70 percent of all of the wastewater 

treatment plants are not functioning due to lack of spare 

parts and poor cost recovery. The Drarga project included several cost recovery features. The plant itself 

generates a number of products that have a market 

value: reclaimed water sold to farmers, reeds which are 

harvested and sold twice a year, dried sludge from the 

anaerobic basins mixed with organic wastes from Drarga 

to produce compost, and methane gas from the anaerobic basins, which is recovered and used to run pumps at 

the plant, thereby reducing electricity costs. 

The plant has been operating continuously since October 2000 and has exceeded removal rate targets for the 

abatement of key pollution parameters such as BOD5, 

nitrates, fecal coliforms, and parasites. Table 8-15 summarizes the plant’s performance. 

The treated wastewater fulfills the requirements of WHO 

reuse guidelines, and therefore, is suitable for reuse in 

agriculture without restriction. The WRS project encouraged farmers to use reclaimed water for crop irrigation 

by developing demonstration plots using drip irrigation. 

Crops irrigated with reclaimed water in the demonstrations plots include cereals (wheat and maize), vegetables 

(tomatoes and zucchini), and forage crops (alfalfa and 

rye-grasses). 

8.5.20 Namibia 

Windhoek, the capital of Namibia, has a population of 

200,000 and is located in the desert. In 1960, low rainfall 

(below 300 mm/year or 11.8 inches/year) caused the necessary water supply to fall short of the water demand. To 

meet this need, the country’s water supply master plan 

included the long distance transport of 80 percent of its 

water supply from the Eastern National Water Carrier, 

extensive aquifer withdrawals from around the city, the 

development of a local surface reservoir, and the construction of a reclamation plant. The Windhoek reclamation plant has been In operation since 1968 with an initial 

production rate of 4800 m3/d (1.3 mgd) (see photo) This 

operation is the only existing example of direct potable 

The Goreangab Dam, adjacent to the Windhoek reclamation plant in Windhoek, Namibia. Photo courtesy of 

Valentina Lazarova 

water production. The plant has since been upgraded in 

stages to its present capacity of 21,000 m3

/d (5.5 mgd). 

The wastewater from residential and commercial settings 

is treated in the Gammans treatment plants by trickling 

filters (6000 m3

/d or 1.6 mgd capacity) and activated 

sludge (12,000 m3/d or 3.2 mgd capacity), with enhanced 

phosphorus removal. The effluents from each of these 

processes go to 2 separate maturation ponds for 4 to 12 

days of polishing. Only the polished effluent from the 

activated sludge system is directed to the Windhoek reclamation facility as well as water from the Goreangab 

Dam (blending ratio 1:3.5), where it is treated to drinking 

water standards. After tertiary treatment, reclaimed water is blended again with bulk water from different sources. 

Advanced treatment processes (including ozonation and 

activated carbon) have been added to the initial separation processes of dissolved air flotation, sedimentation, 

and rapid sand filtration. A chlorine residual of 2 mg/l is 

provided in distribution systems. Membrane treatment 

has been considered, as well as an additional 140 days 

storage of the secondary effluent from the maturation 

ponds in the Goreangab Dam. 

Risk studies and evaluations of toxicity and carcinogenity 

have demonstrated that reclaimed water produced at 

the Windhoek facility is a safe and acceptable alternative water resource for potable purposes. Treatment capacity at the Windhoek treatment plant is currently being 

increased to 40,000 m3

/d (11 mgd). 

8.5.21 Oman 

Oman is another dry country with internal, renewable water resources estimated at 1 billion m3/year (388 m3

/capita/ 

272
Table 8-15. Plant Performance Parameters at the Drarga Wastewater Treatment Plant 

Parameter Raw Effluent Reduction 

BOD5 (mg/l) 625 9 98.5% 

COD (mg/l) 1825 75 95.8% 

TSS (mg/l) 651 3.9 99.4% 

NTK (mg/l) 317 10 96.8% 

Fecal coliforms 

(per 100 ml) 1.6 x 107 500 99.99% 

Parasites 

(Helminth eggs) 5 0 100% 

year or 264 billion gallons/year). Surface water resources 

are scarce, with evaporation rates higher than annual rainfall. In 1995, total water withdrawals including depletion 

of non-renewable groundwater, were 1,223 Mm3 (323,000 

mg), of which 93.9 percent was used for agricultural purposes. 

In 1995, the total produced wastewater was estimated at 

58 Mm3 (15,320 mg) (Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations, 2001), of which only 28 Mm3 (7,400 

mg) was treated and 26 Mm3 (6,870 mg) was reused, 

mainly for irrigation of trees along the roads. The quantity of desalinated water produced in the same period 

was 34 Mm3 (8,980 mg) and was used for domestic purposes. Since 1987, 90 percent of the treated effluent in 

the capital area has been reused for agricultural irrigation 

of tree plantations by drip irrigation. 

About 262 wastewater treatment plants with capacities 

below 11,000 m3/d (2.9 mgd) are currently in operation. 

Over 50 percent of these plants are located in the capital 

area around Muscat, with overall capacity of 52,000 m3/ 

d (13.7 mgd), and 20 percent are in Dhofar and Al-Batinat. 

The largest wastewater treatment plants are Darsait, AlAnsab, and Shatti al Qurm, which produce about 11,500 

m3

/d (3 mgd), 5400 m3/d (1.4 mgd), and 750 m3/d (0.2 

mgd), respectively. The plants use activated sludge processes with tertiary filtration and chlorination. Effluent is 

pumped to a storage tank that provides pressure to the 

water reuse transmission system. 

There are 2 main Omani rules which regulate water reuse: (1) wastewater reuse, discharge and sludge disposal 

rules that include physico-chemical parameters such as 

suspended solids, conductivity, organic matters, heavy 

metals, etc., and (2) wastewater standards related to biological characteristics. Reuse regulations further classify wastewater use into 2 categories: 

 Standard A - (200 FC/100 ml, less than 1 nematode 

ova/l) for irrigation of vegetables and fruit to be eaten 

raw, landscape areas with public access, controlled 

aquifer recharge, and spray irrigation 

 Standard B - (1000 FC/100 ml, less than 1 nematode 

ova/l) for cooked vegetables, fodder, cereals, and 

areas with no public access 

During the summer, all of the reclaimed water in the area 

is used, and demands are still not met. But during the 

winter, about 40 percent of the effluent from the Darsait 

plant is discharged through an outfall to the Gulf of Oman. 

In the future, the reuse network will be expanded so that 

all the effluent is reused for the irrigation of over 5,600 

hectares (13,840 acres). 

In the southern city of Salalah, the second largest city in 

Oman, an extensive wastewater collection, conveyance, 

treatment, and groundwater recharge project is nearing 

completion. The effluent from the 20,000-m3/d (5.3-mgd) 

capacity tertiary treatment plant will be discharged to a 

series of gravity recharge wells along the coast of the 

Arabian Sea to form a saltwater intrusion barrier with 

additional wells further inland for replenishment of agricultural withdrawals. 

8.5.22 Pakistan 

The use of untreated wastewater for agricultural irrigation is common in Pakistan; a survey showed that it was 

practiced in 80 percent of all the towns and cities with 

populations over 10,000 inhabitants. The main crops cultivated on these lands are vegetables, fodder, and wheat. 

Vegetables and fodder are grown year-round to be sold 

at the local market, while wheat is grown in the winter 

season, mainly for domestic consumption. There are various reasons why untreated wastewater is used for irrigation such as: lack of access to other water sources, the 

273
high reliability of wastewater, the profits made by selling 

crops at the local market, and the nutrient value of the 

wastewater (reducing the need for fertilization). Farmers 

using untreated wastewater for irrigation bring in almost 

twice the income than farmers using normal irrigation 

water. 

The City of Faisalabad has a population of over 2 million 

people, making it the third largest city in Pakistan. Located in the heart of the Punjab province, Faisalabad was 

founded in 1900 as an agricultural market town but since 

then has rapidly developed into a major agro-based industrial center. The local Water and Sanitation Agency 

(WASA) has identified over 150 different industrial divisions in the area, most of which are involved in cotton 

processing such as: washing, bleaching, dying, and 

weaving. 

Lahore, Pakistan – Farmers installing a pump into a 

wastewater drain to draw water for irrigation. Source: International Water Management Institute 

The use of wastewater for agricultural irrigation is common in Faisalabad. At least 9 different areas are irrigated 

with wastewater ranging in size from a few hectares to 

almost 1,000 hectares (2,470 acres). In total, over 2,000 

hectares (4,940 acres) of agricultural land are irrigated 

with untreated wastewater in Faisalabad. The 2 main sites 

in Faisalabad are the Narwala Road site and the Channel 

4 site. At Narwala Road, the wastewater is primarily of 

domestic origin while at the Channel 4 site the farmers 

use a mixture of industrial and domestic wastewater. One 

wastewater treatment plant in Faisalabad treats approximately 15 percent of the city’s wastewater. 

All wastewater reused in Faisalabad is used untreated. 

Farmers opt to use untreated wastewater over treated 

wastewater because it is considered to be more nutrient-rich and less saline than treated wastewater. In 

Faisalabad, like in many other cities in Pakistan, the local water and sanitation agency sells the wastewater to 

groups, or a community of farmers. The total revenue 

generated is mainly used for the operation and maintenance of the drinking water supply and sewage disposal 

systems. 

The only wastewater that is currently not auctioned off is 

the wastewater at the Channel 4 site. The farmers at this 

site complain that the toxicity of the wastewater has diminished their choice in crops and forced them to use 

wastewater only in combination with brackish groundwater. The majority of the farmers at the Channel 4 site 

would prefer to use regular irrigation water (potable water), but increased water shortages in Pakistan have resulted in such low water allocations that the cultivation 

of crops without wastewater is no longer possible. 

8.5.23 Palestinian National Authority 

Currently, wastewater collection and treatment practices 

in the Palestinian National Authority (West Bank and 

Gaza Strip) are relatively low. Hence, the ability to reclaim and reuse the large volumes of wastewater generated in this highly water-deficient region is restricted. 

However, this situation is changing rapidly. International 

development aid from European countries and the U.S. 

is gradually strengthening the country’s sanitation infrastructure, leading to the potential availability of greater 

volumes of reclaimed water in future years. In addition, 

several pilot projects have been conducted with varying 

results, but each project has demonstrated potential use 

for reclaimed water. The Ministries of Agriculture and Public Health have studied the use of reclaimed water in 

agriculture, landscape, industry, and groundwater recharge. As a result, the volume of reclaimed water use 

in Palestine is anticipated to grow over the next 20 years 

(Figure 8-4). Farmer acceptance of reclaimed water use 

Figure 8-4. Future Demand for Irrigation Water 

Compared with Potential 

Availability of Reclaimed Water for 

Irrigation in the West Bank, 

Palestine 

Source: Adapted from Abdo, 2001. 

274 
is relatively high, as measured in interviews with growers in both parts of the country (Abdo, 2001). Researchers found that, “the acceptance of farmers to use reclaimed water was conditional by securing water quality 

and getting governmental approval” (Abdo, 2001). 

8.5.24 Peru 

Peru is another Latin American country with serious water shortage problems. Half of the total population of 22 

million live in the coastal region with an arid climate. The 

uneven distribution of water resources (very high inland, 

very short on the coast) contributes to the low water supply and sanitation coverage of the population of only 42 

percent and 43 percent, respectively. Only 5 percent of 

the sewage in Peru is treated before discharge, mostly 

by stabilization ponds. 

The reuse of predominantly raw sewage has been practiced for agricultural irrigation of vegetables, fodder, forest trees, cotton, and other crops. In Lima, about 5,000 

hectares (12,000 acres) are irrigated with raw wastewater. A project is under development to irrigate about 4000 

hectares (10,000 acres) near San Bartolo, south of Lima, 

with disinfected effluent from a lagoon system, including 

maturation ponds. Ica, located 300 kilometers (180 miles) 

south of Lima, uses effluent treated in facultative lagoons 

for restricted irrigation of 400 hectares (1,000 acres). At 

Tacna, Peru’s southernmost town, effluent treated in lagoons is used to irrigate 210 hectares (500 acres) of land. 

Peru uses raw sewage to irrigate market vegetables to 

be eaten without processing. This is typical of numerous 

cities in developing countries (Yanez, 1992). Furthermore, 

the effluent produced by stabilization ponds throughout 

Peru is of generally low quality because of design deficiencies, operational problems, or overloading. Numerous enteric bacterial and viral infections are reported, 

although the many possible transmission routes preclude 

attributing a direct link to irrigation practices (Strauss 

and Blumenthal, 1990). 

8.5.25 Saudi Arabia 

Water is a scarce and extremely valuable resource in 

Saudi Arabia. The renewable water resources are only 

111 m3

/capita/year (2.4 billion m3/year or 634 billion gallons/year). As a result of agricultural, urban, and industrial growth, the country’s water demand has been increasing steadily over the past 2 decades, reaching 

around 20 billion m3

/year (5,283 billion gallons/year) in 

2000. Irrigation consumes the largest amount of water in 

the kingdom. The majority of water consumption is supplied by depleting non-renewable groundwater and desalination. Saudi Arabia is now the world’s largest producer of desalinated water, which covers 70 percent of 

the total water demand. 

In 1985, Saudi Arabia began focusing on ways to economize and regulate the use of water through a National 

Water Plan. The plan provides for conservation, greater 

coordination between agriculture and water policies, intensive use of reclaimed waste and surface water, and 

better coordination of supply and distribution. As a result, Saudi Arabia is committed to a policy of complete 

water reuse. 

Treated urban wastewater is considered a viable alternative resource for meeting water needs. It is estimated 

that approximately 40 percent of the water used for domestic purposes in urban areas could be recycled. In 

1992, there were 22 sewage treatment plants in operation (stabilization ponds and activated sludge processes) 

with a total treatment capacity of 1.2 Mm3/d (317 mgd). 

In 1992, 217 Mm3 (57,300 mg) of treated wastewater were 

reused. Regulations require secondary treatment with tertiary treatment for unrestricted irrigation, with standards 

shown in Table 8-16. 

The largest water reuse scheme is in Riyadh. The most 

sophisticated Riyadh North treatment plant started operation at the beginning of 1994 ,with a design capacity 

of 200,000 m3

/d (53 mgd). Treatment at the Riyadh North 

plant includes a nitrification-denitrification activated sludge 

process with sand filtration for tertiary treatment. On the 

basis of this plant’s treatment experience, the Riyadh 

Region Water and Sewerage Authority recently adopted 

a policy of treating all sewage to the tertiary level to comply 

with the current effluent guideline standards for unrestricted agricultural reuse enforced by the Ministry of 

Agriculture and Water. In 2000, an average daily flow of 

415,000 m3/d (110 mgd) of tertiary treated and disinfected 

effluent was available to potential users free of charge 

(see photos). However, only about 45 percent (185,000 

m3/d or 49 mgd) of this effluent has been reclaimed, predominantly for agricultural irrigation (170,000 m3

/d or 45 

mgd), and about 15,000 m3/d (4 mgd) is used for industrial cooling purpose by the Riyadh refinery. The remaining effluent is discharged to Wadi Hanifah, where it is 

mixed with the natural flow of the channel. Private sector 

farmers can extract some of this flow for irrigation. 

In Jeddah, a 38,000-m3

/d (10-mgd) activated sludge facility was designed to produce high-quality reuse water 

to standards similar to drinking water standards. Advanced treatment includes reverse-osmosis, desalination, filtration, and disinfection. Other plants are planned 

for Jeddah and Mecca. In both cities, the reclaimed water will be used for municipal, industrial, and agricultural 

reuse. The City of Jubail is planning to have 114,000 m3/ 

275
d (30 mgd) of reclaimed water for nonpotable industrial, 

urban landscaping, and other purposes. 

Reclaimed water valve access box on sidewalk on Embassy Row in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Photo courtesy of 

Bahman Sheikh 

Potable water valve access box on sidewalk on Embassy 

Row in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Photo courtesy of Bahman 

Sheikh 

A recent master planning effort studied the infrastructure 

needed to meet Riyadh’s expected growth of an additional 7 million inhabitants by 2021 (over and above the 

current 3.5 million). The master plan recommended 12 

satellite water reclamation plants be constructed (Sheikh 

and Aldu Kair, 2000). Each plant would treat wastewater 

from a district and return the reclaimed water (disinfected 

tertiary effluent) for irrigation of residential gardens, public parks, and other landscaping, in addition to industrial 

and commercial uses in various parts of the city. The 

water reuse component of the integrated water cycle system is expected to have an ultimate capacity of 1.5 Mm3

/ 

d (400 mgd). 

8.5.26 Singapore 

Singapore is a city-state with a dense, growing population of almost 4 million people. Although the island receives heavy rainfall averaging 250 cm/year (100 inches/ 

year), it has limited water resources because of its small 

size (680 square kilometers or 265 square miles). The 

island is fully served by a comprehensive wastewater 

infrastructure - 6 secondary (activated sludge) treatment 

plants discharge wastewater effluent to the sea. 

Since February 2003, Singapore has been supplying high 

quality reclaimed water (meeting drinking water standards), called “NEWater”, directly to industries and commercial and office buildings for process and other 

nonpotable uses such as air conditioning and cooling. 

The goal is to supply 245,000 m3

/d (64.5 mgd) of NEWater 

for nonpotable use by year 2011. 

Table 8-16. Reclaimed Water Standards for 

Unrestricted Irrigation in Saudi 

Arabia 

Parameter (a) Maximum Contaminant 

Level 

BOD 10 

TSS 10 

pH 6 – 8.4 

Coliform (count/100 ml) 2.2 

Turbidity (NTU) 1 

Aluminum 5 

Arsenic 0.1 

Beryllium 0.1 

Boron 0.5 

Cadmium 0.01 

Chloride 280 

Chromium 0.1 

Cobalt 0.05 

Copper 0.4 

Cyanide 0.05 

Fluoride 2 

Iron 5 

Lead 0.1 

Lithium 0.07 

Manganese 0.2 

Mercury 0.001 

Molybdenum 0.01 

Nickel 0.02 

Nitrate 10 

Selenium 0.02 

Zinc 4 

Oil & Grease Absent 

Phenol 0.002 

Note: (a) In mg/l unless otherwise specified 

276 
The NEWater is reclaimed from municipal wastewater 

using the most advanced technologies, including reverseosmosis and UV disinfection. NEWater is also being used 

for indirect potable use. Since February 2003, about 9,000 

m3/d (2.4 mgd) of NEWater has been discharged into 

reservoirs and treated again in a conventional water treatment plant before introduction into the distribution system for domestic potable use. The amount of reclaimed 

water for indirect potable use will increase gradually by 

4,500 m3

/d (1.2 mgd) yearly to 45,000 m3/d (12 mgd) by 

2011. Currently, 2 NEWater plants are in operation with 

a total production capacity of 72,000 m3/d (19.5 mgd). 

The cost of NEWater production is estimated to be half 

the cost of desalinized seawater. 

Reclaimed water of lower quality than NEWater has been 

supplied to industries in the western part of Singapore 

since the 1960s. Industrial reclaimed water treatment 

involves conventional sand filtration and chlorination before it is pumped to a service reservoir for distribution to 

the industries. The current demand for industrial water is 

about 90,000 m3/d (24 mgd). 

8.5.27 South Africa 

Limited water resources with uneven distribution, highly 

variable rainfall, repetitive, severe water shortages, and 

intensive industrial and urban development are the main 

factors impacting the need for water reuse in South Africa. In 1996, the population was at 38 million, of which 

55.4 percent lived in urban regions. The population growth

rate is estimated to be 2.4 percent per year. Based on 

these population figures, the water demand is expected 

to double in the next 30 years. In fact, projections indicate that the water demand will exceed available water 

resources soon after the year 2020. 

Water reuse is considered a very promising alternative 

water resource. Over 1,000 wastewater treatment plants 

are in operation with biological nitrogen removal as the 

predominant treatment technology. However, according 

to Grobicki (2000), less than 3 percent of the available 

treated wastewater is being reused (an estimated volume of 41 Mm3

/year or 11,000 mg/year). 

Aquifer recharge and industrial uses are currently the 

major water reuse applications. One of the country’s larger 

reuse projects is in Durban (3 million inhabitants) where 

reclaimed municipal wastewater from the Southern wastewater treatment facility is used by the paper industry and 

petrol refineries. The tertiary treatment of the secondary 

effluent from the Southern wastewater treatment works 

consists of coagulation/flocculation with lamella settling, 

dual media filtration, ozonation, activated carbon, and 

chlorination. The reclaimed capacity is 47,000 m3

/d (12.4 

mgd). 

The largest aquifer storage and recharge project is in the 

Atlantis area (70,000 people), situated 50 kilometers (31 

miles) north of Cape Town. Two infiltration basins augment the aquifer storage capacity with 4,500 m3

/d (2 Mm3/ 

year or 1.2 mgd) of treated wastewater. High-quality 

stormwater is also discharged to another aquifer. This 

water is subsequently abstracted after an underground 

residence time of about 1 year as part of a 15,000-m3/d 

(4.0-mgd) groundwater supply project. In addition, treated 

industrial wastewater is used as a barrier against saltwater intrusion near the coast. A number of small recharge 

systems exist where farmers augment groundwater supply through small, earth-dams. 

In addition to industrial reuse and aquifer recharge, a 

number of small water reuse irrigation systems are currently in place in the areas of Durban and Cape Town, 

mostly for landscape irrigation at golf courses (King 

David, Mowbray, Rondebosch, Milnerton, Steenberg, 

Parow, Durbanville, Cato Ridge, Langebann Country 

Club), sport facilities (Milnerton Racecourse, Milnerton 

Beachfront, Bellville South, Kraaifontein Sportsdround, 

Peninsula Technion, etc.), and various agricultural applications. 

Since many of the country’s water bodies provide little 

dilution capacity, there has been significant focus on 

water reuse initiatives involving planned indirect reuse 

through discharge to surface bodies. The return of 

treated wastewater to rivers in inland areas of South Africa has been considered an important aspect of water 

management. Despite the deterioration of surface water 

quality, the well-established, intensive, potable treatment 

system (86 percent water supply coverage) minimizes 

any potential health risk. This indirect potable reuse via 

surface flow augmentation accounts for several million 

cubic meters per day. In fact, with increasing water demand, the volume of return flows is increasing steadily 

and will be greater than natural run-off in a number of 

regions by 2020. For example, in the Gauteng area 

(Johannesburg-Pretoria metropolis), 60 percent of the 

surface water used for water supply is treated wastewater. The Hartebeespoort Dam, used to supply water to 

Johannesburg (10 million people), receives 50 percent of 

its volume from wastewater effluent. In addition to this 

indirect potable reuse, the effluent from Johannesburg 

Northern Works (200,000 m3

/d or 52.8 mgd) is also used 

by a power station and for the irrigation of 22,000 hectares (54,400 acres) of industrial crops. 

The implementation of the National Water Act of 1997 

resulted in the establishment of catchment management 

277
authorities. These authorities are helping to focus the 

country’s water resources management enhancement. 

One of the major tasks of these catchment agencies will 

be the management of environmental compliance, while 

water supply and sanitation will remain the responsibility 

of local governments and municipalities. Effluent and environmental standards specification and enforcement are 

the duties of the central government, in particular the 

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 

Water reuse standards are currently being revised. Existing regulations apply very stringent drinking water 

standard requirements for water to be used for human 

washing and irrigation of food crops to be eaten raw. Tertiary treatment with no fecal coliforms is required for unrestricted irrigation of sport fields, pasture for milking animals, and toilet flushing. The microbiological limits have 

been relaxed for discharge into river systems to 126 FC/ 

100 ml, or sometimes even higher. The unrestricted irrigation and irrigation of non-food crops requires less that 

1000 FC/100 ml. 

8.5.28 Spain 

Although both planned and incidental water reuse have 

been taking place in Spain for decades, particularly in 

coastal Mediterranean areas and in the Balearic and Canary inlands, planned water reuse became a viable option as a consequence of the First International Symposium on Water Reclamation and Reuse held in Costa 

Brava in 1991 (IAWPRC, 1991). Since then, numerous 

projects have been implemented across the country, 

mainly serving agricultural irrigation as well as landscape 

irrigation, environmental restoration, and urban uses 

such as street cleaning, urban landscape irrigation, boat 

washing, and fire control. 

The major impetus for water reclamation and reuse has 

been based on the viable alternatives for cost recovery. 

The highly competitive water markets of the Canary Islands, the highly productive hydroponic crops of the 

southern Mediterranean coast, and the more recent demands for golf course irrigation, have largely contributed 

to the expansion of water reclamation and reuse in Spain. 

Farmers have begun to realize the considerable benefits 

from a reliable supply of good quality water, particularly 

during the summer season, when water shortages are 

most common. 

The Water and Sanitation District of Costa Brava (located in the north of Barcelona) has been one of the 

leading agencies in developing water reuse alternatives 

for the last 15 years. As secondary wastewater treatment becomes a standard in most urban and rural areas, 

a renewed interest has developed to reclaim and reuse 

treated effluent, particularly in coastal areas, where tourism, environmental protection, and intensive agriculture 

have become top priorities. Mediterranean coastal cities, like Barcelona and Valencia, with traditional high levels 

of incidental reuse in agriculture, are seriously considering rehabilitation and expansion of their treatment facilities, as to satisfy the water quality requirements associated with environmental and public health protection, and 

include adopting microbiological quality levels that are 

nearly comparable to those of drinking water quality. 

In 1999, the Spanish Ministry of Public Works, Transportation and Environment proposed a set of physicochemical and microbiological standards for 14 possible 

applications of reclaimed water. The proposed microbiological standards range from limits similar to those included in the Title 22 regulations (Californian reuse standards), for unrestricted water uses, to limits similar to 

those included in the WHO guidelines, where public exposure to reclaimed water is restricted. Several regional 

governments have adopted and are currently considering either or both of the above criteria and guidelines as 

a practical way to regulate and promote water reclamation and reuse. 

8.5.28.1 Costa Brava, Spain 

The Consorci de la Costa Brava (CCB, Costa Brava Water Agency) is a public organization, created in 1971, 

that deals with the management of the water cycle (wholesale purveyor of drinking water, wastewater treatment, 

and water reuse) in the 27 coastal municipalities of the 

Girona province. In Spain, CCB is considered to be a 

pioneer organization in the management of the water 

cycle. The CCB embraces biological secondary treatment of wastewater when the main option in coastal areas has been disposal into the sea through submarine 

outfalls. The CCB introduced the concept of planned water 

reuse in the late 1980s. 

The CCB opted for the progressive development of this 

resource after a conference in 1985, where renowned 

specialists presented planned wastewater reclamation 

and reuse systems in the U.S. Being that Costa Brava 

itself is an area with a Mediterranean climate and periodic periods of drought, it became clear to the governing 

board of the CCB that treated wastewater should be considered as a resource to be developed rather than to be 

disposed. Despite the lack of regulations in Spain, the 

CCB proceeded to develop water reuse while maintaining public health. Reclaimed water initially was disinfected 

secondary effluent; continuing improvements to water 

reclamation facilities have led facilities to evolve into 

Title 22 reclamation treatment trains, consisting of coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and dis278
infection. The major leap forward in wastewater reclamation and reuse occurred in 1996, when several water reuse projects were approved and partially (80 percent) 

funded by the European Union (EU). 

8.5.28.2 Portbou, Spain 

The municipality of Portbou (Girona, Spain - population 

1,600) is located in a remote area in northern Costa 

Brava, in the midst of a very mountainous area and facing the Mediterranean Sea. A small reservoir, located 

on the mountains on the western city limits, with a capacity of 130,000 m3

 (34.3 mg), supplies potable water to 

the area. The maximum drinking water demand is 

160,000 m3/year (42.3 mg/year) and the potable water 

supply is extremely dependent on rainfall (annual average 550 mm or 21.7 inches). There are no wells to supplement potable water supply, so the drought conditions of 

the period 1998 through 2001 resulted in water restrictions for nonpotable water uses including landscape irrigation. The municipality has a 360-m3

/d (95,000-gallons/ 

d) treatment facility which includes coagulation, flocculation, direct filtration, and a UV-chlorine combined disinfection system to provide reclaimed water for a variety 

of urban nonpotable water uses such as: landscape irrigation, street cleaning, and fire protection. The municipality is also installing a pipeline to deliver high-quality 

reclaimed water for boat cleaning to a nearby marina. 

8.5.28.3 Aiguamolls de l’Empordà Natural

 Preserve, Spain 

The Aiguamolls de l’Empordà Natural Preserve (AENP) 

is a marsh located in Northern Costa Brava between 

the mouths of the Muga and Fluvià rivers. This naturally 

occurring marsh formed as a result of the periodical 

floods from both rivers, producing a rich and diverse 

environment, ranging from saline to freshwater ecosystems. The construction of the Boadella dam in the upper Muga River in the late 1960s and urbanization in 

coastal areas dramatically changed the river flow and 

affected the marshes, which were finally declared a natural preserve in 1984. A visitor center was created and 

with it an 18-hectare (44.5-acre) manmade lagoon (Cortalet 

lagoon), which is artificially fed by the Corredor stream 

from autumn to late spring. In summer both this stream 

and the lagoon usually dry out. 

In 1995, the CCB received funding from the EU to construct a 7-hectare (17.3-acre) wetlands treatment system to reduce the nitrogen content in the secondary effluent from the Empuriabrava wastewater treatment plant, 

which includes extended aeration and polishing lagoons. 

The effluent is then reused for environmental purposes 

at the Cortalet lagoon. The system came into operation 

in 1998. Since then, 500 to 550 m3

/year (132,000 to 

145,300 gallons/year) of denitrified reclaimed water have 

been pumped to the Cortalet lagoon, preventing its summer desiccation. Apart from this, the constructed wetland itself has become a great waterfowl attraction and 

is one of the favorite spots in the natural preserve for 

bird watching. Since the Empuriabrava community uses 

water from the Boadella reservoir as a potable water supply, this project returns to the AENP a portion of the 

flows that are naturally used to feed these marshes, thus 

creating a true restoration of the original habitat. 

8.5.28.4 The City of Vitoria, Spain

Water reclamation and reuse has been the final step of 

an ambitious integrated water resources management 

program for the City of Vitoria (250,000 people, located 

in the Basque Country, northern Spain) that began in 1995. 

The enthusiasm and determination of the most directly 

affected stakeholders, the agricultural community, to promote and fund the design, construction, and OM&R of 

the wastewater reclamation and reuse facilities have been 

the driving factors for the practical implementation of this 

far-reaching program. 

The water reclamation and reuse project includes a wastewater reclamation facility, with a capacity of 35,000 m3

/d 

(9.2 mgd) and an elaborate pumping, conveyance, and

storage system, satisfies water quality requirements 

specified by Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The project objectives were: (1) to provide water 

for spray irrigation of 9,500 hectares (23,000 acres) during the summer, (2) to pump about 0.5 m3

/s (12,000 gallons/d) of reclaimed water to reservoirs, and (3) to store 

reclaimed water in a 6,800-m3 (1.8-mg) reservoir for agricultural irrigation. 

8.5.29 Sweden 

As in other Scandinavian countries, Sweden has relatively high freshwater availability and the annual water 

withdrawal represents only 2 percent of the renewable 

water resources, 352 m3

/capita/year (93,000 gallons/ 

capita/year) in 1997 (Angelakis et al., 2001). Industry is 

characterized by higher water demand at 55 percent, compared to 36 and 9 percent for urban uses and agriculture, 

respectively. 

Advanced sewage treatment, including carbon and phosphorus removal, is common practice in Sweden. The 

upgrading of many wastewater treatment plants for nitrogen removal has been implemented over the past years, 

especially in the coastal region up to the archipelago of 

Stockholm. 

279
Over 40 irrigation projects have been constructed in water-scarce areas in the southeast region, where wastewater is collected in large reservoirs and stored for up to 

9 months before being used for irrigation with or without 

blending with surface water. Agricultural demands for water 

in these areas are intense, as the precipitation is small. 

Two main benefits of these projects have been reported: 

(1) additional wastewater treatment in a safe and financially attractive way, including recycling of nutrients, and 

(2) the creation of alternative water resources for agricultural irrigation which allow groundwater resources to be 

dedicated for other purposes. After approximately 10 

years, only positive impacts have been reported for these 

water reuse projects. After a minimum of 4 months storage, the water quality is adequate for swimming according to the Swedish legislation. Subsequently, there have 

been no sanitary problems related to water reuse. 

A new environmental act in Sweden requires nitrogen 

reduction for most of the large wastewater treatment 

plants. This act may encourage future development of 

these water reuse irrigation systems. The increasingly 

stringent environmental requirements on the discharge 

of industrial wastewater promote byproduct recovery and 

industrial wastewater reclamation. Significant research 

and development efforts have been made on the use of 

membrane technologies, including industrial desalination 

for zero discharge. 

8.5.30 Syria 

In Syria, agriculture is an important economic sector. In 

addition to the role it plays in enhancing food security, it 

accounts for 60 percent of the national revenue from 

non-oil exports (Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations, 2001). The agricultural sector employs 

over 27 percent of the total manpower in the country. In 

view of the harsh climatic conditions, irrigation is given a 

high priority as a means to boost agricultural production 

and to ensure a high level of food security. The total 

irrigated area in Syria is in the range of 1.2 million hectares (3 million acres), with 61 percent of the water coming from groundwater and the rest from surface water 

sources. 

Until recently, the amount of municipal wastewater was 

small because of the limited population in cities. Most of 

these waters were not reused because of their lack of 

quality and the availability of good quality water for irrigation. With an increase in urban population and the spread 

of drinking water supply connections, particularly in large 

cities, the volume of municipal wastewaters has increased 

rapidly. In fact, the volume of wastewater in Syria was 

estimated at 451, 650 and 1,642 Mm3/year (365,000, 

527,000, and 1,330,000 acre-feet/year or 119,000, 

172,000 and 434,000 mg/year), respectively for 1995, 

2000, and 2025. At the same time, the availability of 

good quality water has diminished around cities. This 

has led farmers to start using untreated wastewater. However, this wastewater is generally mixed with good quality water and is used essentially, but not exclusively, for 

irrigating trees and forage crops (Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, 2001). 

Table 8-17 shows the status of wastewater treatments 

in various Syrian cities. Collected raw sewage from the 

cities (except for a part of Damascus), villages, and other 

residential areas where sewage systems are in operation, is used without any treatment. The wastewater is 

used either for direct irrigation of agricultural crops or, if 

not disposed to the sea, it is discharged into water bodies which are then used for unrestricted irrigation (Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001). 

8.5.31 Tunisia 

Situated in an arid and semi-arid area, Tunisia is facing 

increasingly serious water shortage problems (Bahri, 

2000). In 2000, water availability was 440 m3

/capita/year 

(116,200 gallons/capita/year) with withdrawals accounting for 78 percent of the renewable resources. These 

water deficits are projected to increase with population 

growth, an increase in living standards, and accelerated 

urbanization. According to recent forecasts, increased 

domestic and industrial water consumption by the year 

2020 may cause a decrease in the volume of fresh water 

available for Tunisian agriculture. Moreover, water shortage problems are associated with increasing environmental pollution. To help address this situation, different mobilization infrastructures (dams, hillside-dams and lakes, 

recharge and floodwater diversion structures, wells) are 

under construction. Water transfer systems have been 

implemented and existing reservoirs have been integrated 

into a complex hydraulic system, allowing interregional 

transfer and spatial redistribution of water. 

Most residents of large urban centers have access to 

various, adequate sanitation systems and wastewater 

treatment facilities (78 percent versus 61 percent for all 

of the population and 40 percent in rural areas). Of the 

240 Mm3

 (63,400 mg) of wastewater discharged annually, 156 Mm3

 (41,200 mg) is treated at 61 treatment 

plants. Five treatment plants are located in the Tunis 

area, producing about 62 Mm3/year (16,400 mg/year), or 

54 percent of the country’s treated effluent. As a rule, 

municipal wastewater is treated biologically, mainly in 

oxidation ditches, activated sludge processes, and stabilization ponds. Sanitation master plans have been designed for several towns. Most existing reuse programs 

were implemented and integrated into the scheme of al280
---

Table 8-17. Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Cities of Syria 

City 

Wastewater Flow 

Status in Year 2000 

m3/day mgd 

Damascus 485,000 128 In Operation 

Salamieh 5,800 2 In Operation 

Aleppo 255,000 67 Under Implementation 

Hama 70,000 18 Under Implementation 

Homes 134,000 35 In Operation 

Dar’s 21,800 6 Studied, Ready for Implementation 

Al-Swaida 18,750 5 Studied, Ready for Implementation 

Idleb 30,000 8 Studied, Ready for Implementation 

Lattakia 100,830 27 Invitation of Offers for Implementation 

Tatous 33,450 9 Invitation of Offers for Implementation 

Total 1,154,630 305 

Source: Sa’dulla Al Shawaf, Ministry of Irrigation, Syria, 2000. 

ready existing treatment plants. However, for new plants, 

treatment and reuse needs are combined and considered during the planning stage. 

Although some pilot projects have been launched or are 

under study for groundwater recharge, irrigation of forests and highways, and wetlands development - the 

wastewater reuse policy, launched in the early 1980s 

favors planned water reuse for agricultural and landscape irrigation (Bahri, 2000). Approximately 7 to 10 percent of the overall irrigated area (14,500 hectares or 

35,830 acres) is located around the Great Tunis. Reclaimed water is used mainly during spring and summer, 

either exclusively or as a complement to groundwater. 

About 35 Mm3

 (9,250 mg) of reclaimed water annually is 

allocated for irrigation. In some areas, irrigation with effluent is well established and most of the volume allocated is being used. In new areas, where irrigation is just 

beginning, the reclaimed water usage rate is slowly increasing. The annual volume of reclaimed water is expected to reach 290 Mm3 (76,600 mg) in the year 2020. 

At that point, reclaimed water could be used to replace 

groundwater (18 percent) that is currently being used for 

irrigation, particularly in areas where excessive groundwater mining is causing seawater intrusion in coastal 

aquifers. 

The area currently irrigated with reclaimed water is about 

7,000 hectares (17,300 acres), 80 percent of which is 

located around Tunis, with a few other locations near 

Hammamet, Sousse, Monastir, Sfax, and Kairouan. By 

2020, the area irrigated with reclaimed water is planned 

to expand between 20,000 and 30,000 hectares (49,400 

and 74,100 acres). However, the availability of agricultural land is a limiting factor, especially along seashores 

where most of the reclaimed water is generated. The most 

common irrigation methods are sprinklers (57 percent of 

the equipped area) and surface irrigation (43 percent). 

Another common water reuse practice is golf course irrigation. In fact, 8 existing golf courses are irrigated with 

treated effluent in compliance with the WHO guidelines 

(1989) for water reuse on recreational areas with free 

access to the public (2.3 log units /100 ml) during winter 

and part of spring. 

Water reuse in agriculture is regulated by the 1975 Water 

Law and by the JORT Decree No. 89-1047 (1989). The 

reclaimed water quality criteria for agricultural reuse 

were developed using the guidelines of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1985) and 

WHO (1989) for restricted irrigation (less than 1 helminth 

egg/l), and other Tunisian standards related to irrigation 

or water supply. The Water Law prohibits both the use of 

raw wastewater in agriculture and the irrigation with reclaimed water of any vegetable to be eaten raw. The 

1989 decree specifically regulates reuse of wastewater 

in agriculture and allows the use of secondary treated 

effluent for growing all types of crops except vegetables, 

whether eaten raw or cooked. The main crops irrigated 

with treated wastewater are fruit trees (citrus, grapes, 

olives, peaches, pears, apples, and grenades), fodder 

(alfalfa, sorghum, and berseem), sugar beet, and cereals. Peri-urban irrigated areas are mainly devoted to the 

production of vegetables eaten raw, which is a major 

constraint to reuse development because of the croptype irrigation restrictions. Specifications regarding the 

281
terms and general conditions of reclaimed water reuse 

(and the precautions that must be taken in order to prevent any contamination to workers, residential areas, and 

consumers) have also been established. 

Two new, large water reuse projects are planned for Tunis 

West and the Medjerda catchment area. The new wastewater treatment plant for the City of Tunis West will have 

a design capacity of 105,000 m3

/d (41 Mm3/year or 27.7 

mgd) by the year 2016, which will enable the irrigation of 

approximately 6,000 hectares (14,800 acres). The ongoing Medjerda catchment area sanitation program is planning to equip the 11 largest towns with sewage networks, 

treatment plants, and reclaimed water irrigation schemes 

in order to protect natural resources, particularly the Sidi 

Salem dam (450 Mm3 or 119,000 mg), from contamination by raw wastewater. 

The National Sewerage and Sanitation Agency is responsible for the construction and operation of all sewage 

and treatment infrastructure in the larger cities of Tunisia. When effluent is to be used for agricultural irrigation, 

the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for execution of 

the projects, which include the construction and operation of all facilities for pumping, storing, and distributing 

the reclaimed water. Various departments of the Ministry 

are responsible for several functions, while regional departments supervise the Water Code and collection of 

charges, about $0.01/m3

 ($0.04/1,000 gallons), according to the World Bank (2001). 

8.5.32 United Arab Emirates 

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of 7 

emirates: Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ras Al Khaimah, 

Fujairah, Umm ul Quwain, and Ajman. According to the 

1995 national census of the Ministry of Planning, the 

population is approximately 2.4 million, mostly urban (83 

percent). Only a few renewable water resources are available - 200 Mm3

 or 61 m3/capita/year (52,830 mg or 16,100 

gallons/capita/year) in 2000. The annual water demand 

of 954 m3/capita/year is met by depleting non-renewable 

aquifers and desalinization (700 Mm3/year or 185,000 mg/ 

year in 1997). It is estimated that about 500 Mm3 (132,000 

mg) of wastewater were produced in the urban areas during 1995, of which 108 Mm3 (28,530 mg) were treated 

and reused (Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations, 2002). 

By far the largest emirate in the United Arab Emirates is 

Abu Dhabi, where extensive nonpotable reuse has been 

practiced since 1976. The system, designed for 190,000 

m3

/d (50 mgd), includes a dual distribution network which 

uses reclaimed water—referred to, in the UAE and other 

Persian Gulf states as treated sewage effluent (TSE)— 

for urban irrigation of 15,000 hectares (38,000 acres) of 

urban forests, public gardens, trees, shrubs, and grassed 

areas along roadways. The treatment facility provides 

tertiary treatment with rapid sand filtration and disinfection by chlorination and ozonation. The reclaimed water 

distribution system is operated at lower pressure than 

the potable system to reduce wind spraying. Conveyance and control elements of the system are painted 

purple, marked, and labeled to avoid cross-connections. 

Al-Ain, with a projected population of 250,000 by the year 

2000, produces reclaimed water that may be used only 

for restricted irrigation. The reclaimed water is pumped 

about 12 kilometers (7 miles) outside the city where it is 

used for irrigation in designated areas. Treatment includes 

dual-media filtration and chlorination for disinfection. 

8.5.33 United Kingdom 

The impact of climatic change on inland water resources 

has been noted in the southeast of England in the United 

Kingdom, where a drought had been experienced in the 

early 1990s. As a result, diminishing raw water supplies 

led water planners to develop projects to help safeguard 

and optimize existing raw water supplies, as well as 

search for future resources. 

The United Kingdom has used sewage effluents to maintain river flows (and ecosystems) and, through river 

abstractions, to contribute towards potable water and to 

augment other supplie. This practice is particularly developed for the major rivers in the south and east, including the Thames River, where it is not always feasible to 

abstract upstream of sewage works. 

For example, in the Water Resource Plan for East Anglia 

of 1994, the National Rivers Authority (a predecessor 

body of the Environment Agency) recognized the importance of reclaiming wastewater effluents to augment the 

flow in the River Chelmer and the water stored in the 

Hanningfield reservoir in Essex, United Kingdom. As a 

result of this decision, the first indirect potable reuse 

project in Europe was implemented in 1997 (Lazarova, 

2001). Water quality for this project has been strictly 

observed including the monitoring of viruses and estrogens, as well as numerous studies of the impact of reuse on the environment (estuary ecosystem) and public 

health (Walker, 2001). The project was developed in 2 

stages. The first stage involved a temporary system to 

pretreat the effluent at Langford Works with UV disinfection before pumping the effluent to Hanningfield reservoir, a large 27-Mm3, 354-hectare (7,130-mg, 875-acre) 

bankside raw water reservoir with a residence time of up 

to 214 days. Abstraction from the reservoir is followed 

with advanced potable water treatment at the Hanningfield 

282
Treatment Works. The discharge consent applied for utilizing 30,000 m3

/d (7.9 mgd) of the sewage effluent in 

1997 to 1998. The second stage of the project involves 

more traditional water reuse - discharging the effluent 

back into the river and improving the wastewater treatment at the source - Langford Treatment Works. This 

medium/long term plan was approved in 2000 and the 

new tertiary treatment plant has been in operation since 

the beginning of 2002. The reclaimed water is discharged 

into the River Chelmer and then abstracted along with 

river water 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) downstream at 

Langford Treatment Works for drinking water supply. 

There are also some examples of direct treated wastewater reuse in the United Kingdom, mainly for irrigation 

purposes such as: golf courses, parks, road verges, as 

well as for commerce, car washes, cooling, fish farming 

, and industry (power station cooling, for example). One 

of the more recent projects “Waterwise,” was started in 

January, 1999, to reuse the water from the Beazer Homes 

district. Wastewater from 500 individual houses is treated 

by a conventional process; then 70 percent of the water 

is then discharged to the river and the remaining 30 percent undergoes tertiary treatment before being redistributed to 130 houses connected to a dual distribution network as reuse water. 

There are several pilot projects being conducted to study 

reusing grey water from washing machines, baths, and 

showers for the flushing of toilets. Since domestic use 

accounts for over 40 percent of the total water demand 

in the United Kingdom, 30 percent of which is used for 

toilet flushing, the interest in grey water reuse is growing. In some case, run-off water is also collected from 

the roofs of the houses, treated, and blended with grey 

water to be reused. 

A large in-building water reuse project, known as 

“Watercycle,” was implemented in 2000 at the Millennium Dome in London. The design capacity of the plant 

is 500 m3

/d (132,000 gallons/d). Run-off water, grey water, and polluted groundwater are treated in 3 different 

treatment trains to a high quality standard for reuse in 

the more than 600 toilets and over 200 urinals on-site. 

8.5.34 Yemen 

Yemen has a predominantly semi-arid to arid climate with 

a large rural population (76 percent). The annual renewable water resources were estimated in 2000 at 4.1 billion m3

 or 226 m3/capita/year (1,083 billion gallons or 

59,700 gallons/capita/year) (surface water and groundwater). There is an increasing awareness in Yemen of 

groundwater depletion. 

The total amount of treated wastewater is estimated at 

around 92,000 m3/d (24.3 mgd) from 9 treatment facilities. The largest plants are located in Sana’s, Ta’aiz, AlHudeidah, and Aden. The common wastewater treatment 

method used is stabilization ponds, with the exception 

being the facility of Sana’s, which utilizes an activated 

sludge system. In addition, 3 new treatment plants with 

stabilization ponds will be in operation in 2002 in Aden, 

Yarim, and Amran with design capacities of 60,000, 3,500, 

and 6,000 m3

/d (15.9, 0.93, and 1.6 mgd), respectively. 

New plants are also planned in Beit Al-faqih, Bagel, and 

Zabid. 

Controlled water reuse for irrigation is practiced in the 

coastal plain cities (Aden, Hodeidah), mainly to build the 

green belts, as well as for the fixation of sand dunes or 

control of desertification in affected areas. Unplanned 

and unregulated wastewater reuse is commonly practiced 

by the farmers to grow corn and fodder in Taiz area, or to 

grow restricted and non-restricted crops, like vegetables 

and fruits, in the Sana’a area. 

In 2000, the new wastewater treatment plant for the capital city of Sana’a began operation. The activated sludge 

treatment plant, with a design capacity of 50,000 m3/d 

(13 mgd), faces numerous operational problems. The problems are due, among other things, to a lack of sufficient 

operational storage and an organic load of the incoming 

wastewater that is higher than the load used in the plant 

design. The plant substantially increased the amount of 

reclaimed water available to farmers in 15 villages along 

the wadi, downstream of the plant. Farmers pump the 

reclaimed water with their own pumps to their fields. This 

has reduced the pressure on the overexploited aquifer in 

the area. The number of active agricultural wells was 

reduced from 80 to 55, mainly because pumping reclaimed water is cheaper than operating the wells. Vegetables are the main crops grown and there are no crop 

restrictions. Farmers have little information about the 

quality of the treated wastewater. Upgrades to the treatment plant are planned to make the reuse of reclaimed 

water safer in the future (World Bank, 2001). 

Five water reuse projects are being initiated in Aden, 

Amran, Hajjah, Ibb, and Yarim. Funded by the German 

government’s Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), these 

projects will make significant volumes of secondary treated 

reclaimed water available, mostly for agricultural irrigation. In Aden, some of the water will be used for industrial cooling. The wastewater collection and treatment 

systems are already being constructed or have recently 

been completed for each of the cities in the program. 

283
8.5.35 Zimbabwe 

In Zimbabwe, water reuse is an established practice that 

has been accepted not only by engineers and environmentalists, but also by all stakeholders involved in the 

water resources management of the country (Hranova, 

2000). This acceptance of water reuse has been influenced by 2 major factors governing the water resources 

systems management of the country: (1) the scarcity of 

available natural water resources, and (2) the watershed 

effect. Geographically, Zimbabwe’s major towns lie on 

or close to the main watershed. Therefore, in order to 

increase the catchment yield, water supply dams are, in 

many cases, located downstream from the urban areas. 

The present policy of wastewater management focuses 

primarily on 2 major types of water reuse. One is direct 

reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation purposes, where 

the treatment technologies adopted are based on classical biological treatment systems, mainly trickling filters, 

waste stabilization ponds, and combinations. The 2 largest direct reuse projects for irrigation purposes are located in 2 major towns of Zimbabwe – Harare and 

Bulawayo. The second type is indirect potable water reuse, where municipal wastewater is treated in biological 

nutrient removal plants and then discharged to watercourses and reservoirs that are used for potable water 

supply downstream from the discharge point. 

8.6 References 

Abdo, Kasim M. 2001. Water Reuse in Palestine. Presented at World Bank MENA Regional Water InitiativeWater Reuse Workshop in Cairo, July 2-5, 2001, Ministry of Agriculture, General Directorate of Soil & Irrigation, 

Ramallah Palestine. 

Angelakis, A., T. Thairs, and V. Lazarova. 2001. “Water 

Reuse in EU Countries: Necessity of Establishing EUGuidelines. “State of the Art Review.” Report of the 

EUREAU Water Reuse Group EU2-01-26, 52p. 

Angelakis, A.N., Tsagarakis, K.P., Kotselidou, O.N., and 

Vardakou, E. 2000. “The Necessity for Establishment 

of Greek Regulations on Wastewater Reclamation and 

Reuse.” Report for the Ministry of Public Works and 

Environment and Hellenic Union of Municipal Enter. for 

Water Supply and Sewage. Larissa, Greece (in Greek), 

pp. 100. 

Bahri, A. 2000. “The experience and challenges of reuse of wastewater and sludge in Tunisia,” 15 p., Water 

Week 2000, 3-4 April 2000, World Bank, Washington D.C., 

USA. 

Bahri, A. and F. Brissaud, 2002. Guidelines for Municipal Water Reuse In The Mediterranean Countries, World 

Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, 

Mediterranean Action Plan. 

Bahri, Akissa and Franois Brissaud, 2003, “Setting Up 

Microbiological Water Reuse Guidelines for the Mediterranean,” published on the website of the Mediterranean Network for Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, 

www.med-reunet.com. 

Barbagallo, S., Cirelli, G.L., and Indelicato, S. 2001. 

“Wastewater Reuse in Italy.” Water, Science & Technology, 43, 10, 43-50. 

Bazza, Mohamed. 2002. “Wastewater Reuse in the Near 

East Region: Experience and Issues.” Regional Symposium on Water Recycling in the Mediterranean Region, 

Iraklio, Crete, Greece. 26-29 September 2002. 

Blumenthal, U., Peasey, A., Ruiz-Palacios, G., and Mara, 

D.D. 2000. Guidelines for wastewater reuse in agriculture and aquaculture: recommended revisions based 

on new research evidence. Task No. 68 Part 1, Water 

and Environmental Health at London and Loughborough, 

UK, June 2000. 

Cranfield University. 2000. Urban Water Recycling Pack. 

Available from www.jiscmail.uk/files/WATER-RECYCLING-UK/cranfieldwatrec.doc. 

Dettrick, D., S. Gallagher. 2002. Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, 

Tasmania, Australia. 

Earth Trends: The Environmental Information Portal, 

2001. “Water Resources and Freshwater Ecosystems, 

1999-2000.” World Resources Institute, http:// 

earthtrends.wri.org/datatables/ 

Falkenmark M. and Widstrand C. (1992) Population and 

Water Resources: A Delicate Balance. Population Bulletin, Population Reference Bureau. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

website. 2002. www.fao.org. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

2001. “Experience of Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations on Wastewater Reuse in the Near 

East Region.” Proceedings, Regional Workshop on Water Reuse in the Middle East and North Africa organized 

by The World Bank Middle East and North Africa Region, 

July 2 - 5, 2001, Cairo, Egypt. 

284
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

1997. Irrigation in the Near East Region in Figures. 

Rome, Italy 

Grobicki A. 2000. “Water Reclamation in South Africa.” 

Proc. AWWA/WEF Water Reuse 2000 Conference, Jan 

30-Febr 2, 2000, San Antonio, USA, 23p. 

Hamdallah, H. 2000. Reuse of Treated Wastewater for 

Agriculture, Presented at the Aqua 2000 Conference, 

April 28 to May 2, 2000, Abu Dhabi, UAE. 

Homsi. J. 2000. “The present state of sewage treatment”. 

Water Supply, 18. 

Hranova R. K. 2000. Water reuse in Zimbabwe: an overview of present practice and future needs. Newsletter of 

the IWA Water Reuse Specialist Group, June 2000. 

International Association on Water Pollution Research 

and Control. 1991. Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. 

R. Mujeriego and T. Asano (eds.) Water Science and 

Technology, 24(9): 36. 

IWA. 2002. “Mexico City, 4TH International Symposium 

on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse” Conference 

Announcement, www.iingen.unam.mx/isw/index1.html. 

Jenkins, C.R., Papadopoulos, I. and Stylianou, Y. 1994. 

“Pathogens and wastewater use for irrigation in Cyprus”. 

Proc. on Land and Water Resources Management in the 

Mediterranean Region. Bari, Italy, 4-8 September 1994. 

Jiménez, B., Chávez, A., Mayan, C., and Gardens, L. 

2001. “The Removal of the Diversity of Microorganisms 

in Different Stages of Wastewater Treatment.” Water 

Science & Technology, 43, 10, 155-162. 

Kanarek A. and Michail M. 1996. “Groundwater recharge 

with municipal effluent: Dan region reclamation project, 

Israel.” Water Science & Technology, 34, 11, 227-233. 

Kotlik, L. 1998. “Water reuse in Argentina”. Water Supply, 16, (1/2), 293-294. 

Lazarova V. 1999. “Wastewater reuse: technical challenges and role in enhancement of integrated water 

management.” E.I.N. International, Dec. 99, 40-57. 

Lazarova, V. (2001) Recycled Water: Technical-Economic 

Challenges for its Integration as a Sustainable Alternative Resource. Proc. UNESCO Int. Symp. Les frontiéres 

de la gestion de l’eau urbaine: impasse ou espoir?, 

Marseilles, 18-20 juin 2001, 8p. 

Lazarova, V., B. Levine, J. Sack, G. Cirelli, P. Jeffrey, 

H. Muntau, M. Salgot, and F. Brissaud. 2001. “Role of

water reuse for enhancing integrated water management in Europe and Mediterranean countries.” Water 

Science & Technology, Vol 43 No 10 pp 23-33. IWA 

Publishing. 

Mantovani, P., Asano, T., Chang, A. and Okun, D.A. 

2001. “Management Practices for Nonpotable Water 

Reuse.” WERF, Project Report 97-IRM-6, ISBN: 1-

893664-15-5. 

Mara, D.D. and Silva, S.A. 1986. “Removal of intestinal 

nematodes in tropical waste stabilization ponds.” Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 89, pp. 71-74. 

McCornick, P. G., S. S. E. Taha, and H. El Nasser. 2002. 

Planning for Reclaimed Water in the Amman-Zarqa Basin and Jordan Valley. ASCE/EWRI Conference on 

Water Resources Planning & Management, Roanoke, 

Virginia, USA. 

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Revised by: George Tchobanoglous 

and Franklin L. Burton. 1991. Wastewater Engineering 

– Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. New York: McGrawHill. 

Ogoshi, M., Y. Suzuki, and T. Asano. 2000. “Water Reuse In Japan,” Third International Symposium on Wastewater Reclamation, Recycling and Reuse at the First 

World Congress of the International Water Association 

(IWA), Paris, France. 

Palestine Hydrology Group. 1999. [Unofficial Translation 

from Hebrew into English] Principles for giving permits 

for irrigation with effluents (Treated Wastewater). The Israeli Ministry Of Health, Israel. 

2

Papadopoulos, I. 1995. “Present and perspective use of 

wastewater for irrigation in the Mediterranean basin.” Proc. nd Int. Symp. On Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, 

A.N. Angelakis et. al. (Eds.), IAWQ, Iraklio, Greece, 17­

20 October, 2, 735-746. 

Pettygrove and Asano .1985. “Irrigation with reclaimed 

municipal wastewater – A guidance manual.” Lewis 

Publishers Inc., Chelsea. 

Pujol, M. and O. Carnabucci. 2000. “The present state 

of sewage treatment in Argentina”. Water Supply, 18, (1/ 

2), 328-329. 

Sa’dulla Al Shawaf, Ministry of Irrigation, Syria. 2000. 

285 
Scott, C. A., J. A. Zarazua, G. Levine. 2000. “Urban 

Wastewater Reuse for Crop Production in the Water-Short 

Guanajuato River Basin.” Research Report 41. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 

Shanehsaz, M. J., A. R. Hosseinifar, A. Sabetraftar. 2001. 

“Water Reuse in Iran,” by the Iran Water Resources Management Organization, Ministry of Energy, Proceedings, 

Regional Workshop on Water Reuse in the Middle East 

and North Africa, July 2-5, 2001, Cairo, Egypt. 

Shawaf, S., 2000. “Reuse of Wastewater in Syrian Arab 

Republic,” Ministry of Irrigation, Proceedings, Aqua 2000 

Conference, April 28 to May 2, 2000. Abu Dhabi, UAE. 

Sheikh, B., AlduKair, A. 2000. “Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi 

Arabia, A Vision Of 2021” 

“Introducing Water Reuse to A World Capital.” Proceedings, AWWA-WEF Joint Water Reuse Conference. San 

Antonio, Texas. 

Sheikh, B. 2001. Standards, Regulations & Legislation 

for Water Reuse in Jordan. Water Reuse Component, 

Water Policy Support Project, Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Amman, Jordan. 

Shelef, G. and Halperin R. 2002. “The development of 

wastewater effluent quality requirements for reuse in 

agricultural irrigation in Israel.” Proc. Regional Symposium on Water Recycling in Mediterranean Region, 26-29 

September, 2002, Iraklio, Greece. 

State of Kuwait, Ministry of Finance. 2000. Concession 

Contract to Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) a Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant at Sulaibiya. 

Strauss, M. and U.J. Blumenthal. 1990. Human Waste 

Use in Agriculture and Aquaculture: Utilization Practices 

and Health Perspective. IRCWD Report No. 09/90. 

Tchobanoglous, G. and A.N. Angelakis. 1996. “Technologies for Wastewater Treatment Appropriate for Reuse: 

Potential for Applications in Greece.” Water Science 

Technology, 33(10-11): 17-27. 

Tsagarakis, K.P., P. Tsoumanis, D. Mara and A.N. 

Angelakis. 2000. “Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in 

Greece: Related Problems and Prospectives.” IWA, Biennial International Conference, Paris, France. 

UNDP/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations/The World Bank/WHO. 1998. “Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Middle East and North Africa 

Region: Unlocking the Potential.” Report of Joint Mission to Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, 

Turkey, the West Bank and Gaza and Yemen. 

United Nations 2002, www.un.org 

Walker D. 2001. “The impact of disinfected treated wastewater in raw water reservoir.” J.Ch.Instn.Wat.& Envir. 

Mangt., 15, (1), 9. 

WHO. 1973. Reuse of Effluents: Methods of Wastewater 

Treatment and Health Safeguards. A report of WHO Meeting of Experts. Technical Report No. 517. Geneva, Switzerland. 

WHO, 1989. Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture. Report of a Scientific 

Group. Technical Report No. 778. Geneva, Switzerland. 

World Bank. 2001. Regional Water Initiative: Water Reuse in the Middle East and North Africa, Proceedings 

(and Compact Disc Summary Tabulations), Regional 

Workshop, Sponsored by the World Bank and the Swiss 

Agency for Development and Cooperation, July 2-5, 2001, 

Cairo, Egypt, The World Bank, Washington, D. C. 

World Bank. 2000. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in 

the Middle East and North Africa Region. The World Bank, 

Washington, D. C. 

World Health Organization. 1989. Health Guidelines for 

the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture. 

Report of a WHO Scientific Group, Technical Report 

Series 778, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 

Worldwatch Institute, 1999. www.worldwatch.org 

Yanez, F. 1992. Evaluation and Treatment of Wastewaters Prior to Agricultural Reuse in Peru (in Spanish). 

Report to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations on Project FAO/PERU/TCP/PER/. 

286
Appendix A

State Reuse Regulations and Guidelines

287
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

288

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

Arizona Class A 

reclaimed water: 

• Case-by-case 

basis 

• Application 

rates based on 

• Secondary either the 

treatment, water allotment filtration and disinfection 

assigned by the Arizona 

• Chemical feed 

facilities required to add 

Department of Water Resources (a 

coagulants or polymers if necessary to 

water balance that considers consumptive 

meet turbidity criterion 

• Turbidity 

use of water by the crop, turf, or landscape 

- 2 NTU (24 hour average) – 5 NTU (not 

vegetation) or an alternative approved 

to exceed at method any time) 

• Fecal coliform 

- none detectable in 4 of last 7 daily samples - 23/100 ml (single sample maximum) 

Class B 

reclaimed water: 

• Secondary 

treatment and disinfection 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (not to exceed 

in 4 of the last 7 daily samples) - 800/100 ml 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

289

State 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

(single sample maximum) 

Arkansas • Secondary 

treatment and disinfection 

• As required by 

regulatory agency 

• Based on 

water balance using divisional average annual 90 percentile rainfall 

• Hydraulic - 0.5 

to 4.0 in/wk 

• Nitrogen -

percolate nitrate-nitrogen not to exceed 10 mg/l 

• Required 

• One well 

upgradient 

• One well within 

site 

• One well 

down- gradient 

• More wells 

may be required on a case-by-case basis 

• Dete

a cabasi

California • Disinfected 

tertiary recycled water -oxidized, coagulated (not required if membrane filtration is used and/or turbidity requirements are met), filtered, disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) - 240/100 ml (maximum any one sample) 

• Total coliform -

sampled at least once daily from the disinfected effluent 

• Turbidity 

- continuously sampled following filtration 

• Warning 

alarms 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Multiple 

treatment units capable of treating entire flow with one unit not in operation or storage or disposal provisions 

• Emergency 

storage or disposal: short-term, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

• Sufficient 

number of qualified personnel 

• No i

withof adomsuppunlecondmet 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

290

State 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

• Turbidity 

requirements for wastewater that has been coagulated and passed through natural undisturbed soils or a bed of filter media - maximum average of 2 NTU within a 24-hour period - not to exceed 5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period - maximum of 10 NTU at any time 

• Turbidity 

requirements for wastewater passed through membrane - not to exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period - maximum of 0.5 NTU at any time 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

291

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

Colorado Landscape Treaters: • Application Landsc

irrigation • Quality of rates shall irrigatioexcluding single- reclaimed protect surface excludfamily residential: domestic and family • Oxidized, wastewater groundwater • No 

filtered and produced and quality and impodisinfected delivered at irrigation shall or ir

• E. coli - the point of be controlled recla

126/100 ml compliance to minimize wate(monthly Applicators: ponding 100 average) • Total volume well - 235/100 ml of reclaimed dom(single sample domestic suppmaximum in wastewater in thany calendar applied per impomonth) year or season it is 

• Turbidity • The maximum synt

- not to exceed monthly mate3 NTU (monthly 

volume applied 

• Each location 

perm10-6 

average) with the less - not to exceed associated Single-5 NTU in more acreage where residenthan 5 percent reclaimed • No iof the domestic reclaindividual wastewater wateanalytical was applied 500 results (any domcalendar suppmonth) • No i

Single-family reclaresidential: wate• Oxidized, 100 

coagulated, irrigaclarified, filtered, and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml 

(7-day median) 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

292

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

- 23/100 ml (any sample) 

Delaware • Advanced 

treatment using 

• Continuous online monitoring 

for turbidity 

• Storage 

provisions required either 

• Maximum 

design wastewater 

• Required 

• One well 

upgradient of 

• Dete

a cabasi

oxidation, clarification, coagulation, flocculation, 

before application of the disinfectant 

• Continuous onas a separate facility or incorporated into the loadings limited to 2.5 in/wk • Maximum site or otherwise outside the influence of the 

filtration, and disinfection 

• 10 mg/l BOD5 

line monitoring of residual disinfection 

pretreatment system 

• Minimum 15 

instantaneous wastewater application 

site for background monitoring 

• 10 mg/l TSS • Turbidity not to 

exceed 5 NTU 

concentrations 

• Parameters 

which may 

days storage required unless other 

rates limited to 0.25 in/hour 

• Design 

• One well within 

wetted field area of each 

• Fecal coliform 

- 20/100 ml 

require monitoring include volume 

measures for controlling flow are 

wastewater loading must be determined 

drainage basin intersected by site 

of water demonstrated as a function of • Two wells applied to spray fields, 

• Must determine 

operational, 

precipitation, evapotransdowngradient in each 

BOD, suspended solids, fecal 

wet weather, and water balance 

piration, design percolation rate, nitrogen 

drainage basin intersected by site 

coliform bacteria, pH, COD, TOC, 

storage requirements 

• Separate offloading and other constituent • One well upgradient and One well 

ammonia nitrogen, nitrate 

line system for storage of reject 

loading limitations, groundwater 

downgradient of the pond treatment and 

nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total 

wastewater with a minimum 

and drainage conditions, and average and 

storage facilities in each drainage 

phosphorus, chloride, Na, K, Ca, Mg, 

capacity equal to 2 days average daily 

peak design wastewater flows and 

basin intersected by site 

metals, and priority pollutants 

design flow required 

seasonal fluctuations 

• May require 

measurement of depth to 

• Parameters groundwater, 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

293

State 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

and sampling frequency determined on case-by-case basis 

pH, COD, TOC, nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, electrical conductivity, chloride, fecal coliform bacteria, metals, and priority pollutants 

• Parameters 

and sampling frequency determined on a case-by-case basis 

Florida • Secondary 

treatment with filtration and high-level disinfection 

• Chemical feed 

facilities to be provided 

• 20 mg/l 

CBOD5 

(annual average) 

• 5 mg/l TSS 

(single sample) to be achieved prior to disinfection 

• Total chlorine 

residual of at least 1 mg/l after a minimum 

• Parameters to 

be monitored and sampling frequency to be identified in wastewater facility permit 

• Minimum 

schedule for sampling and testing based on system capacity established for flow, pH, chlorine residual, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, CBOD5, 

nutrients, and 

• Class I 

reliability -

requires multiple or back-up treatment units and a secondary power source 

• Minimum 

reject storage capacity equal to 1-day flow at the average daily design flow of the treatment plant or the average daily permitted flow of the reuse system, whichever is 

• At a minimum, 

system storage capacity shall be the volume equal to 3 times the portion of the average daily flow for which no alternative reuse or disposal system is permitted 

• Water balance 

required with volume of storage based on a 10-year recurrence interval and a minimum of 20 

• Site specific • Design 

hydraulic loading rate -

maximum annual average of 2 in/wk is recommended 

• Based on 

nutrient and water balance assessments 

• Required 

• One 

upgradient well located as close as possible to the site without being affected by the site’s discharge (background well) 

• One well at the 

edge of the zone of discharge down-gradient of the site (compliance well) 

• One well 

downgradient 

• 75 f

potasupp

• 75 f

reclawatetranfacilwatewell 

• Low 

nozzrequ100 outdeatindrinbathfacil

• 100 

indoaest

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

294

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

acceptable fecal coliform less years of from the site featcontact time of • Continuous • Minimum climatic data and within the recla15 minutes at on-line system size of • Not required if zone of watepeak hourly monitoring of 0.1 mgd (not alternative discharge adjaflow turbidity prior required for system is (intermediate indo

• Fecal coliform to disinfection toilet flushing incorporated well) eatin

- over 30 day • Continuous and fire into the system • One well drinperiod, 75 on-line protection design to located facilpercent of monitoring of uses) ensure adjacent to • 200 samples below total chlorine • Staffing - continuous unlined unlindetection limits residual or 24 hrs/day, facility storage ponds stora- 25/100 ml residual 7 days/wk or operation or lakes to po(single sample) concentrations 6 hrs/day, • Existing or • Other wells wate

• pH 6 - 8.5 of other 7 days/wk with proposed lakes may be well• Limitations to disinfectants diversion of or ponds (such required 

be met after • Monitoring for reclaimed as golf course depending on disinfection Giardia and water to reuse ponds) are site-specific 

Cryptosporidium based on treatment plant capacity - > 1 mgd, sampling one 

system only during periods of operator presence 

appropriate for storage if it will not impair the ability of the lakes or ponds to function as a 

criteria 

• Quarterly 

monitoring required for water level, nitrate, total 

time during stormwater dissolved each 2-year period 

management system 

solids, arsenic, cadmium, 

- < 1 mgd, • Aquifer chloride, sampling one time during 

storage and recovery 

chromium, lead, fecal 

each 5-year allowed as coliform, pH, period - samples to 

provision of storage 

and sulfate 

• Monitoring 

be taken may be immediately following 

required for additional 

disinfection parameters process based on site-

• Primary and specific 

secondary conditions and drinking water standards to 

groundwater quality 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

295

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

be monitored quality by facilities > 100,000 gpd 

Georgia • Secondary 

treatment 

• Continuous 

turbidity 

• Multiple 

process units 

• Reject water 

storage equal 

• Dete

a ca

followed by coagulation, filtration, and disinfection 

• 5 mg/l BOD • 5 mg/l TSS • Fecal coliform 

monitoring prior to disinfection 

• Weekly 

sampling for TSS and BOD 

• Daily 

• Ability to 

isolate and bypass all process units 

• System must 

be capable of treating peak 

to at least 3 days of flow at the average daily design flow 

• One of the 

following 

basi

- 23/100 ml (monthly average) 

monitoring for fecal coliform 

• Daily 

flows with the largest unit out of service 

options must be in place to account for wet 

- 100/100 ml (maximum any sample) 

monitoring for pH 

• Detectable 

• Equalization 

may be required 

weather periods - sufficient 

• pH 6 - 9 • Turbidity not to 

exceed 3 NTU 

disinfection residual monitoring 

• Back-up power 

supply 

• Alarms to warn 

storage onsite or at the customer’s 

prior to disinfection 

• Detectable 

of loss of power supply, failure of 

location to handle the flows until 

disinfectant residual at the delivery point 

pumping systems, failure of 

irrigation can be resumed - additional 

disinfection land set aside systems, or turbidity 

that can be irrigated 

greater than 3 NTU 

without causing harm 

to the cover 

crop - obtain NPDES permit for all or part of the flow 

Hawaii R-1 water: • Daily flow • Multiple or • 20 days • Design • Required R-1 wa

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

296

State 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

• Oxidized, 

filtered, and disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

– 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) - 200/100 ml (maximum any one sample) 

• Inactivation 

and/or removal of 99.999 percent of the plaque-forming units of Fspecific bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus 

• Effluent 

turbidity not to exceed 2 NTU 

• Chemical 

pretreatment facilities required in all cases where granular media filtration is used; not required for facilities using membrane filtration 

monitoring 

• Continuous 

turbidity monitoring prior to and after filtration process 

• Continuous 

measuring and recording of chlorine residual 

• Daily 

monitoring of fecal coliform 

• Weekly 

monitoring of BOD5 and 

suspended solids 

standby units required with sufficient capacity to enable effective operation with any one unit out of service 

• Alarm devices 

required for loss of power, high water levels, failure of pumps or blowers, high head loss on filters, high effluent turbidity, loss of coagulant or polymer feed, and loss of chlorine residual 

• Standby power 

source required for treatment plant and distribution pump stations 

storage required unless it can be demonstrated that another time period is adequate or that no storage is necessary 

• Storage 

requirements based on water balance using at least a 30-year record 

• Reject storage 

required with a volume equal to 1 day of flow at the average daily design flow 

• Emergency 

system storage not required where an alternate effluent disposal system has been approved 

application rate determined by water balance 

• Groundwater 

monitoring system may consist of a number of lysimeters and/or monitoring wells depending on site size, site characteristics, location, method of discharge, and other appropriate considerations 

• One well 

upgradient and two wells downgradient for project sites 500 acres or more 

• One well within 

the wetted field area for each project whose surface area is greater than or equal to 1,500 acres 

• One lysimeter 

per 200 acres 

• One lysimeter 

for project sites that have greater than 40 but less than 

• Min

feet watewell 

• Oute

impoat lefeet drinsupp

R-2 wa• For 

irrigaapp500 residpropplacpubexpobe sthat elemschoathle

• Min

100 drinsupp

• Oute

impoat lefeet drinsupp

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

297

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

• Theoretical 200 acres 

chlorine • Additional contact time of lysimeters may 120 minutes be necessary and actual to address modal contact concerns of time of 90 public health or minutes environmental throughout protection as which the related to chlorine variable residual is characteristics 5 mg/l of the 

R-2 water: subsurface or • Oxidized and of the 

disinfected operations of 

• Fecal coliform the project 

– 23/100 ml (7-day median) - 200/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) 

• Theoretical 

chlorine contact time of 15 minutes and actual modal contact time of 10 minutes throughout which the chlorine residual is 0.5 mg/l 

Idaho • Oxidized, 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

298

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

coagulated, clarified, filtered, and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

Illinois • Two-cell • Minimum • Based on the • Required • 200 

lagoon system with tertiary sand filtration 

storage capacity equal to at least 150 

limiting characteristic of the treated 

• One well 

upgradient for determining 

residlines 

and disinfection or 

days of wastewater at 

wastewater and the site 

background concentrations 

mechanical design • Balances must • Two wells secondary treatment with disinfection 

average flow except in southern 

be calculated and submitted for water, 

downgradient in the dominant 

Illinois areas where a minimum of 

nitrogen, phosphorus, and BOD 

direction of groundwater movement 

120 days of storage capacity to be 

• Wells between 

each potable water well and 

provided 

• Storage can 

be determined 

the application area if within 1,000 feet 

based on a rational design that must 

• Monitoring of 

nitrates, ammonia 

include capacity for the wettest year 

nitrogen, chlorides, sulfates, pH, 

with a 20-year total dissolved 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

299

State 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

return frequency 

solids, phosphate, and coliform bacteria 

Indiana • Secondary 

treatment and disinfection 

• 10 mg/l BOD5 

• 5 mg/l TSS 

prior to disinfection (24 hour average) 

• Fecal coliform 

- no detectable fecal coliform (7-day median) – 14/100 ml (single sample) 

• pH 6 - 9 • Total chlorine 

residual after a minimum contact time of 30 minutes at least 1 mg/l (if chlorination is used for disinfection) 

• Daily 

monitoring of TSS, coliform, and chlorine residual 

• Weekly 

monitoring of BOD and pH 

• Monthly 

monitoring of total nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium 

• Annual 

monitoring of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc 

• Alternate 

power source required 

• Minimum of 90 

days effective storage capacity required 

• Maximum 

hydraulic loading rate of 2 in/week 

• 200 

potasuppdrinsprin

• 300 

watestate 

• 300 

resid

Kansas • Secondary 

treatment with filtration and disinfection for irrigation of areas with a high probability of body contact 

• Storage 

provided to retain a minimum of 90 days average dry weather flow when no discharge to surface water is available 

• Maximum daily 

application rate of 3 in/ac/day 

• Maximum 

annual application rate of 40 in/acre 

• Based on soil 

and crop moisture 

• Site specific 

• May be 

required 

• Non

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

300

State 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

and/or nutrient requirements of selected crop 

Massachusetts Toilet flushing: 

• Secondary 

treatment with filtration (possibly) and disinfection 

• pH 6 - 9 • 30 mg/l BOD5 

• Turbidity 

- 5 NTU (not to exceed at any time) 

• Fecal coliform 

- 100/100 ml (single sample) 

• 10 mg/l TSS • 10 mg/l total 

nitrogen 

• Class I 

groundwater permit standards (SDWA Drinking Water Standards) 

Toilet flushing: 

• pH - weekly or 

daily 

• BOD - weekly • Turbidity -

continuous monitoring prior to disinfection 

• Fecal coliform 

-once per week 

• Disinfection 

UV intensity -daily or chlorine residual - daily 

• TSS - weekly • Nitrogen -

twice per month 

• Permit 

standards -variable testing requirements 

• EPA Class I 

Reliability standards may be required 

• Two 

independent and separate sources of power 

• Unit 

redundancy 

• Additional 

storage 

• Immediate, 

permitted discharge alternatives are required for emergency situations and for nongrowing season disposal 

Montana • Oxidized, 

clarified, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml (single sample) 

• Turbidity 

• Effluent to be 

monitored on a regular basis to show the biochemical and bacteriological quality of the applied wastewater 

• Monitoring 

• Nitrogen and 

hydraulic loadings determined based on methods in EPA Manual 625/1-81-013 

• Hydraulic 

loading must be based on 

• Determined on 

a case-by-case basis 

• Consideration 

is given to groundwater characteristics, past practices, depth to groundwater, cropping 

• 100 

watewell 

• Dist

surfadetea cabasiquaeffluthe 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

301

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

- 2 NTU frequency to the wettest practices, etc. disin(average) be determined year in ten - 5 NTU (not to on a case-by- years exceed more case basis than 5 percent of the time during any 24-hour period) 

Nevada • At a minimum, 

secondary treatment with 

• Non

disinfection 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

• Fecal coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml 

(30-day geometric mean) - 23/100 ml (maximum daily number) 

New Jersey • Fecal Coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml 

• Continuous 

on-line 

• Not required 

when another 

• Hydraulic 

loading rate 

• 75 f

pota

(7-day median) - 14/100 ml (maximum any 

monitoring of chlorine residual 

permitted reuse system or effluent 

- maximum annual average of 

suppthat exis

one sample) 

• Minimum 

chlorine residual - 1.0 mg/l after 15-minute contact at peak 

produced oxidant at the compliance monitoring point 

• For spray 

irrigation, 

disposal system is incorporated into the system design 

• If system 

storage ponds 

2 in/wk but may be increased based on a site-specific evaluation 

• The spray 

have appcons

• 75 f

prova rewate

hourly flow 

• Alternative 

methods of 

chlorination levels for disinfection 

are used, they do not have to be lined 

irrigation of reclaimed water shall not 

tranfacilpota

disinfection, such as UV and ozone, 

should be continually evaluated to 

• Reject storage 

ponds shall be lined or sealed 

produce surface runoff or ponding 

supp

• 100 

outd

may be ensure to prevent eatin

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

302

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

approved 

• TSS not to 

exceed 5 mg/l 

chlorine residual levels do not 

measurable seepage 

• Existing or 

drinbathfacil

before disinfection 

• Total nitrogen 

adversely impact vegetation 

proposed ponds (such as golf course 

• 100 

betwindo

- 10 mg/l but may be less stringent if 

• Continuous 

monitoring for turbidity before 

ponds) are appropriate for storage of 

aestfeatadja

higher limit is still protective of environment 

disinfection is required 

• Operating 

reuse water if the ability of the ponds to 

indoeatindrin

• Secondary • Filtration • Chemical 

protocol required 

• User/Supplier 

function as stormwater management 

facilin throom 

addition prior to filtration may be necessary 

Agreement 

• Annual usage 

report 

systems is not impaired 

build

New Mexico • Adequately 

treated and disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 100/100 ml 

• Fecal coliform 

sample taken at point of diversion to irrigation 

North Carolina • Tertiary quality 

effluent (filtered or 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring and 

• All essential 

treatment units to be provided 

• Determined 

using a mass water balance 

• Site specific • Application 

rate may take 

• 100 

surfaclas

equivalent) 

• TSS 

- 5 mg/l 

recording for turbidity or particle count 

in duplicate 

• Five-day sidestream 

based upon a recent 25-year period using 

both the maximum soil absorption and 

incluwetl

• 25 f

(monthly average) - 10 mg/l (daily 

and flow prior to discharge 

detention pond required for effluent 

monthly average precipitation 

water needs of the receiving crop into 

surfanot cSA, 

maximum) exceeding data, potential consideration wetl

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

303

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

• Fecal coliform 

- 14/100 ml (monthly 

turbidity or fecal coliform limits 

evapotranspiration data, and soil 

any poo

• 100 

geometric mean) - 25/100 ml 

• Automatically 

activated standby power 

drainage data 

• No storage 

facilities 

watewell 

• 10 f

(daily maximum) 

• BOD5 

source to be provided 

• Certified 24 

required if it can be demonstrated 

nonwell 

- 10 mg/l (monthly average) 

hours/day operator with a grade level 

that other permitted disposal 

- 15 mg/l (daily maximum) 

• NH3 

equivalent to or greater than the facility 

options are available 

- 4 mg/l (monthly average) 

classification 

- 6 mg/l (daily maximum) 

• Turbidity not to 

exceed 10 NTU at any time 

North Dakota • At a minimum, 

secondary 

• BOD5, TSS, 

and fecal 

treatment with chlorination 

• 25 mg/l BOD5 

coliform monitoring once every 2 

• 30 mg/l TSS • Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml 

weeks 

• Daily 

monitoring of 

• Chlorine chlorine 

residual of at least 0.1 mg/l 

residual at the point of use farthest from the treatment plant 

Ohio • Biological Large system • Operational • Determined by • Monitoring • 100 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

304

State 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

treatment and disinfection 

• 25 mg/l 

CBOD5 

• Fecal coliform 

(30-day average) - 23/100 ml with no public access buffer area or night application 

• Limits for 

metals 

monitoring (150,000 to 500,000 gpd): • Twice weekly 

for CBOD5, 

total coliform (when irrigating) and storage volume 

• Monthly 

monitoring for total inorganic nitrogen 

• Daily 

monitoring for flow 

Small system monitoring (<150,000 gpd): • Weekly 

monitoring of CBOD5, total 

coliform (when irrigating) and storage volume 

• Daily 

monitoring of flow 

storage of 4 times the daily design flow needed 

• Storage 

provisions for at least 130 days of design average flow needed for periods when irrigation is not recommended 

• Actual storage 

requirements determined by performing water balance 

• Permits can be 

obtained for stream discharge during winter and times of high stream flow to reduce storage needs 

calculating a water and nutrient balance 

wells upgradient and downgradient of large irrigation systems 

• Monitoring 

wells should be sampled at the beginning and the end of the irrigation season 

privawell 

• 300 

comwate

• 100 

sink 

• 50 f

drai

• 50 f

surfa

• 100 

road way windusinirriga

• 10 f

rightwith or wirriga

• 50 f

prop

Oregon Parks, 

playgrounds, schoolyards, and golf courses with contiguous residences: 

• Level IV -

biological treatment, clarification, 

Parks, playgrounds, schoolyards, and golf courses with contiguous residences: 

• Total coliform 

sampling - one time a day 

• Standby power 

with capacity to fully operate all essential treatment processes 

• Redundant 

treatment facilities and monitoring 

Parks, playgrschoolgolf cocontigreside

• Non

Landsimpouand co

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

305

State 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

coagulation, filtration, and disinfection 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml (maximum any sample) 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU (24-hour mean) - 5 NTU (5 percent of time during a 24-hour period) 

Landscape impoundments and construction use: 

• Level II -

biological treatment and disinfection 

• Total coliform 

- 240/100 ml (2 consecutive samples) - 23/100 ml (7-day median) 

• Turbidity 

- hourly 

Landscape impoundments and construction use: 

• Total coliform 

sampling - once a week 

equipment to meet required levels of treatment 

• Alarm devices 

to provide warning of loss of power and/or failure of process equipment 

use: 

• 10-f

with irriga

• 70-f

with irriga

• No s

irriga100 drinfounfood preparea

South Carolina • Advanced 

wastewater treatment 

• BOD5 and TSS 

- 5 mg/l (monthly average) - 7.5 mg/l 

• Minimum of 

one fecal or total coliform presence/ absence measurement daily 

• Nitrate 

• Storage 

facilities are not required to be lined 

• Covered 

storage systems or other 

• Hydraulic -

maximum of 0.5 - 2 in/wk depending on depth to groundwater 

• A nitrate to 

nitrogen 

• May be 

required 

• Non

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

306

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

(weekly average) 

• Turbidity 

- 1 NTU (monthly average) - 5 NTU (not to exceed based on an average for 2 

monitoring required 

alternative methods may be required to maintain effluent quality prior to distribution 

loading balance may be required 

• Application 

rates in excess of 2 in/wk may be approved 

consecutive days) 

• Total coliform 

- similar to standards in State Primary Regulations - for a system that collects at least 40 samples per month, if no more than 5 percent are total coliformpositive, the system will be in compliance with the MCL for total coliform 

• Total chlorine 

residual limits based on site conditions and distribution system design 

South Dakota • Secondary • Minimum of • Maximum • Shallow wells 

treatment and 210 days application rate in all directions disinfection capacity limited to of major 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

307

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

• Total coliform 

- 200/100 ml (geometric mean) 

without consideration for evaporation 

2 in/acre/wk or a total of 24 in/acre/yr 

groundwater flow from site and no more than 200 feet outside of the site perimeter, spaced no more than 500 feet apart, and extending into the groundwater table 

• Shallow wells 

within the site are also recommended 

Tennessee • Biological • Site specific • Storage • Nitrogen - • Required Surfac

treatment 

• Additional 

treatment 

requirements determined by either of two 

percolate nitrate-nitrogen not to exceed 

• 100 

bou

• 50 f

requirements are determined on a case-bymethods 1) use of water balance 10 mg/l • Hydraulic - based on site 

pondroad

case basis 

• Disinfection 

required 

calculations or, 2) use of a computer 

water balance using 5-year return monthly 

Spray 

[1] Ope• 300 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

and TSS (monthly 

program that was developed based upon an 

precipitation bou

• 150 

site 

average) 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml 

extensive NOAA study of climatic 

pondroad

[2] For

variations • 150 throughout the United States 

bou

• 75 f

site pondroad

Texas • Type I • Sampling and • Based on 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

308

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

reclaimed analysis twice water balance water per week for 

Reclaimed water BOD5 or on a 30-day CBOD5, average to have turbidity, and a quality of: fecal coliform 

• 5 mg/l BOD5 or • Periodic fecal 

CBOD5 coliform 

• 10 mg/l for sampling in the 

landscape reclaimed impoundment) water 

• Turbidity distribution 

- 3 NTU system may be 

• Fecal coliform necessary 

- 20/100 ml (geometric mean) - 75/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

Utah • Type I treated 

wastewater - secondary 

• Daily 

composite sampling 

• Alternative 

disposal option or diversion to 

• 50 f

potawell 

treatment with filtration and disinfection 

required for BOD 

• Continuous 

storage required if turbidity or 

• Imp

at lefeet 

• 10 mg/l BOD 

(monthly average) 

turbidity monitoring prior to 

chlorine residual requirements 

potawell 

• Turbidity prior 

to disinfection - not to exceed 

disinfection 

• Daily 

monitoring of 

not met 

2 NTU (daily average) - not to exceed 

fecal coliform 

• Continuous 

total residual 

5 NTU at any chlorine 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

309

State 

Reclaimed 

Water Quality 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed 

Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

time 

• Fecal coliform 

- none detected (weekly median as determined from daily grab samples) - 14/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

• 1.0 mg/l total 

residual chlorine after 30 minutes contact time at peak flow 

• pH 6 - 9 

monitoring 

• pH monitored 

continuously or by daily grab samples 

Washington Landscape 

irrigation, decorative fountains, street cleaning, fire protection, and toilet flushing: 

• Class A -

oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day mean) - 23/100 ml (single sample) 

Landscape 

impoundment 

and construction 

uses: 

• BOD – 24-hour 

composite samples collected at least weekly 

• TSS – 24-hour 

composite samples collected at least daily 

• Total coliform 

and dissolved oxygen - grab samples collected at least daily 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring of turbidity 

• Warning 

alarms independent of normal power supply 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Emergency 

storage: short-term, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

• Multiple 

treatment units or storage or disposal options 

• Qualified 

personnel available or on 

• Storage 

required when no approved alternative disposal system exists 

• Storage 

volume established by determining storage period required for duration of a 10-year storm, using a minimum of 20 years of climatic data 

• At a minimum, 

system storage capacity 

• Hydraulic 

loading rate to be determined based on a detailed water balance analysis 

• May be 

required 

• Monitoring 

program will be based on reclaimed water quality and quantity, site specific soil and hydrogeologic characteristics, and other considerations 

• 50 f

potasupp

• Unli

impo- 50betwperiany watewell 

• Line

impo- 10betwperiany watewell 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

310

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

• Class C - call at all times should be the 

oxidized and the irrigation volume equal disinfected system is to 3 times that 

• Total coliform operating portion of the 

- 23/100 ml average daily (7-day mean) flow for which - 240/100 ml no alternative (single sample) reuse or 

General disposal compliance system is requirements: permitted 

• 30 mg/l BOD 

and TSS (monthly mean) 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU (monthly) - 5 NTU (not to exceed at any time) 

• Minimum 

chlorine residual of 1 mg/l after a contact time of 30 minutes 

Wyoming • Minimum of 

Class A wastewater -

• Treated 

wastewater to be analyzed 

• Multiple units 

and equipment 

• Alternative 

• Emergency 

storage 

• Will be applied 

for the purpose of beneficial 

• 30 f

adjaprop

advanced treatment and/or 

for fecal coliform, nitrate as N, 

power sources 

• Alarm systems 

and 

reuse and will not exceed the irrigation 

• 30 f

surfa

• 100

secondary treatment and disinfection 

ammonia as N, and pH at a minimum 

instrumentation 

• Operator 

demand of the vegetation at the site 

potasupp

• 100

• Fecal coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml or less 

• Monitoring 

frequency - once per 

certification and standby capability 

• Not to be 

applied at a rate greater 

zone spra

month for • Bypass and than the 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
311

Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse 

Reclaimed Reclaimed 

Water Quality Water Treatment 

State 

and Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Facility 

Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates (1) 

Groundwater 

Monitoring (1) 

Se

Dista

lagoon systems - once per 

dewatering capability 

• Emergency 

agronomic rate for the vegetation at 

week for mechanical systems 

storage the site 

• Will be applied 

in a manner 

• Frequency 

specified in NPDES permit 

and time that will not cause any surface 

required if more frequent 

runoff or contamination of a groundwater aquifer 

(1) For irrigation use only. (2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

312

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

Alabama • Minimum EPA • Controls • Based on • Based on soil • At least three • 100 

secondary, or required to water balance permeability downgradient propequivalent to secondary, limits and appropriate disinfection 

• If wastewater 

stabilization 

indicate any system malfunction or permit varied field operations 

performed on a monthly basis with a precipitation input using a 5-year, 24-hour rainfall 

and nitrogen limits (10 mg/l nitrate) 

• Excessive 

rainwater runoff should be diverted 

monitoring wells 

• At least one 

upgradient monitoring well 

• Contaminants 

in groundwater 

• 300 

exishabresid

• Spra

not awith

pond is used, pond must meet ADEM 

event, 30-year minimum base period 

• Excessive 

ponding should be avoided 

not to exceed primary and secondary 

of apereor st

requirements with second cell being used 

• In addition to 

storage dictated by 

maximum contaminant levels 

• If irr

causinter

as a holding pond 

• Mechanical 

water balance, a minimum of 15 days 

• Minimum 

depth to groundwater, 

streabecopere

systems, if used, should allow as little 

storage should be provided for contingencies 

without use of an underdrain collection 

irrigaceas100 

nitrification as possible 

• Disinfection 

system, shall be 4 feet 

strea

• Spra

not a

must be wellperformed through one of 

prot(WH

the following processes - breakpoint 

no wdelinexis

chlorination, ozonation, or 

minidista

ultraviolet appdisinfection shal- storage of the treated 

feet requ

wastewater for a period of 20 days in a 

• No s

100-flood

holding pond prior to 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

313

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

discharge to the application site 

Arizona • Class B 

reclaimed water -

secondary treatment and disinfection 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (not to exceed in 4 of the last 7 daily samples) - 800/100 ml (single sample maximum) 

• Case-by-case 

basis 

• Application 

rates based on either the water allotment assigned by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (a water balance that considers consumptive use of water by the crop, turf, or landscape vegetation) or an alternative approved method 

Arkansas • Secondary 

treatment and disinfection 

• As required by 

regulatory agency 

• Based on 

water balance using divisional average annual 90 percentile rainfall 

• Hydraulic - 0.5 

to 4.0 in/wk 

• Nitrogen -

percolate nitrate-nitrogen not to exceed 10 mg/l 

• Required 

• One well 

upgradient 

• One well within 

site 

• One well 

downgradient 

• More wells 

may be required on a case-by-case basis 

• Dete

casebasi

California • Disinfected 

secondary-23 recycled water - oxidized and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

• Total coliform -

sampled at least once daily from the disinfected effluent 

• Warning 

alarms 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Multiple 

treatment units 

• No i

withimpoof, dsecorecy

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

314

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

- 23/100 ml (7-day median) 

capable of treating entire 

withof a

- 240/100 ml (not to exceed in more than 

flow with one unit not in operation or 

domsupp

• No s

one sample in any 30-day period) 

storage or disposal provisions 

• Emergency 

irriga100 residplac

storage or disposal: shortterm, 1 day; 

pubexpobe s

long-term, 20 days 

• Sufficient 

that playscho

number of qualified personnel 

Colorado • Secondary Treaters: • Application • No 

treatment with • Quality of rates shall impodisinfection reclaimed protect surface or ir

• E. coli - domestic and recla

126/100 ml wastewater groundwater wate(monthly produced and quality and 100 average) delivered at irrigation shall well - 235/100 ml the point of be controlled dom(single sample compliance to minimize suppmaximum in Applicators: ponding in thany calendar • Total volume an month) of reclaimed impo

• 30 mg/l TSS domestic it is 

as a daily wastewater syntmaximum applied per mate

year or season 

• The maximum 

perm10-6 

monthly less volume applied 

• Each location 

with the associated acreage where 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

315

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

reclaimed domestic wastewater was applied 

• The beginning 

and end time for each date that reclaimed domestic wastewater is applied 

Delaware • Biological • Continuous on- • Storage • Maximum • Required • Dete

treatment and line monitoring provisions design • One well a cadisinfection of residual required either wastewater upgradient of basi

• 30 mg/l BOD5 disinfection as a separate loadings site or 

• 30 mg/l TSS concentrations facility or limited to otherwise • Fecal coliform • Parameters incorporated 2.5 in/wk outside the 

- 200/100 ml which may into the • Maximum influence of the 

require pretreatment instantaneous site for monitoring system wastewater background include volume • Minimum 15 application monitoring of water days storage rates limited to • One well within applied to required 0.25 in/hour wetted field spray fields, unless other • Design area of each BOD, measures for wastewater drainage basin suspended controlling flow loading must intersected by solids, fecal are be determined site coliform demonstrated as a function of • Two wells bacteria, pH, • Must determine precipitation, down-gradient COD, TOC, operational, evapotrans- in each ammonia wet weather, piration, design drainage basin nitrogen, and water percolation intersected by nitrate balance rate, nitrogen site nitrogen, total storage loading and • One well Kjeldahl nitrogen, total 

requirements 

• Separate offother constituent upgradient and One well 

phosphorus, chloride, Na, K, Ca, Mg, 

line system for storage of reject 

loading limitations, groundwater 

downgradient of the pond treatment and 

metals, and priority 

wastewater with a 

and drainage conditions, and 

storage facilities in 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

316

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

pollutants 

• Parameters 

and sampling frequency determined on a case-by-case basis 

minimum capacity equal to 2-day average daily design flow required 

average and peak design wastewater flows and seasonal fluctuations 

each drainage basin intersected by site 

• May require 

measurement of depth to groundwater, pH, COD, TOC, nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, electrical conductivity, chloride, fecal coliform bacteria, metals, and priority pollutants 

• Parameters 

and sampling frequency determined on a case-by-case basis 

Florida • Secondary 

treatment with filtration and high-level disinfection 

• Chemical feed 

facilities to be provided 

• 20 mg/l 

CBOD5 

(annual average) 

• 5 mg/l TSS 

(single sample) 

• Total chlorine 

• Parameters to 

be monitored and sampling frequency to be identified in wastewater facility permit 

• Minimum 

schedule for sampling and testing based on system capacity established for flow, pH, 

• Class I 

reliability -

requires multiple or back-up treatment units and a secondary power source 

• Minimum 

reject storage capacity equal to 1 day flow at the average daily design 

• At a minimum, 

system storage capacity shall be the volume equal to 3 times the portion of the average daily flow for which no alternative reuse or disposal system is permitted 

• Water balance 

• Site specific • Design 

hydraulic loading rate -maximum annual average of 2 in/wk is recommended 

• Based on 

nutrient and water balance assessments 

• Required 

• One 

upgradient well located as close as possible to the site without being affected by the site’s discharge (background well) 

• One well at the 

edge of the zone of 

• 75 f

potasupp

• 75 f

reclawatetranfacilwatewell 

• Low 

nozzrequ100 outd

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

317

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

residual of at chlorine flow of the required with discharge eatinleast 1 mg/l residual, treatment plant volume of downgradient drinafter a dissolved or the average storage based of the site bathminimum oxygen, daily permitted on a 10-year (compliance facilacceptable suspended flow of the recurrence well) • 100 contact time of solids, CBOD5, reuse system, interval and a • One well indo15 minutes at nutrients, and whichever is minimum of 20 downgradient aestpeak hourly fecal coliform less years of from the site featflow • Continuous • Minimum climatic data and within the recla

• Fecal coliform on-line system size of • Not required if zone of wate

- over 30-day monitoring of 0.1 mgd (not alternative discharge adjaperiod, 75 turbidity prior required for system is (intermediate indopercent of to disinfection toilet flushing incorporated well) eatinsamples below • Continuous and fire into the system • One well drindetection limits on-line protection design to located facil- 25/100 ml monitoring of uses) ensure adjacent to • 200 (single sample) total chlorine • Staffing - continuous unlined unlin

• pH 6 - 8.5 residual or 24 hrs/day, facility storage ponds stora• Limitations to residual 7 days/wk or operation or lakes to po

be met after concentrations 6 hrs/day, • Existing or • Other wells watedisinfection of other 7 days/wk with proposed lakes may be well

disinfectants diversion of or ponds (such required 

• Monitoring for reclaimed as golf course depending on 

Giardia and water to reuse ponds) are site-specific 

Cryptosporidium based on treatment plant capacity - > 1 mgd, 

system only during periods of operator presence 

appropriate for storage if it will not impair the ability of the lakes or ponds 

criteria 

• Quarterly 

monitoring required for water level, 

sampling one to function as a nitrate, total time during stormwater dissolved each two-year management solids, arsenic, period system cadmium, - < 1 mgd , • Aquifer chloride, sampling one storage and chromium, time during recovery lead, fecal each 5-year allowed as coliform, pH, period provision of and sulfate - samples to storage • Monitoring be taken may be immediately required for 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

318

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

following disinfection 

additional parameters 

process 

• Primary and 

secondary 

based on sitespecific conditions and 

drinking water standards to be monitored 

groundwater quality 

by facilities > 100,000 gpd 

Georgia • Secondary • Continuous • Multiple • Reject water • Dete

treatment followed by coagulation, 

turbidity monitoring prior to 

process units 

• Ability to 

isolate and 

storage equal to at least 3 days of flow 

a cabasi

filtration, and disinfection 

• 5 mg/l BOD 

disinfection 

• Weekly 

sampling for 

bypass all process units 

• System must 

at the average daily design flow 

• 5 mg/l TSS • Fecal coliform 

- 23/100 ml 

TSS and BOD 

• Daily 

monitoring for 

be capable of treating peak flows with the 

• One of the 

following options must 

(monthly average) - 100/100 ml 

fecal coliform 

• Daily 

monitoring for 

largest unit out of service 

• Equalization 

be in place to account for wet weather 

(maximum any sample) 

• pH 6 - 9 • Turbidity not to 

pH 

• Detectable 

disinfection residual 

may be required 

• Back-up power 

supply 

periods - sufficient storage onsite or at the 

exceed 3 NTU prior to disinfection 

monitoring • Alarms to warn 

of loss of power supply, 

customer’s location to handle the 

• Detectable failure of flows until 

disinfectant residual at the 

pumping systems, 

irrigation can be resumed 

delivery point failure of 

disinfection 

- additional land set aside 

systems, or that can be turbidity greater than 3 NTU 

irrigated without causing harm to the cover 

crop 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

319

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

- An NPDES permit for all or part of the flow 

Hawaii • R-2 water -

oxidized and disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day median) - 200/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) 

• Theoretical 

chlorine contact time of 15 minutes and actual modal contact time of 10 minutes throughout which the chlorine residual is 0.5 mg/l 

• Daily flow 

monitoring 

• Continuous 

turbidity monitoring prior to and after filtration process 

• Continuous 

measuring and recording of chlorine residual 

• Daily 

monitoring of fecal coliform 

• Weekly 

monitoring of BOD5 and 

suspended solids 

• Multiple or 

standby units required with sufficient capacity to enable effective operation with any one unit out of service 

• Alarm devices 

required for loss of power, high water levels, failure of pumps or blowers, high head loss on filters, high effluent turbidity, loss of coagulant or polymer feed, and loss of chlorine residual 

• Standby power 

source required for treatment plant and distribution pump stations 

• 20 days 

storage required unless it can be demonstrated that another time period is adequate or that no storage is necessary 

• Storage 

requirements based on water balance using at least a 30-year record 

• Reject storage 

required with a volume equal to 1 day of flow at the average daily design flow 

• Emergency 

system storage not required where an alternate effluent disposal system has been approved 

• Design 

application rate determined by water balance 

• Required 

• Groundwater 

monitoring system may consist of a number of lysimeters and/or monitoring wells depending on site size, site characteristics, location, method of discharge. and other appropriate considerations 

• One well 

upgradient and two wells downgradient for project sites 500 acres or more 

• One well within 

the wetted field area for each project whose surface area is greater than or equal to 1,500 acres 

• One lysimeter 

per 200 acres 

• One lysimeter 

for project sites 

R-2 wa• For 

irrigaapp500 residpropplacpubexpobe sthat elemschoathle

• Min

100 drinsupp

• Out

impat lefeet drinsup

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

320

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

that have greater than 40 but less than 200 acres 

• Additional 

lysimeters may be necessary to address public health or environmental protection concerns related to variable characteristics of the subsurface or of the operations of the project 

Idaho • Oxidized and 

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7 day median) 

Illinois • Two-cell 

lagoon system with tertiary 

• Minimum 

storage capacity equal 

• Based on the 

limiting characteristic 

• Required 

• One well 

upgradient for 

• 25 f

residline 

sand filtration and disinfection or 

to at least 150 days of wastewater at 

of the treated wastewater and the site 

determining background concentrations 

surra femini

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

321

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

mechanical secondary treatment with disinfection 

design average flow except in southern Illinois areas where a minimum of 120 days of storage capacity to be provided 

• Storage can 

be determined based on a rational design that must include capacity for the wettest year with a 20-year return frequency 

• Balances must 

be calculated and submitted for water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and BOD 

• Two wells 

downgradient in the dominant direction of groundwater movement 

• Wells between 

each potable water well and the application area if within 1,000 feet 

• Monitoring of 

nitrates, ammonia nitrogen, chlorides, sulfates, pH, total dissolved solids, phosphate, and coliform bacteria 

heiginch

• No b

requirrigagolf occudurihoudusk 

• No b

requappits adryinoccuperiothe aclospub

Indiana • Secondary 

treatment and disinfection 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

• 30 mg/l TSS • Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (7-day median) - 800/100 ml (single sample) 

• pH 6 - 9 • Total chlorine 

residual after a minimum contact time of 30 minutes at least 1 mg/l (if 

• Daily 

monitoring of TSS, coliform, and chlorine residual 

• Weekly 

monitoring of BOD and pH 

• Monthly 

monitoring of total nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium 

• Alternate 

power source required 

• Minimum of 9 

days effective storage capacity required 

• Maximum 

hydraulic loading rate of 2 in/week 

• 200 

potasuppdrinsprin

• 300 

watestate 

• 300 

resid

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

322

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

chlorination is used for disinfection) 

• Annual 

monitoring of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc 

Iowa • At a minimum, 

treatment equivalent to that obtained from a primary lagoon cell 

• Disinfection 

- required for all land application systems with spray irrigation application technique - must precede actual spraying of the wastewater on to a field area and must not precede storage - minimum contact time of 15 minutes with equipment necessary to maintain a residual chlorine level of 0.5 mg/l 

• Monitoring of 

the following parameters required unless it has been demonstrated that they are present in insignificant amounts in the influent wastewater: total organic carbon, total dissolved solids, sodium absorption ratio, electrical conductivity, total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, organic nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, chloride, pH, alkalinity, hardness, trace 

• Minimum of 

two storage cells required capable of series and parallel operation 

• Minimum days 

of storage based on climatic restraints 

• When flows 

are generated only during the application period, a storage capacity of 45 days or the flow generated during the period of operation (whichever is less) must be provided 

• When 

discharging to a receiving waterway on a periodic basis, storage for 180 days of average wet weather flow is required 

• Determined by 

using a water balance per month of operation 

• Monitoring 

required adjacent to the site both upstream and downstream of the site in reference to the general groundwater flow direction 

• 300 

exisdwepubareaincluand 

• 400 

exispotasupplocaprop

• 300 

struccontflowor ophysfeatmay direcconnbetwgroutable surfa

• Wet

dispto be 50 fethe 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

323

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

elements, and coliform 

line app

bacteria 

• Location of 

monitoring in 

• 1,00

any pub

effluent prior to site application 

• Reporting 

frequency 

supp

• 500 

pubimpo

depends on size of system 

• _ m

pubimpo

used sourwatepotasupp

Kansas • Secondary 

treatment and disinfection for 

• Storage 

provided to retain a 

• Maximum daily 

application rate of 3 in/ac/day 

• Site specific 

• May be 

required 

• Non

irrigation of areas with a low probability 

minimum of 90-days average dry 

• Maximum 

annual application rate 

of body contact weather flow 

when no discharge to surface water 

of 40 in/acre 

• Based on soil 

and crop moisture 

is available and/or nutrient 

requirements of selected crop 

Maryland • 70 mg/l BOD 

• 90 mg/l TSS • Fecal coliform 

• Minimum of 

60-days storage to be 

• Maximum 

application rate of 2 in/wk on 

• May be 

required 

• One well 

• 200 

propwate

- 3/100 ml 

• pH 6.5 - 8.5 

provided for all systems receiving 

annual average basis 

• Water balance 

upgradient of site 

• Two wells 

and spra

• 500 

wastewater flows throughout the 

required based on wettest year in the last 10 

adjacent to the property line and 

housdeveand 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

324

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

year years of record 

• Actual 

application rate accepted must consider permeability of the soils, depth to groundwater, and the nutrient balance of the site 

downgradient of site 

• Monitoring 

frequency determined on a case-by-case basis 

spra

• Red

the up to percconswith wind

• Min

buffe50 feotheslow syst

Massachusetts • Secondary 

treatment with filtration and disinfection 

• pH 6 - 9 • 10 mg/l BOD5 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU (average over 24-hour period) - 5 NTU (not to exceed at any time) 

• Fecal coliform 

- no detectable colonies (7-day median) - 14/100 ml (single sample) 

• 5 mg/l TSS • 10 mg/l total 

nitrogen 

• Class I 

groundwater permit standards 

• pH - daily • BOD - weekly • Turbidity -

continuous monitoring prior to disinfection 

• Fecal coliform 

- daily 

• Disinfection 

UV intensity -daily or chlorine residual - daily 

• TSS - twice 

per week 

• Nitrogen -

twice per month 

• Phosphorus -

twice per month 

• Heterotrophic 

plate count -quarterly 

• MS-2 phage -

quarterly 

• EPA Class I 

Reliability standards may be required 

• Two 

independent and separate sources of power 

• Unit 

redundancy 

• Additional 

storage 

• Immediate, 

permitted discharge alternatives are required for emergency situations and for nongrowing season disposal 

• Required 

• Monitoring 

wells to be located and constructed to strategically sample the geologic units of interest between the discharges and sensitive receptors and withdrawal points 

• Sensitive 

receptors include, but are not limited to public and private wells, surface waters, embayments, and ACECs 

• Monitoring and 

testing frequency and 

• 100 

buildresidpropprivaClassurfabodsurfaintak

• Othe

privausinbarrform or trat thside bufferedusetbdista50 fe

• No s

irrigadirecZon

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

325

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

(SDWA Drinking Water 

• Permit 

standards -

parameters determined 

pubsupp

Standards) variable testing 

requirements 

based on land use, effluent quality and quantity, and the sensitivity of receptors 

Missouri • Secondary 

treatment equivalent to 

• Minimum of 45 

days in south with no 

• Application 

rates shall in no case 

• Minimum of 

one well between site 

• 150 

exisdwe

treatment obtained from primary 

discharge 

• Minimum of 90 

days in north 

exceed - 0.5 in/hour - 1.0 in/day 

and public supply well 

pubareaexcl

wastewater pond cell 

• Disinfected 

with no discharge 

• Based on the 

- 3.0 in/week 

• Maximum 

annual 

roadhigh

• 50 f

prior to application (not storage) 

design wastewater flows and net 

application rate not to exceed a range from 4 

prop

• 300 

pota

• Total residual 

chlorine of 0.5 mg/l after 

rainfall minus evaporation expected for a 

to 10 percent of the design sustained 

suppnot oprop

15 minutes of contact time at peak flow 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml 

one in 10-year return frequency for the storage period selected 

permeability rate for the number of days per year when soils are not frozen 

sinklosinor ostrucphysfeat

• Nitrogen may 

loading not to exceed the 

direcconn

amount of betwnitrogen that can be used by the vegetation 

groutable surfa

to be grown 

Montana • Oxidized and • Effluent to be • Nitrogen and • Determined on • Buff

disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml 

monitored on a regular basis to show the 

hydraulic loadings determined 

a case-by-case basis 

• Consideration 

detea cabasi

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

326

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

(7-day median) - 400/100 ml (any two consecutive samples) 

biochemical and bacteriological quality of the applied wastewater 

• Monitoring 

frequency to be determined on a case-bycase basis 

based on methods in EPA Manual 625/1-81-013 

• Hydraulic 

loading must be based on the wettest year in ten years 

is given to groundwater characteristics, past practices, depth to groundwater, cropping practices, etc. 

than 

• If low 

nozzusedbuffecan redu50 fe

• 100 

watewell 

• Dist

surfadetea cabasiquaeffluthe disin

Nebraska • Biological 

treatment 

• Disinfected 

• Site specific • Hydraulic 

loading rate should not 

• Site specific 

prior to application 

• Fecal coliform 

limit to be 

exceed 4 in/wk 

• Nitrogen 

loading not to exceed crop 

established uptake 

Nevada • At a minimum, • Non

secondary treatment with disinfection 

foot buffedepe

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

No buffer zone: 

• Fecal coliform 

levedisin

- 2.2/100 ml (30-day geometric mean) - 23/100 ml 

(maximum 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

327

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

daily number) 

100’ buffer zone: 

• Fecal coliform 

- 23/100 ml (30-day geometric mean) - 240/100 ml (maximum daily number) 

New Jersey • Fecal coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring of 

• Not required 

when another permitted 

• Hydraulic 

loading rate - maximum 

• 75 f

potasupp

- 14/100 ml (maximum any one sample) 

chlorine residual produced 

reuse system or effluent disposal 

annual average of 2 in/wk but 

that exishave 

• Minimum 

chlorine residual 

oxidant at the compliance monitoring 

system is incorporated into the system 

may be increased based on a 

appcons

• 75 f

- 1.0 mg/l after 15-minute contact at peak 

point 

• For spray 

irrigation, 

design 

• If system 

storage ponds 

site-specific evaluation 

• The spray 

prova rewate

hourly flow 

• Alternative 

methods of 

chlorination levels for disinfection 

are used, they do not have to be lined 

irrigation of reclaimed water shall not 

tranfacilpota

disinfection, such as UV and ozone, 

should be continually evaluated to 

• Reject storage 

ponds shall be lined or sealed 

produce surface runoff or ponding 

supp

• 100 

outd

may be approved 

• TSS not to 

ensure chlorine residual levels 

to prevent measurable seepage 

eatindrinbath

exceed 5 mg/l before disinfection 

do not adversely impact 

• Existing or 

proposed ponds (such as 

facil

• Total nitrogen 

- 10 mg/l but may be less 

vegetation 

• Continuous 

monitoring for 

golf course ponds) are appropriate for 

stringent if higher limit is still protective 

turbidity before disinfection is required 

storage of reuse water if the ability of 

of environment • Operating the ponds to 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

328

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

• Secondary • Filtration 

protocol required 

function as stormwater 

• Chemical 

addition prior to filtration may be necessary 

• User/Supplier 

Agreement 

• Annual usage 

report 

management systems is not impaired 

New Mexico • Adequately 

treated and disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

of 1000/100 ml 

• Fecal coliform 

sample taken at point of diversion to irrigation system 

North Carolina • Tertiary quality 

effluent 

• Continuous 

on-line 

• All essential 

treatment units 

• Determined 

using a mass 

• Site specific • Application 

• 100 

surfa

(filtered or equivalent) 

• TSS 

monitoring and recording for turbidity or 

to be provided in duplicate 

• Five-day sidewater balance based upon a recent 25-year rate may take both the maximum soil clas

incluwetl

- 5 mg/l (monthly average) 

particle count and flow prior to discharge 

stream detention pond required for 

period using monthly average 

absorption and water needs of the receiving 

• 25 f

surfanot c

- 10 mg/l (daily maximum) 

• Fecal coliform 

effluent exceeding turbidity or 

precipitation data, potential evapotranscrop into consideration SA, 

wetlany 

- 14/100 ml (monthly geometric 

fecal coliform limits 

• Automatically 

piration data, and soil drainage data 

poo

• 100 

wate

mean) - 25/100 ml (daily 

activated standby power source to be 

• No storage 

facilities required if it 

well 

• 10 f

non

maximum) 

• BOD5 

provided 

• Certified 

can be demonstrated 

well 

- 10 mg/l operator 24 that other (monthly average) - 15 mg/l (daily 

hours/day with a grade level equivalent to 

permitted disposal options are 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

329

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

maximum) 

• NH3 

- 4 mg/l (monthly average) - 6 mg/l (daily maximum) 

• Turbidity not to 

exceed 10 NTU at any time 

or greater than the facility classification on call 

available 

North Dakota • At a minimum, 

secondary treatment 

• 25 mg/l BOD5 

• 30 mg/l TSS • Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml 

• BOD5 and TSS 

monitoring once every 2 weeks 

• Fecal coliform 

- twice weekly for mechanical plants - once per week for lagoon systems 

Ohio • Biological 

treatment 

• Disinfection 

should be considered 

• 40 mg/l 

CBOD5 

• Fecal coliform 

(30-day average) - 23/100 ml with no public access buffer - 200/100 ml with 100-foot 

Large system monitoring (150,000 to 500,000 gpd): • Twice weekly 

for CBOD5, 

total coliform (when irrigating) and storage volume 

• Monthly 

monitoring for total inorganic nitrogen 

• Operational 

storage of 4 times the daily design flow needed 

• Storage 

provisions for at least 130 days of design average flow needed for periods when irrigation is not recommended 

• Actual storage 

• Determined by 

calculating a water and nutrient balance 

• Monitoring 

wells upgradient and downgradient of large irrigation systems 

• Monitoring 

wells should be sampled at the beginning and the end of the irrigation season 

• 100 

privawell 

• 300 

comwate

• 100 

sink 

• 50 f

drai

• 50 f

surfa

• 100 

road way 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

330

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

public access buffer 

• Daily 

monitoring for 

requirements determined by 

windusin

- 1,000/100 ml with 200 foot public access buffer 

flow 

Small system monitoring (<150,000 gpd): 

performing water balance 

• Permits can be 

obtained for 

irriga

• 10 f

rightwith 

• Limits for 

metals 

• Weekly 

monitoring of CBOD5, total 

stream discharge during winter 

or wirriga

• 50 f

coliform (when irrigating) and storage 

and times of high stream flow to reduce 

prop

volume 

• Daily 

monitoring of 

storage needs 

flow 

Oklahoma • Secondary • Standby power • Required for • Based on the • 100 

treatment and disinfection 

required for continuity of operation 

periods when available wastewater 

lower of the two rates calculated for 

adjaprop

• Add

during power failures 

exceeds design hydraulic 

soil permeability and nitrogen 

distabe rwhe

loading rate, and when the 

requirements prev

wind

ground is saturated or 

causto d

frozen 

• Based on 

water balance 

residarea

• Buff

• Must provide 

at least 90 days of 

be a perm

storage above that required for primary treatment 

Oregon • Level II - • Total coliform • Standby power • 10-f

biological treatment and disinfection 

sampling - 1 time per week 

with capacity to fully operate all essential 

with irriga

• 70-f

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

331

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

• Total coliform 

- 240/100 ml 

treatment processes 

with irriga

(2 consecutive samples) - 23/100 ml 

• Redundant 

treatment facilities and 

• No s

irriga100 

(7-day median) monitoring 

equipment to meet required levels of 

drinfounfood prep

treatment area

• Alarm devices 

to provide warning of loss of power and/or failure of process equipment 

South Carolina • Secondary 

treatment and disinfection 

• Nitrate 

monitoring required 

• Hydraulic -

maximum of 0.5 - 2 in/wk 

• Required 

• One well 

upgradient 

• 200 

surfaof th

• BOD5 and TSS 

- 30 mg/l (monthly 

depending on depth to groundwater 

• Two wells 

downgradient 

• A minimum of 

occubuildpota

average) - 45 mg/l (weekly average) 

• A nitrate to 

nitrogen loading balance may 

9 wells are suggested for each 18 fairways 

well

• 75 f

propbou

• Total coliform 

- 200/100 ml (monthly 

be required 

• Application 

rates in excess 

average) - 400/100 ml (daily 

of 2 in/wk may be approved provided the 

maximum) application is 

only for a portion of the year; requires a water balance for the summer season 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

332

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

South Dakota • Secondary 

treatment and disinfection 

• Total coliform 

- 200/100 ml (geometric mean) 

• Minimum of 

210 days capacity without consideration for evaporation 

• Maximum 

application rate limited to 2 in/acre/wk or a total of 24 in/acre/yr 

• Shallow wells 

in all directions of major groundwater flow from site and no more than 200 feet outside of the site perimeter, spaced no more than 500 feet apart, and extending into the groundwater table 

• Shallow wells 

within the site are also recommended 

Tennessee • Biological 

treatment 

• Additional 

• Site specific • Storage 

requirements determined by 

• Nitrogen -

percolate nitrate-nitrogen 

• Required Surfac

• 100 

bou

treatment either of two not to exceed • 50 frequirements are determined on a case-bymethods, 1) use of water balance 10 mg/l • Hydraulic - based on onsi

pondroad

case basis 

• Disinfection 

required 

calculations or, 2) use of a computer 

water balance using 5-year return monthly 

Spray 

[1] Ope• 300 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

and TSS (monthly 

program that was developed based upon an 

precipitation bou

• 150 

onsi

average) 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml 

extensive NOAA study of climatic 

pondroad

[2] For

variations • 150 throughout the United States 

bou

• 75 f

onsipond

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

333

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

road

Texas • Type II 

reclaimed water 

Reclaimed water 

• Sampling and 

analysis once per week for BOD5 or 

• Based on 

water balance 

on a 30-day average to have a quality of: 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

with treatment 

CBOD5 and 

fecal coliform 

using pond system 

• 20 mg/l BOD5 

or 15 mg/l CBOD5 with 

treatment other 

than pond system 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (geometric mean) - 800/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

Utah • Type II treated • Weekly • Alternative • 300 

wastewater - composite disposal option potasecondary sampling or diversion to well 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

334

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

treatment with disinfection 

• 25 mg/l BOD 

(monthly average) 

• TSS 

- 25 mg/l (monthly average) - 35 mg/l (weekly mean) 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (weekly median) - 800/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

• pH 6 – 9 

required for BOD 

• Daily 

composite sampling required for TSS 

• Daily 

monitoring of fecal coliform 

• pH monitored 

continuously or by daily grab samples 

storage required in case quality requirements not met 

• 300 

areafor pacce

• Imp

at lefeet potawell 

• Pub

to efstorairrigadispto be by a fenccommea

Washington • Class C -

oxidized and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day mean) - 240/100 ml (single sample) 

General compliance requirements: 

• 30 mg/l BOD 

and TSS (monthly mean) 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU (monthly) - 5 NTU (not to exceed at any time) 

• Minimum 

• BOD – 24-hour 

composite samples collected at least weekly 

• TSS – 24-hour 

composite samples collected at least daily 

• Total coliform 

and dissolved oxygen - grab samples collected at least daily 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring of turbidity 

• Warning 

alarms independent of normal power supply 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Emergency 

storage: shortterm, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

• Multiple 

treatment units or storage or disposal options 

• Qualified 

personnel available or on call at all times the irrigation 

• Storage 

required when no approved alternative disposal system exists 

• Storage 

volume established by determining storage period required for duration of a 10-year storm, using a minimum of 20 years of climatic data 

• At a minimum, 

system storage capacity should be the 

• Hydraulic 

loading rate to be determined based on a detailed water balance analysis 

• May be 

required 

• Monitoring 

program will be based on reclaimed water quality and quantity, site specific soil and hydrogeologic characteristics, and other considerations 

• 50 f

areaaccethe use prop

• 100 

potasupp

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 

335

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

chlorine residual of 1 mg/l after a contact time of 30 minutes 

system is operating 

volume equal to 3 times that portion of the average daily flow for which no alternative reuse or disposal system is permitted 

Wyoming • Minimum of • Treated • Multiple units • Emergency • Will be applied • 30 f

Class B wastewatersecondary 

wastewater to be analyzed for fecal 

and equipment 

• Alternative 

power sources 

storage for the purpose 

of beneficial reuse and will 

adjaprop

• 30 f

treatment and disinfection 

• Fecal coliform 

coliform, nitrate as N, ammonia as N, 

• Alarm systems 

and instrumentanot exceed the irrigation demand of the surfa

• 100 

pota

- greater than 2.2/100 ml but less than 

and pH at a minimum 

• Monitoring 

tion 

• Operator 

certification 

vegetation at the site 

• Not to be 

supp

200/100 ml frequency 

- once per month for 

and standby capability 

• Bypass and 

applied at a rate greater than the 

lagoon systems - once per 

dewatering capability 

• Emergency 

agronomic rate for the vegetation at 

week for mechanical systems 

• Frequency 

storage the site 

• Will be applied 

in a manner and time that 

specified in NPDES permit required if 

will not cause any surface runoff or 

more frequent contamination 

of a groundwater aquifer 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

336

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

Arizona Class A 

reclaimed water: 

• Case-by-case 

basis 

• Application 

rates based on 

• Secondary 

treatment, filtration and disinfection 

• Chemical feed 

facilities required to add coagulants or polymers if necessary to meet turbidity 

either the water allotment assigned by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (a water balance that considers consumptive use of water by 

criterion 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU (24-hour average) - 5 NTU (not to exceed at any time) 

• Fecal coliform 

the crop, turf, or landscape vegetation) or an alternative approved method 

- none detectable in 4 of last 7 daily samples - 23/100 ml (single sample maximum) 

Class B 

reclaimed water: 

• Secondary 

treatment and 

disinfection 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (not to exceed in 4 of the last 7 daily 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

337

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

samples) - 800/100 ml (single sample maximum) 

Arkansas • Primary 

treatment 

• As required by 

regulatory agency 

• Based on 

water balance using divisional average annual 90 percentile rainfall 

• Hydraulic - 0.5 

to 4.0 in/wk 

• Nitrogen -

percolate nitrate-nitrogen not to exceed 10 mg/l 

• Required • One well 

upgradient 

• 1 well within 

site 

• One well 

downgradient 

• More wells 

may be required on a case-by-case basis 

Spray • 200 • 1,32

pop

Non-sp

system

• 50 fe• 660 

pop

California Disinfected 

tertiary recycled 

water: 

• Oxidized, 

coagulated (not required if membrane filtration is used and/or turbidity requirements are met), filtered, disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day 

Disinfected 

tertiary recycled 

water: 

• Total coliform -

sampled at least once daily from the disinfected effluent 

• Turbidity 

- continuously sampled following filtration 

Disinfected 

secondary-2.2 

recycled water: 

• Total coliform -

sampled at least once daily from the disinfected 

• Warning 

alarms 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Multiple 

treatment units capable of treating entire flow with one unit not in operation or storage or disposal provisions 

• Emergency 

storage or disposal: shortterm, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

• Sufficient 

number of 

• No i

with disintertiarecywithof adomsuppunlecondmet 

• No 

impoof dtertiarecywithof adomsupp

• No i

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

338

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

period) - 240/100 ml (maximum any one sample) 

• Turbidity 

requirements for wastewater that has been coagulated and passed through natural undisturbed soils or a bed 

effluent qualified 

personnel 

withimpoof, dsecorecywithof adomsupp

• No i

withimpoof, 

of filter media und- maximum average of 2 NTU within a 24-hour period - not to exceed 

secorecywithof adom

5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period - maximum of 

supp

• No s

irrigaany watethan 

10 NTU at any time 

• Turbidity 

requirements for wastewater 

disintertiarecywithof a 

passed through membrane - not to exceed 

or a wheexpobe s

0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time 

that playscho

within a 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

339

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

24-hour period - maximum of 0.5 NTU at any time 

Disinfected 

secondary-2.2 

recycled water: 

• Oxidized and 

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) 

Undisinfected 

secondary 

recycled water: 

• Oxidized 

wastewater 

Colorado Consumed raw: 

[1] Surface 

irrigation 

• Oxidized and 

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

• Not acceptable 

for root crops or crops where edible portions contact ground 

[2] Spray 

• 500 

domsupp

• 100 

irriga

• Setb

propbaseuse adjoprop

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

340

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

irrigation 

• Oxidized, 

coagulated, clarified, filtered, and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

Processed food: • Oxidized and 

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day median) 

Orchards & 

Vineyards: 

[1] Surface 

irrigation 

• Oxidized and 

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day median) 

• Edible portion 

of plant cannot contact ground 

[2] Spray 

irrigation 

• Oxidized, 

coagulated, clarified, filtered, and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

Florida • Secondary • Parameters to • Class I • At a minimum, • Site specific • Required • 75 f

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

341

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

treatment with filtration and high-level disinfection 

• Chemical feed 

facilities to be provided 

• 20 mg/l 

CBOD5 

(annual average) 

• 5 mg/l TSS 

(single sample) 

• Total chlorine 

residual of at least 1 mg/l after a minimum acceptable contact time of 15 minutes at peak hourly flow 

• Fecal coliform 

- over 30-day period, 75 percent of samples below detection limits - 25/100 ml (single sample) 

• pH 6 - 8.5 

• Limitations to 

be met after disinfection 

be monitored and sampling frequency to be identified in wastewater facility permit 

• Minimum 

schedule for sampling and testing based on system capacity established for flow, pH, chlorine residual, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, CBOD5, 

nutrients, and fecal coliform 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring of turbidity prior to disinfection 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring of total chlorine residual or residual concentrations of other disinfectants 

• Monitoring for 

Giardia and 

reliability -requires multiple or back-up treatment units and a secondary power source 

• Minimum 

reject storage capacity equal to 1-day flow at the average daily design flow of the treatment plant or the average daily permitted flow of the reuse system, whichever is less 

• Minimum 

system size of 0.1 mgd (not required for toilet flushing and fire protection uses) 

• Staffing -

24 hrs/day, 7 days/wk or 6 hrs/day, 7 days/wk with diversion of reclaimed water to reuse 

system storage capacity shall be the volume equal to three times the portion of the average daily flow for which no alternative reuse or disposal system is permitted 

• Water balance 

required with volume of storage based on a 10-year recurrence interval and a minimum of 20 years of climatic data 

• Not required if 

alternative system is incorporated into the system design to ensure continuous facility operation 

• Existing or 

proposed lakes or ponds (such as golf course ponds) are 

• Design 

hydraulic loading rate -

maximum annual average of 2 in/wk is recommended 

• Based on 

nutrient and water balance assessments 

• One 

upgradient well located as close as possible to the site without being affected by the site’s discharge (background well) 

• One well at the 

edge of the zone of discharge downgradient of the site (compliance well) 

• One well 

downgradient from the site and within the zone of discharge (intermediate well) 

• One well 

located adjacent to unlined storage ponds or lakes 

• Other wells 

may be required depending on site-specific 

potasupp

• 75 f

reclawatetranfacilwatewell 

• Low 

nozzrequ100 outdeatindrinbathfacil

• 200 

unlinstorato powatewell

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

342

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

Cryptosporidium system only appropriate for criteria based on during periods storage if it will • Quarterly treatment plant of operator not impair the monitoring capacity presence ability of the required for - > 1 mgd, sampling one 

lakes or ponds to function as a 

water level, nitrate, total 

time during stormwater dissolved each two-year period - < 1 mgd , sampling one time during each 5 year 

management system 

• Aquifer 

storage and recovery allowed as 

solids, arsenic, cadmium, chloride, chromium, lead, fecal coliform, pH, 

period - samples to be taken immediately following 

provision of storage 

and sulfate 

• Monitoring 

may be required for additional 

disinfection parameters process based on site-

• Primary and 

secondary 

specific conditions and 

drinking water standards to be monitored 

groundwater quality 

by facilities > 

100,000 gpd 

Hawaii R-1 water: 

• Oxidized, 

filtered, and disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in 

• Daily flow 

monitoring 

• Continuous 

turbidity monitoring prior to and after filtration process 

• Continuous 

measuring and recording of 

• Multiple or 

standby units required with sufficient capacity to enable effective operation with any one unit out of service 

• Alarm devices 

• 20 days 

storage required unless it can be demonstrated that another time period is adequate or that no storage is necessary 

• Design 

application rate determined by water balance 

• Required • Groundwater 

monitoring system may consist of a number of lysimeters and/or monitoring wells depending on 

R-1 wa

• Min

feet watewell 

• Oute

impoat lefeet drinsupp

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

343

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

any 30-day chlorine required for • Storage site size, site R-2 waperiod) residual loss of power, requirements characteristics, • For - 200/100 ml • Daily high water based on location, irriga(maximum any monitoring of levels, failure water balance method of appone sample) fecal coliform of pumps or using at least a discharge, and 500 

• Inactivation • Weekly blowers, high 30-year record other resid

and/or removal monitoring of head loss on • Reject storage appropriate propof 99.999 BOD5 and filters, high required with a considerations placpercent of the suspended effluent volume equal • One well pubplaque-forming solids turbidity, loss to 1 day of flow upgradient and expounits of F- of coagulant or at the average two wells be sspecific polymer feed, daily design downgradient that bacteriophage and loss of flow for project sites elemMS2, or polio chlorine • Emergency 500 acres or schovirus residual system storage more athle

• Detectable • Standby power not required • One well within • Min

turbidity not to source where an the wetted field 100 exceed 5 NTU required for alternate area for each drinfor more than treatment plant effluent project whose supp15 minutes and distribution disposal surface area is • Outeand never to pump stations system has greater than or impoexceed 10 been approved equal to 1,500 at leNTU prior to acres feet filtration • One lysimeter drin

• Effluent 

turbidity not to 

per 200 acres 

• One lysimeter 

supp

R-3 wa

exceed 2 NTU for project sites • Min

• Chemical that have 150 

pretreatment greater than 40 drinfacilities but less than supprequired in all 200 acres • Outecases where • Additional impogranular media lysimeters may at lefiltration is be necessary feet used; not to address drinrequired for concerns of suppfacilities using public health or membrane environmental 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

344

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

filtration protection as 

• Theoretical related to 

chlorine variable contact time of characteristics 120 minutes of the and actual subsurface or modal contact of the time of 90 operations of minutes the project throughout which the chlorine residual is 5 mg/l 

R-2 water: • Oxidized and 

disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day median) - 200/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) 

• Theoretical 

chlorine contact time of 15 minutes and actual modal contact time of 10 minutes throughout which the chlorine residual is 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

345

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

Se

Dista

0.5 mg/l 

R-3 water: • Oxidized 

wastewater 

Idaho Raw food crops 

where reclaimed 

water contacts 

edible portion: 

• Oxidized, 

coagulated, clarified, filtered, and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

Raw food crops 

where reclaimed 

water only 

contacts unedible 

portion: 

• Oxidized and 

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

Processed foods 

and orchards & 

vineyards with no 

direct contact of 

reclaimed water: 

[1] Unrestricted public access • Disinfected 

primary effluent 

• Total coliform 

- 230/100 ml 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

346

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

(7-day median) 

[2] Restricted public access • Primary 

effluent 

Indiana • Secondary 

treatment and disinfection 

• 10 mg/l BOD5 

• Daily 

monitoring of TSS, coliform, and chlorine 

• Alternate 

power source required 

• Minimum of 90 

days effective storage capacity 

• Maximum 

hydraulic loading rate of 2 in/week 

• 200 

potasuppdrin

• 5 mg/l TSS 

prior to disinfection (24 hour average) 

• Fecal coliform 

- no detectable fecal coliform (7-day median) - 14/100 ml (single sample) 

• pH 6 - 9 

• Total chlorine 

residual at least 1 mg/l after a minimum contact time of 

residual 

• Weekly 

monitoring of BOD and pH 

• Monthly 

monitoring of total nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium 

• Annual 

monitoring of arsenic, cadmium, 

required sprin

• 300 

watestate 

• 300 

resid

30 minutes (if chlorination is used for 

copper, lead, mercury, nickel, 

disinfection) selenium, and 

zinc 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

347

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

Kansas • Secondary 

treatment with periodic discharge to surface waters 

• Primary 

treatment with no discharge to surface water 

• Storage 

provided to retain a minimum of 900 days average dry weather flow when no discharge to surface water is available 

• Maximum daily 

application rate of 3 in/ac/day 

• Maximum 

annual application rate of 40 in/acre 

• Based on soil 

and crop moisture and/or nutrient requirements of selected 

• Site specific • 500 

residarea

• 200 

wellwatenot oprop

• 100 

adjaprop

• Gro

table 

crop of at 

feet apparea 

Michigan • pH 5.5 - 10 • Flow • Daily, monthly, • May be • 100 

• 20 mg/l total measurement or annual required prop

inorganic • Grab samples design • Monitoring nitrogen collected and hydraulic requirements 

• 0.5 mg/l nitrite analyzed twice loading rate specific to 

• 5 mg/l each month for shall not be each site 

phosphorus ammonia- more than 7 

• 1 mg/l nitrogen, percent of the 

phosphorus if nitrate- permeability of surface water nitrogen, the most body is nitrite-nitrogen, restrictive soil downgradient sodium, layer within the within chloride, solum as 1,000 feet 

• Aluminum, 

phosphorus, and pH 

determined by the saturated 

150 ug/l 

• Chloride, 

250 mg/l 

• Sodium, 

hydraulic conductivity method or 12 percent of the 

150 mg/l permeability as 

• Sulfate, determined by 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

348

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

250 mg/l 

• Iron, 300 ug/l 

• Manganese, 

50 ug/l 

• THM limits 

• Treatment 

technology standards for 

the basin infiltration method 

• Annual 

hydraulic loading rate shall not be more than 3 

certain organic substances 

• Additional 

percent of the permeability of the solum 

effluent criteria when determined on a case-by-case basis 

determined by either the cylinder infiltration method or air entry permeameter test method 

Montana • Oxidized, • Effluent to be • Nitrogen and • Determined on • 100 

clarified, monitored on hydraulic a case-by-case watecoagulated, a regular basis loadings basis well filtered, and to show the determined • Consideration • Distdisinfected biochemical based on is given to surfa

• 10 mg/l or less and methods in groundwater dete

of BOD and bacteriological EPA Manual characteristics, a caTSS quality of the 625/1-81-013 past practices, basi

• Fecal coliform applied • Hydraulic depth to qua

- 23/100 ml wastewater loading must groundwater, efflu(single sample in any 30-day period) 

• Turbidity 

• Monitoring 

frequency to be determined on a case-bybe based on the wettest year in ten years cropping practices, etc. the 

disin

- 2 NTU case basis (average) - 5 NTU (not to exceed more 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

349

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

than 5 percent of the time during any 24-hour period) 

Nevada • At a minimum, 

secondary treatment with 

• Non

disinfection 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (30-day geometric mean) - 400/100 ml (maximum daily number) 

New Jersey • Fecal coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 14/100 ml (maximum any one sample) 

• Minimum 

chlorine residual - 1.0 mg/l after 15-minute contact at peak hourly flow 

• Alternative 

methods of disinfection, such as UV and ozone, may be approved 

• TSS not to 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring of chlorine residual produced oxidant at the compliance monitoring point 

• For spray 

irrigation, chlorination levels for disinfection should be continually evaluated to ensure chlorine residual levels 

• Not required 

when another permitted reuse system or effluent disposal system is incorporated into the system design 

• If system 

storage ponds are used, they do not have to be lined 

• Reject storage 

ponds shall be lined or sealed to prevent measurable seepage 

• Hydraulic 

loading rate - maximum annual average of 2 in/wk but may be increased based on a site-specific evaluation 

• The spray 

irrigation of reclaimed water shall not produce surface runoff or ponding 

• 75 f

potasuppthat exishave appcons

• 75 f

prova rewatetranfacilpotasupp

• 100 

outdeatindrinbath

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

350

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

exceed 5 mg/l before disinfection 

• Total nitrogen 

- 10 mg/l but may be less stringent if higher limit is still protective of environment 

• Secondary 

• Filtration 

• Chemical 

do not adversely impact vegetation 

• Continuous 

monitoring for turbidity before disinfection is required 

• Operating 

protocol required 

• User/Supplier 

• Existing or 

proposed ponds (such as golf course ponds) are appropriate for storage of reuse water if the ability of the ponds to function as stormwater management 

facil

• 100 

betwindoaestfeatadjaindoeatindrinfacilin throom 

addition prior to filtration may be necessary 

• A chlorine 

Agreement 

• Annual usage 

report 

• Annual 

systems is not impaired 

build

residual of 0.5 mg/l or greater is recommended to reduce odors, slime, 

inventory submittal on commercial operations using reclaimed 

and bacterial water to re-growth irrigate edible 

crop 

New Mexico • Adequately 

treated and disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

• Fecal coliform 

sample taken at point of diversion to 

– 1,000/100 ml irrigation 

system 

Oklahoma • Primary 

treatment 

• Standby power 

required for 

• Required for 

periods when 

• Based on the 

lower of the 

• 100 

adja

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

351

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

continuity of operation during power failures 

available wastewater exceeds design hydraulic loading rate, and when the 

two rates calculated for soil permeability and nitrogen requirements 

prop

• Add

distabe rwheprevwind

ground is saturated or frozen 

• Based on 

water balance 

causto dresidarea

• Buff

• Must provide be a 

at least 90 days of storage above that required for primary 

perm

treatment 

Oregon Unprocessed 

food : 

Unprocessed 

food: 

• Standby power 

with capacity 

Unproc

food: 

• Level IV -

biological treatment, clarification, 

• Total coliform 

sampling - once a day 

• Turbidity 

to fully operate all essential treatment processes 

• NonProces

and orc

vineya

coagulation, filtration, and disinfection 

• Total coliform 

- hourly 

Processed food 

crops and 

orchards and 

• Redundant 

treatment facilities and monitoring 

• 10 f

for sirriga

• 70 f

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

vineyards: 

• Total coliform 

equipment to meet required 

for sirriga

- 23/100 ml sampling levels of (maximum any - once a week treatment sample) • Alarm devices 

• Turbidity to provide 

- 2 NTU warning of loss (24-hour of power mean) and/or failure 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

352

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

- 5 NTU of process (5 percent of equipment time during 24-hour period) 

Processed food 

crops and 

orchards and 

vineyards: 

• Level II -

biological treatment and disinfection 

• Total coliform 

- 240/100 ml (2 consecutive samples) - 23/100 ml (7-day median) 

Texas Direct contact 

with edible 

portion of crop 

unless food crop 

undergoes 

pasteurization 

Direct contact 

with edible 

portion of crop 

unless food crop 

undergoes 

pasteurization 

• Based on 

water balance 

process process 

• Type I • Sampling and 

reclaimed analysis twice water per week for 

Reclaimed water BOD5 or 

on a 30 day 

average to have 

a quality of: 

• 5 mg/l BOD5 or 

CBOD5 

• 10 mg/l for 

landscape impoundment 

• Turbidity 

CBOD5, 

turbidity, and fecal coliform 

Direct contact 

with edible 

portion of crop 

not likely or 

where food crop 

undergoes 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

353

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

- 3 NTU 

• Fecal coliform 

- 20/100 ml (geometric mean) - 75/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

Direct contact 

with edible 

portion of crop 

not likely or 

where food crop 

undergoes 

pasteurization 

• Type II 

reclaimed water 

Reclaimed water 

on a 30-day 

average to have 

a quality of: 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

with treatment using pond system 

• 20 mg/l BOD5 

or 15 mg/l CBOD5 with 

treatment other than pond system 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (geometric mean) - 800/100 ml (not to exceed 

pasteurization 

• Sampling and 

analysis once per week for BOD5 or 

CBOD5 and 

fecal coliform 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

354

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

in any sample) 

Utah Spray irrigation 

of food crops: 

Spray irrigation 

of food crops: 

• Alternative 

disposal option 

Spray 

of food 

• Type I treated • Daily or diversion to • 50 f

wastewater composite storage pota- secondary sampling required in well treatment with required for case quality • Impfiltration and BOD requirements at ledisinfection • Continuous not met feet 

• 10 mg/l BOD turbidity pota

(monthly average) 

• Turbidity prior 

monitoring prior to disinfection 

well 

Surfac

of food 

to disinfection • Daily • 300 - not to exceed monitoring of pota2 NTU fecal coliform well (daily average) • Continuous • Imp- not to exceed total residual at le5 NTU at any chlorine feet time monitoring pota

• Fecal coliform • pH monitored well 

- none continuously or • Pubdetected by daily grab to ef(weekly median as determined 

samples 

Surface irrigation 

of food crops: 

storairrigadisp

from daily grab • Weekly to be samples) composite by a - 14/100 ml sampling fenc(not to exceed in any sample) 

required for BOD 

commea

• 1.0 mg/l total 

residual 

• Daily 

composite 

chlorine after sampling 30 minutes required for contact time at TSS peak flow • Daily 

• pH 6 - 9 monitoring of 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

355

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

Set

Dista

Surface irrigation 

of food crops: 

• Type II treated 

wastewater -

secondary treatment with disinfection 

• 25 mg/l BOD 

(monthly average) 

• TSS 

- 25 mg/l (monthly average) - 35 mg/l (weekly mean) 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (weekly median) – 800/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

• pH 6 - 9 

fecal coliform 

• pH monitored 

continuously or by daily grab samples 

Washington Spray irrigation of 

food crops or 

surface irrigation 

of root crops: 

• Class A -

oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day mean) - 23/100 ml (single sample) 

• BOD – 24-hour 

composite samples collected at least weekly 

• TSS – 24-hour 

composite samples collected at least daily 

• Total coliform 

and dissolved oxygen - grab samples 

• Warning 

alarms independent of normal power supply 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Emergency 

storage: short-term, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

• Multiple 

• Storage 

required when no approved alternative disposal system exists 

• Storage 

volume established by determining storage period required for duration of a 10-year storm, 

• Hydraulic 

loading rate to be determined based on a detailed water balance analysis 

• May be 

required 

• Monitoring 

program will be based on reclaimed water quality and quantity, site specific soil and hydrogeologic characteristics, and other considerations 

Spray ir

food cro

surface 

of root c

• 50 fee

potabsuppl

Surface 

of food c

• 50 fee

areas accesthe puthe us

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

356

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

Set

Dista

Surface irrigation collected at treatment units using a prope

of food crops: least daily or storage or minimum of 20 • 100 fe

• Class B - • Continuous disposal years of potab

oxidized and on-line options climatic data suppldisinfected monitoring of • Qualified • At a minimum, Irrigation 

• Total coliform turbidity personnel system storage crops th

- 2.2/100 ml available or on capacity undergo (7-day mean) call at all times should be the process- 23/100 ml the irrigation volume equal surface (single sample) system is to 3 times that of orcha

Irrigation of foods operating portion of the vineyard

crops that average daily • 100 fe

undergo flow for which areas 

processing or no alternative acces

surface irrigation reuse or the pu

of orchards and disposal the us

vineyards: system is prope

• Class D - permitted • 300 fe

oxidized and potabdisinfected suppl

• Total coliform 

- 240/100 ml (7-day mean) 

General 

compliance 

requirements: 

• 30 mg/l BOD 

and TSS (monthly mean) 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU (monthly) - 5 NTU (not to exceed at any time) 

• Minimum 

chlorine 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

357

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

residual of 1 mg/l after a contact time of 30 minutes 

West Virginia • Secondary 

treatment and disinfection 

• 30 mg/l BOD 

• 30 mg/l TSS 

• Frequency of 

reporting determined on a case-by-case basis 

• Minimum of 90 

days storage to be provided 

• Hydraulic -

maximum application rates of 0.25 in/hr 0.50 in/day 2.0 in/wk 

• Minimum of 

one well between project site and public well(s) or high capacity private wells 

• Minimum of 

one well in each direction of groundwater movement 

• Fen

plac50 fespra

• 350 

fencadjapropor hunletrajespraphysbuffeprov

Wyoming • Minimum of 

Class B wastewater -

secondary treatment and disinfection 

• Fecal coliform 

- greater than 2.2/100 ml but less than 200/100 ml 

• Treated 

wastewater to be analyzed for fecal coliform, nitrate as N, ammonia as N, and pH at a minimum 

• Monitoring 

frequency - once per month for lagoon systems - once per week for mechanical systems 

• Multiple units 

and equipment 

• Alternative 

power sources 

• Alarm systems 

and instrumentation 

• Operator 

certification and standby capability 

• Bypass and 

dewatering capability 

• Emergency 

storage 

• Emergency 

storage 

• Will be applied 

for the purpose of beneficial reuse and will not exceed the irrigation demand of the vegetation at the site 

• Not to be 

applied at a rate greater than the agronomic rate for the vegetation at the site 

• Will be applied 

in a manner 

• 30 f

adjaprop

• 30 f

surfa

• 100 

potasupp

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
358

Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops 

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

• Frequency 

specified in NPDES permit required if more frequent 

and time that will not cause any surface runoff or contamination of a groundwater aquifer 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

359

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

Alabama • Minimum EPA 

secondary, or 

• Controls 

required to 

• Based on 

water balance 

• Based on soil 

permeability 

• At least three 

downgradient 

• 100 

prop

equivalent to secondary, limits and appropriate disinfection 

• If wastewater 

stabilization 

indicate any system malfunction or permit varied field operations 

performed on a monthly basis with a precipitation input using a 5-year, 24-hour rainfall 

and nitrogen limits (10 mg/l nitrate) 

• Excessive 

rainwater runoff should be diverted 

monitoring wells 

• At least one 

upgradient monitoring well 

• Contaminants 

in groundwater 

• 300 

exishabresid

• Spra

not awith

pond is used, pond must meet ADEM 

event, 30-year minimum base period 

• Excessive 

ponding should be avoided 

not to exceed primary and secondary 

of apereor st

requirements with second cell being used 

• In addition to 

storage dictated by 

maximum contaminant levels 

• If irr

causinter

as a holding pond 

• Mechanical 

water balance, a minimum of 15 days 

• Minimum 

depth to groundwater, 

streabecopere

systems, if used, should allow as little 

storage should be provided for contingencies 

without use of an underdrain collection 

irrigaceas100 

nitrification as possible 

system, shall be 4 feet 

strea

• Spra

not awellprot(WHno wdelinexisminidistaappshalfeet requ

• No s

100 flood

Alaska • Secondary 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

360

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

treatment, and if discharge is potential health hazard, disinfection 

• BOD5 and TSS 

from source other than stabilization pond - 30 mg/l (30-day average) - 45 mg/l (7-day average) - 60 mg/l (24-hour average) 

• BOD5 from 

stabilization pond - 45 mg/l (30-day average) and a percent removal that is not less than 65 percent by weight - 65 mg/l (7-day average) 

• Suspended 

solids from stabilization pond - 70 mg/l (30-day average) 

• pH 6 - 9 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

361

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

Arizona Class B 

reclaimed water: 

• Case-by-case 

basis 

• Application 

rates based on 

• Secondary 

treatment and 

either the water allotment 

disinfection 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (not to exceed in 4 of the last 

assigned by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (a 

7 daily samples) - 800/100 ml 

water balance that considers consumptive 

(single sample maximum) 

Class C 

use of water by the crop, turf, or landscape 

reclaimed water: 

• Secondary 

treatment in a 

vegetation) or an alternative approved 

series of method wastewater stabilization ponds, including aeration, with or without disinfection 

• Minimum total 

retention time of 20 days 

• Fecal coliform 

- 1,000/100 ml (not to exceed in 4 of the last 7 daily samples) - 4,000/100 ml (single sample maximum) 

Arkansas • Primary • Based on • Hydraulic - 0.5 • Required Spray 

treatment water balance to 4.0 in/wk • One well • 200 

• Disinfection using divisional • Nitrogen - upgradient • 1,32

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

362

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

also required when irrigating dairy cattle pasture land 

average annual 90 percentile rainfall 

percolate nitrate-nitrogen not to exceed 10 mg/l 

• 1 well within 

site 

• One well 

downgradient 

• More wells 

may be required on a case-by-case basis 

pop

Non-spsystem• 50 fe• 660 

pop

California Ornamental 

nursery stock and sod farms where access by general public is not restricted, pasture for milking animals, and any nonedible vegetation where access is controlled so that the irrigated area cannot be used as if it were part of a park, playground, or schoolyard • Disinfected 

secondary-23 recycled wateroxidized and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day median) - 240/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day 

Disinfected secondary-23 recycled water • Total coliform 

– sampled at least once daily from the disinfected effluent 

• Warning 

alarms 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Multiple 

treatment units capable of treating entire flow with one unit not in operation or storage or disposal provisions 

• Emergency 

storage or disposal: short-term, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

• Sufficient 

number of qualified personnel 

• No i

withimpoof, dsecorecywithof adomsupp

• No i

withimpoof, undsecorecywithof adomsupp

• No s

irriga100 residplacpubexpobe sthat playscho

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

363

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

period) 

Non food-bearing trees, ornamental nursery stock and sod farms, fodder and fiber crops, pasture for animals not producing milk for human consumption, and seed crops not eaten by humans: • Undisinfected 

secondary recycled wateroxidized wastewater 

Colorado • Oxidized and • 500 

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day median) 

domsupp

• 100 

irriga

• Setb

propbaseuse adjoprop

Delaware • Biological 

treatment and 

• Parameters 

which may 

• Storage 

provisions 

• Maximum 

design 

• Required 

• One well 

• 150 

prop

disinfection 

• BOD5 

- 50 mg/l at 

require monitoring include volume 

required either as a separate facility or 

wastewater loadings limited to 

upgradient of site or otherwise 

bouand shou

average design flow - 75 mg/l at 

of water applied to spray fields, 

incorporated into the pretreatment 

2.5 in/week 

• Maximum 

instantaneous 

outside the influence of the site for 

interexteroad

peak flow 

• TSS 

BOD, suspended 

system 

• Minimum 15 

wastewater application 

background monitoring 

• 100 

pere

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

364

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

- 50 mg/l for mechanical 

solids, fecal coliform 

days storage required 

rates limited to 0.25 in/hour 

• One well within 

wetted field 

or st

• 50 f

systems - 90 mg/l for ponds 

bacteria, pH, COD, TOC, ammonia 

unless other measures for controlling flow 

• Design 

wastewater loading must 

area of each drainage basin intersected by 

of chinterwate

• Fecal coliform 

- not to exceed 

nitrogen, nitrate 

are demonstrated 

be determined as a function of 

site 

• Two wells 

• If irr

caus

200/100 ml at all times 

nitrogen, total Kjeldahl 

• Must determine 

operational, 

precipitation, evapotransdowngradient in each inter

wate

nitrogen, total phosphorus, chloride, Na, 

wet weather, and water balance 

piration, design percolation rate, nitrogen 

drainage basin intersected by site 

becoperefoot 

K, Ca, Mg, metals, and priority 

storage requirements 

loading and other constituent 

• One well 

upgradient and 1 well 

requwill a

• Wet

pollutants 

• Parameters 

and sampling 

loading limitations, groundwater 

downgradient of the pond treatment and 

buffedetea ca

frequency determined on 

and drainage conditions, and 

storage facilities in 

basi

a case-by-case average and each drainage basis peak design 

wastewater flows and 

basin intersected by site 

seasonal fluctuations 

• May require 

measurement of depth to groundwater, pH, COD, TOC, nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, electrical conductivity, chloride, fecal coliform bacteria, metals, and priority pollutants 

• Parameters 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

365

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

and sampling frequency determined on a case-by-case basis 

Florida • Secondary 

treatment and basic 

• Parameters to 

be monitored and sampling 

• At a minimum, 

system storage capacity shall 

• Site specific • Design 

hydraulic 

• Required 

• One 

upgradient well 

• 100 

buildpart 

disinfection 

• 20 mg/l 

CBOD5 and 

frequency to be identified in wastewater 

be the volume equal to 3 times the 

loading rate -maximum annual 

located as close as possible to the 

treafacilsyst

TSS (annual average) 

• 30 mg/l 

facility permit 

• Minimum 

schedule for 

portion of the average daily flow for which 

average of 2 in/wk is recommended 

site without being affected by the site’s 

munope

• 100 

CBOD5 and 

TSS (monthly average) 

sampling and testing based on system 

no alternative reuse or disposal 

• Based on 

nutrient and water balance 

discharge (background well) 

prop

• 500 

pota

• 45 mg/l 

CBOD5 and 

TSS (weekly 

capacity established for flow, pH, 

system is permitted 

• Water balance 

assessments • One well at the 

edge of the zone of 

suppand and 

average) 

• 60 mg/l 

CBOD5 and 

chlorine residual, dissolved 

required with volume of storage based 

discharge downgradient of the site 

surfa

• 100 

recla

TSS (single sample) 

• 10 mg/l TSS 

for subsurface application systems (single sample) 

oxygen, suspended solids, CBOD5, 

nutrients, and fecal coliform 

• Primary and 

secondary 

on a 10-year recurrence interval and a minimum of 20 years of climatic data 

• Not required if 

(compliance well) 

• One well 

downgradient from the site and within the zone of 

watetranfacilwatewell

• 100 

outd

• Chlorine 

residual of 0.5 mg/l 

drinking water standards to be monitored 

alternative system is incorporated 

discharge (intermediate well) 

eatindrinbath

maintained after at least 15 minutes 

by facilities > 

100,000 gpd 

into the system design to ensure 

• Other wells 

may be required 

facil

• 500 

new 

contact time at peak flow 

• Fecal coliform 

continuous facility operation 

depending on site-specific criteria 

storato powate

- 200/100 ml (annual 

• Quarterly 

monitoring 

well

• Som

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

366

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

average) - 200/100 ml 

required for water level, 

distabe r

(monthly geometric mean) 

nitrate, total dissolved solids, arsenic, 

adddisinand 

- 400/100 ml (not to exceed in more than 10 percent of 

cadmium, chloride, chromium, lead, fecal 

are if altapptech

samples in a 30-day period) - 800/100 ml 

coliform, pH, and sulfate 

• Monitoring 

used 

(single sample) 

• pH 6 - 8.5 • Limitations to 

may be required for additional 

be met after disinfection 

parameters based on sitespecific conditions and groundwater quality 

Georgia • Secondary 

treatment 

• Continuous 

turbidity 

• Multiple 

process units 

• Reject water 

storage equal 

• Dete

a ca

followed by coagulation, filtration, and 

monitoring prior to disinfection 

• Ability to 

isolate and bypass all 

to at least 3 days of flow at the average 

basi

disinfection 

• 5 mg/l BOD • 5 mg/l TSS • Fecal coliform 

• Weekly 

sampling for TSS and BOD 

• Daily 

process units 

• System must 

be capable of treating peak 

daily design flow 

• One of the 

following 

- 23/100 ml (monthly average) 

monitoring for fecal coliform 

• Daily 

flows with the largest unit out of service 

options must be in place to account for wet 

- 100/100 ml (maximum any sample) 

monitoring for pH 

• Detectable 

• Equalization 

may be required 

weather periods - sufficient 

• pH 6 - 9 • Turbidity not to 

exceed 3 NTU 

disinfection residual monitoring 

• Back-up power 

supply 

• Alarms to warn 

storage onsite or at the customer’s 

prior to disinfection 

of loss of power supply, 

location to handle the 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

367

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

• Detectable 

disinfectant residual at the delivery point 

failure of pumping systems, failure of disinfection systems, or turbidity greater than 3 NTU 

flows until irrigation can be resumed - additional land set aside that can be irrigated without causing harm to the cover crop - An NPDES permit for all or part of the flow 

Hawaii R-1 water: 

• Oxidized, 

filtered, and disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) - 200/100 ml (maximum any one sample) 

• Inactivation 

and/or removal of 99.999 percent of the plaque-forming units of Fspecific bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus 

• Detectable 

• Daily flow 

monitoring 

• Continuous 

turbidity monitoring prior to and after filtration process 

• Continuous 

measuring and recording of chlorine residual 

• Daily 

monitoring of fecal coliform 

• Weekly 

monitoring of BOD5 and 

suspended solids 

• Multiple or 

standby units required with sufficient capacity to enable effective operation with any one unit out of service 

• Alarm devices 

required for loss of power, high water levels, failure of pumps or blowers, high head loss on filters, high effluent turbidity, loss of coagulant or polymer feed, and loss of chlorine residual 

• Standby power 

• 20 days 

storage required unless it can be demonstrated that another time period is adequate or that no storage is necessary 

• Storage 

requirements based on water balance using at least a 30-year record 

• Reject storage 

required with a volume equal to 1 day of flow at the average daily design flow 

• Emergency 

system storage not required 

• Design 

application rate determined by water balance 

• Required 

• Groundwater 

monitoring system may consist of a number of lysimeters and/or monitoring wells depending on site size, site characteristics, location, method of discharge, and other appropriate considerations 

• One well 

upgradient and two wells downgradient for project sites 500 acres or more 

• One well within 

R-1 wa• Min

feet watewell 

• Oute

impoat lefeet drinsupp

R-2 wa• For 

irrigaapp500 residpropplacpubexpobe sthat elemschoathle

• Min

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

368

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

turbidity not to source where an the wetted field 100 exceed 5 NTU required for alternate area for each drinfor more than treatment plant effluent project whose supp15 minutes and distribution disposal surface area is • Outeand never to pump stations system has greater than or impoexceed 10 been approved equal to 1,500 at leNTU prior to acres feet filtration • One lysimeter drin

• Effluent per 200 acres supp

turbidity not to • One lysimeter R-3 waexceed 2 NTU for project sites • Min

• Chemical that have 150 

pretreatment greater than 40 drinfacilities but less than supprequired in all 200 acres • Outecases where • Additional impogranular media lysimeters may at lefiltration is be necessary feet used; not to address drinrequired for public health suppfacilities using concerns or membrane environmental filtration protection as 

• Theoretical related to 

chlorine variable contact time of characteristics 120 minutes of the and actual subsurface or modal contact of the time of 90 operations of minutes the project throughout which the chlorine residual is 5 mg/l 

R-2 water: • Oxidized and 

disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 23/100 ml 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

369

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

(7-day median) - 200/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) 

• Theoretical 

chlorine contact time of 15 minutes and actual modal contact time of 10 minutes throughout which the chlorine residual is 0.5 mg/l 

R-3 water: • Oxidized 

wastewater 

Idaho Unrestricted 

public access: • Disinfected 

primary effluent 

• Total coliform 

- 230/100 ml (7-day median) 

Restricted public access: 

• Primary 

effluent 

Illinois • Two-cell 

lagoon or 

• Minimum 

storage 

• Based on the 

limiting 

• Required 

• One well 

• 200 

resid

mechanical secondary 

capacity equal to at least 150 

characteristic of the treated 

upgradient for determining 

lines 

• 25 f

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

370

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

Se

Dista

treatment days of 

wastewater at design average flow except in southern Illinois areas where a minimum 120 days of storage capacity to be provided 

• Storage can 

be determined based on a rational design that must include capacity for the wettest year with a 20-year return frequency 

wastewater and the site 

• Balances must 

be calculated and submitted for water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and BOD 

background concentrations 

• Two wells 

downgradient in the dominant direction of groundwater movement 

• Wells between 

each potable water well and the application area if within 1,000 feet 

• Monitoring of 

nitrates, ammonia nitrogen, chlorides, sulfates, pH, total dissolved solids, phosphate, and coliform bacteria 

residline if surroa fenminimheighinche

• No b

requiappliits asdryinoccuperiothe aclosepubli

Indiana • Secondary 

treatment and disinfection 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

• 30 mg/l TSS • Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (7-day median) - 800/100 ml (single sample) 

• pH 6 - 9 • Total chlorine 

residual at least 1 mg/l after a 

• Daily 

monitoring of TSS, coliform and chlorine residual 

• Weekly 

monitoring of BOD and pH 

• Monthly 

monitoring of total nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, 

• Alternate 

power source required 

• Minimum of 90 

days effective storage capacity required 

• Maximum 

hydraulic loading rate of 2 in/week 

• 200 f

potabsuppdrinksprin

• 300 f

watestate 

• 300 f

resid

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

371

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

minimum contact time of 30 minutes (if chlorination is used for disinfection) 

phosphorus, and potassium 

• Annual 

monitoring of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc 

Iowa • At a minimum, 

treatment equivalent to that obtained from a primary lagoon cell 

• Disinfection 

- required for all land application systems with spray irrigation application technique - must precede actual spraying of the wastewater on to a field area and must not precede storage - minimum contact time of 15 minutes with equipment necessary to maintain a 

• Monitoring of 

the following parameters required unless it has been demonstrated that they are present in insignificant amounts in the influent wastewater: total organic carbon, total dissolved solids, sodium absorption ratio, electrical conductivity, total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, organic nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, 

• Minimum of 

two storage cells required capable of series and parallel operation 

• Minimum days 

of storage based on climatic restraints 

• When flows 

are generated only during the application period, a storage capacity of 45 days or the flow generated during the period of operation (whichever is less) must be provided 

• When 

discharging to a receiving waterway on a periodic basis, storage for 180 days of average wet 

• Determined by 

using a water balance per month of operation 

• For overland 

flow systems, maximum hydraulic application rate of 3 in/week 

• Monitoring 

required adjacent to the site both up and downstream of the site in reference to the general groundwater flow direction 

• 300 

exisdwepubareaincluand 

• 400 

exispotasupplocaprop

• 300 

struccontflowor ophysfeatmay direcconnbetwgroutable surfa

• Wet

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

372

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

residual chlorine level 

chloride, pH, alkalinity, 

weather flow is required 

dispto be 

of 0.5 mg/l hardness, 

trace elements, and 

50 fethe line 

coliform bacteria 

app

Additio

• Location of 

monitoring in 

requireSlow R

effluent prior to site application 

• Reporting 

System

• 1,00

any 

frequency depends on size of system 

pubsupp

• 500 

pubimpo

• _ m

pubimpoused sourwatepotasupp

Kansas • Secondary • Storage • Maximum daily • Site specific • 500 

treatment with periodic discharge to 

provided to retain a minimum of 

application rate of 3 in/ac/day 

• Maximum 

residarea

• 200 

surface waters 

• Primary 

treatment with 

90-days average dry weather flow 

annual application rate of 40 in/acre 

wellwateoff o

no discharge to surface water 

when no discharge to surface water 

• Based on soil 

and crop moisture 

prop

• 100 

adja

is available and/or nutrient 

requirements of selected crop 

prop

• Gro

table of at feet app

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

373

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

area 

Maryland • 70 mg/l BOD 

• 90 mg/l TSS • pH 6.5 - 8.5 • Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml 

• Minimum of 

60-days storage to be provided for all systems receiving wastewater flows throughout the year 

• Maximum 

application rate of 2 in/wk on annual average basis 

• Water balance 

required based on wettest year in the last 10 years of record 

• Actual 

application rate accepted must consider permeability of the soils, depth to groundwater, and the nutrient balance of the site 

• May be 

required 

• One well 

upgradient of site 

• Two wells 

adjacent to the property line and downgradient of site 

• Monitoring 

frequency determined on a case-by-case basis 

• 200 

propwateand spra

• 500 

housdeveand spra

• Red

the up to percconswith wind

• Min

buffe50 feotheslow syst

Massachusetts • Secondary 

treatment with filtration and disinfection 

• pH 6 - 9 • 10 mg/l BOD5 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU (average over 24-our period) - 5 NTU (not to exceed at any time) 

• Fecal coliform 

- no detectable colonies 

• pH - daily • BOD - weekly • Turbidity -

continuous monitoring prior to disinfection 

• Fecal coliform 

- daily 

• Disinfection 

UV intensity -daily or chlorine residual - daily 

• TSS - twice 

per week 

• EPA Class I 

Reliability standards may be required 

• Two 

independent and separate sources of power 

• Unit 

redundancy 

• Additional 

storage 

• Immediate, 

permitted discharge alternatives are required for emergency situations and for nongrowing season disposal 

• Required 

• Monitoring 

wells to be located and constructed to strategically sample the geologic units of interest between the discharges and sensitive receptors and withdrawal points 

• Sensitive 

• 100 

buildresidpropprivaClassurfabodsurfaintak

• Othe

privausinbarrform or tr

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

374

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

(7-day median) - 14/100 ml 

• Nitrogen -

twice per 

receptors include, but 

at thside 

(single sample) 

• 5 mg/l TSS • 10 mg/l total 

month 

• Phosphorus -

twice per 

are not limited to public and private wells, 

bufferedusetb

nitrogen 

• Class I 

groundwater permit 

month 

• Heterotrophic 

plate count -quarterly 

surface waters, embayments, and ACECs 

• Monitoring and 

distafeet 

• No s

irriga

standards (SDWA Drinking Water 

• MS-2 phage -

quarterly 

Permit standards 

testing frequency and parameters 

direcZonpub

Standards) -variable testing 

requirements 

determined based on land use, effluent 

supp

quality and quantity, and the sensitivity of receptors 

Michigan • pH 5.5 - 10 • Flow • Daily, monthly, • May be • 100 

• 20 mg/l total measurement or annual required prop

inorganic • Grab samples design • Monitoring nitrogen collected and hydraulic requirements 

• 0.5 mg/l nitrite analyzed twice loading rate specific to • 5 mg/l each month for shall not be each site 

phosphorus ammonia- more than 7 

• 1 mg/l nitrogen, percent of the 

phosphorus if nitrate- permeability of surface water nitrogen, the most body is nitrite-nitrogen, restrictive soil downgradient within 

sodium, chloride, 

layer within the solum as 

1,000 feet phosphorus, determined by 

• Aluminum, 150 and pH the saturated 

ug/l hydraulic 

• Chloride, 250 conductivity 

mg/l method or 12 

• Sodium, 150 percent of the 

mg/l permeability as 

• Sulfate, 250 determined by 

mg/l the basin 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

375

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

• Iron, 300 ug/l • Manganese, 

50 ug/l 

• THM limits • Treatment 

technology standards for 

infiltration method 

• Annual 

hydraulic loading rate shall not be more than 3 

certain organic substances 

• Additional 

percent of the permeability of the solum 

effluent criteria when determined on a case-by-case basis 

determined by either the cylinder infiltration method or air entry permeameter test method 

Missouri • Treatment • Minimum of 45 • Application • Minimum of • 150 

equivalent to that obtained from primary 

days in south with no discharge 

rates shall in no case exceed 

one well between site and public 

exisdwepub

wastewater pond cell 

• Minimum of 90 

days in north with no discharge 

• Based on the 

design wastewater 

- 0.5 in/hour - 1.0 in/day - 3.0 in/week 

• Maximum 

annual application rate not to exceed 

supply well area

exclroadhigh

• 50 f

prop

• 300 

flows and net rainfall minus evaporation 

a range from 4 to10 percent of the design 

potasuppnot o

expected for a one in 1--year return 

sustained permeability rate for the 

propsinklosin

frequency for the storage period selected 

number of days per year when soils are 

or ostrucphys

not frozen 

• Nitrogen 

featmay 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

376

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

loading not to direcexceed the connamount of betwnitrogen that groucan be used by table the vegetation surfato be grown 

Montana Fodder, fiber, and • Effluent to be • Nitrogen and • Determined on • 100 

seed crops: • Oxidized 

wastewater 

monitored on a regular basis to show the 

hydraulic loadings determined 

a case-by-case basis 

• Consideration 

watewell 

• Dist

• Disinfection 

generally not required 

biochemical and bacteriological 

based on methods in EPA Manual 

is given to groundwater characteristics, 

surfadetea ca

Pasture for milking animals: • Oxidized and 

quality of the applied wastewater 

625/1-81-013 

• Hydraulic 

loading must 

past practices, depth to groundwater, 

basiquaefflu

disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 23/100 ml 

• Monitoring 

frequency to be determined 

be based on the wettest year in ten 

cropping practices, etc. 

the disin

Additio

(7-day median) on a case-bycase basis years require

fodderseed c

• Fen

be p

• 200 

betwfencirriga

• 200 

dweincluresidprop

Nebraska • Biological • Site specific • Hydraulic • Site specific 

treatment loading rate 

should not exceed 4 in/wk 

• Nitrogen 

loading not to 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

377

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

exceed crop uptake 

Nevada • Secondary Spray 

treatment with • 400 disinfection foot 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 buffe

• Disinfection depe

Spray irrigation: 

Minimum buffer 

disinleve

zone of 400 feet Surfac

• Fecal coliform • Non

- 200/100 ml (30-day geometric mean) - 400/100 ml (maximum daily number) 

Minimum buffer zone of 800 feet • Fecal coliform 

- no limit 

Surface irrigation: 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (30-day geometric mean) - 400/100 ml (maximum daily number) 

New Jersey • Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (monthly 

• Submission of 

Standard Operations 

• Not required 

when another permitted 

• Hydraulic 

loading rate - maximum 

• 500 

potasupp

average, geometric mean) 

Procedure that ensures proper disinfection to 

reuse system or effluent disposal 

annual average of 2 in/wk but 

that exishave 

- 400/100 ml (maximum any one sample) 

the required level of 1.0 mg/l 

system is incorporated into the system 

may be increased based on a 

appcons

• 100 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

378

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

• Minimum 

chlorine 

• Chlorination 

levels should 

design 

• If system 

site-specific evaluation 

prova re

residual -1.0 mg/l after 15-minute 

be continually evaluated to ensure the 

storage ponds are used, they do not have to 

• The 

distribution of reclaimed 

watetranfacil

contact at peak hourly flow 

• Alternative 

methods of 

reclaimed water will not adversely impact 

be lined 

• Reject storage 

ponds shall be lined or sealed 

water shall not produce surface runoff or ponding 

potasupp

• 500 

FW1 

disinfection, such as UV and ozone, 

vegetation 

• Annual usage 

report 

to prevent measurable seepage 

• Land 

application sites shall not 

watePineWat

may be approved 

• TSS - existing 

• Existing or 

proposed ponds (such as 

be frozen or saturated when applying 

SheWat

• All o

treatment requirements as specified in 

golf course ponds) are appropriate for 

reclaimed water 

surfasetbdista

the NJPDES permit for the discharge 

storage of reuse water if the ability of 

be eon a case 

• Total nitrogen 

- 10 mg/l but may be less 

the ponds to function as stormwater 

• 100 

outdeatin

stringent if higher limit is still protective 

management systems is not impaired 

drinbathfacil

of environment 

• Secondary 

New Mexico Fodder, fiber, • Fecal coliform 

and seed crops: sample taken 

• Primary 

effluent 

at point of diversion to 

Pastures for irrigation milking cows 

• Adequately 

system 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

379

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 100/100 ml 

New York • Secondary 

treatment and 

• Flow 

measurement 

• Two weeks 

plus any flow 

• Hydraulic - 3 

in/wk 

• Required 

• Minimum of 

• 200 

surfa

disinfection and 

wastewater characteristics 

generated in prohibited time period 

• Organic - 600 

lbs of BOD/acre/day 

three off-field wells 

dwepubroad

(includes rainfall events) 

• Maximum 

salinity - 1,000 mg/l 

North Dakota • If waste • Site specific 

stabilization • Based on soils ponds are used 

type and type of vegetation 

- minimum 180 days capacity without 

• Application 

rates generally between 

consideration for evaporation 

• Representative 

0.5 to 4 in/wk 

sample of reclaimed water must be submitted to determine suitability for irrigation 

Ohio • Biological 

treatment 

Large system monitoring 

• Operational 

storage of 4 

• Determined by 

calculating a 

• Monitoring 

wells 

• 100 

priva

• Disinfection 

should be considered 

(150,000 to 500,000 gpd): • Twice weekly 

times the daily design flow needed 

water and nutrient balance 

upgradient and downgradient of large 

well 

• 300 

com

• 40 mg/l 

CBOD5 

• Fecal coliform 

for CBOD5, 

total coliform (when 

• Storage 

provisions for at least 130 

irrigation systems 

• Monitoring 

wate

• 100 

sink 

(30-day average) 

irrigating) and storage 

days of design average flow 

wells should be sampled at 

• 50 f

drai

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

380

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

- 23/100 ml with no public 

volume 

• Monthly 

needed for periods when 

the beginning and the end of 

• 50 f

surfa

access buffer - 1,000/100 ml with 100 foot 

monitoring for total inorganic nitrogen 

irrigation is not recommended 

• Actual storage 

the irrigation season 

• 100 

road way 

public access buffer - No disinfection 

• Daily 

monitoring for flow 

Small system 

requirements determined by performing water balance 

windusinirriga

• 10 f

necessary with 200 foot or more public 

monitoring: (<150,000 gpd) • Weekly 

• Permits can be 

obtained for stream 

rightwith or w

access buffer 

• Limits for 

metals 

monitoring of CBOD5 and 

storage 

discharge during winter and times of 

irriga

• 50 f

prop

volume 

• Monthly 

monitoring of 

high stream flow to reduce storage needs 

total coliform 

• Daily 

monitoring of 

flow 

Oklahoma • Primary 

treatment 

• Standby power 

required for continuity of operation during power failures 

• Required for 

periods when available wastewater exceeds design hydraulic loading rate, and when the 

• Based on the 

lower of the two rates calculated for soil permeability and nitrogen requirements 

• 100 

adjaprop

• Add

distabe rwheprevwind

ground is saturated or 

causto d

frozen resid

• Based on area

water balance • Buff

• Must provide 

at least 90 

be a perm

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

381

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

days of storage above that required for primary treatment 

Oregon Pasture for 

animals, sod, ornamental 

Pasture for animals, sod, ornamental 

• Standby power 

with capacity to fully operate 

Pasturanimaornam

nursery stock, christmas trees, 

nursery stock, christmas trees, 

all essential treatment 

nurserchristm

and firewood and firewood processes and fir

• Level II - • Total coliform • Redundant • 10-f

biological treatment and 

sampling - 1 time per 

treatment facilities and 

with irriga

disinfection 

• Total coliform 

- 240/100 ml 

week 

Fodder, fiber, and seed crops 

monitoring equipment to meet required 

• 70-f

with irriga

(2 consecutive samples) - 23/100 ml 

not for human ingestion and commercial 

levels of treatment 

• Alarm devices 

Foddeand senot for 

(7 day median) 

Fodder, fiber, and seed crops 

timber 

• None required 

to provide warning of loss of power 

ingesticommtimber 

not for human ingestion and commercial timber 

• Level I -

biological treatment 

and/or failure of process equipment 

• 10 f

with irriga

• Site 

requwith irriga

Pennsylvania • Secondary • Storage • Hydraulic • A minimum of 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

382

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

treatment and disinfection 

requirements determined 

loading rates based on a 

two wells must be located 

• Minimum of 85 

percent removal of 

using daily, weekly, or monthly water 

water balance that includes precipitation, 

downgradient of the application 

CBOD5 and balance infiltration rate, area 

TSS 

• Concentration 

levels based 

calculations 

• Seasonal 

discharge to 

evapotranspiration, soil storage 

on a 30-day average - 25 mg/l 

surface waters may be an alternative to 

capabilities, and subsoil permeability 

CBOD5 - 30 mg/l TSS 

• Fecal coliform 

storage • Application 

rates both site and waste 

- 200/100 ml (monthly geometric 

specific 

• Application 

rates greater 

average) 

• pH 6 - 9 

than 2 in/ac/wk generally not considered 

South Carolina • Secondary • Nitrate • Hydraulic - • Required • 200 

treatment and disinfection 

• BOD5 and TSS 

monitoring required 

maximum of 0.5-2 in/wk depending on 

• One well 

upgradient 

• Two wells 

surfaof thoccu

- 30 mg/l (monthly average) - 45 mg/l 

depth to groundwater 

• A nitrate to 

nitrogen 

downgradient 

• At larger sites, 

more monitoring 

buildpotawell

• 100 

(weekly average) 

• Total coliform 

loading balance may be required 

wells may be required 

propbou

- 200/100 ml (monthly average) 

• Application 

rates in excess of 2 in/wk may 

- 400/100 ml (daily maximum) 

be approved provided the application is only for a portion of the 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

383

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

year; requires a water balance for the summer season 

South Dakota • Secondary 

treatment 

• Minimum of 

210 days 

• Maximum 

application rate 

• Shallow wells 

in all directions 

• 1 m

mun

capacity without consideration 

limited to 2 in/acre/wk or a total of 

of major groundwater flow from site 

wate

• _ m

priva

for evaporation 24 in/acre/yr and no more 

than 200 feet outside of the 

domsuppand 

site perimeter, spaced no more than 500 

hab

• _ m

state 

feet apart, and extending into the 

and areadisin

groundwater table 

• Shallow wells 

• 100 

neigprop

within the site are also recommended 

or roway

Tennessee • Biological 

treatment 

• Treated to a 

• Site specific • Storage 

requirements determined by 

• Nitrogen -

percolate nitrate-nitrogen 

• Required Surfac

• 100 

bou

level afforded either of two not to exceed • 50 fby lagoons 

• Disinfection 

methods 1) use of water 

10 mg/l 

• Hydraulic -

onsipond

generally not required, however can 

balance calculations or, 2) use of a 

based on water balance using 5-year 

road

Spray [1] Ope

be required when deemed necessary 

computer program that was developed 

return monthly precipitation 

• 300 

bou

• 150 

based upon an extensive 

onsipond

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

384

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

NOAA study of climatic variations 

road

[2] For• 150 

throughout the United States 

bou

• 75 f

onsipondroad

Texas Type I reclaimed 

water: 

Type I reclaimed water: 

• Based on 

water balance 

• 5 mg/l BOD5 or • Sampling and 

CBOD5 (30-

day average) 

• 10 mg/l for 

analysis twice per week for BOD5 or 

landscape impoundment (30-day 

CBOD5, 

turbidity, and fecal coliform 

average) 

• Turbidity 

- 3 NTU 

Type II reclaimed water: 

• Sampling and 

• Fecal coliform 

- 20/100 ml (geometric 

analysis once per week for BOD5 or 

mean) - 75/100 ml (not to exceed 

CBOD5 and 

fecal coliform 

in any sample) 

Type II reclaimed 

water: 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

with treatment using pond system (30-day average) 

• 20 mg/l BOD5 

or 15 mg/l CBOD5 with 

treatment other than pond system (30-day average) 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

385

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (geometric mean) - 800/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

Utah Type I treated Type I treated • Alternative Type I 

wastewater: 

• Secondary 

treatment with 

wastewater: 

• Daily 

composite 

disposal option or diversion to storage 

wastew

• 50 f

pota

filtration and disinfection 

• 10 mg/l BOD 

sampling required for BOD 

required in case quality requirements 

well 

• Imp

at le

(monthly average) 

• Turbidity prior 

• Continuous 

turbidity monitoring 

not met feet 

potawell 

to disinfection - not to exceed 

prior to disinfection 

Type Iwastew

2 NTU (daily • Daily • 300 average) - not to exceed 

monitoring of fecal coliform 

potawell 

5 NTU at any • Continuous • 300 time 

• Fecal coliform 

- none detected 

total residual chlorine monitoring 

• pH monitored 

areafor pacce

• Imp

(weekly median as determined 

continuously or by daily grab samples 

at le

feet pota

from daily grab samples) - 14/100 ml 

Type II treated wastewater: 

• Weekly 

well 

• Pub

to ef

(not to exceed in any sample) 

• 1.0 mg/l total 

composite sampling required for 

storairrigadisp

residual BOD to be chlorine after 30 minutes 

• Daily 

composite 

by a fenc

contact time at peak flow 

sampling required for 

commea

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

386

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

• pH 6 - 9 TSS 

Type II treated • Daily wastewater: monitoring of 

• Secondary fecal coliform 

treatment with • pH monitored disinfection continuously or 

• 25 mg/l BOD by daily grab 

(monthly samples average) 

• TSS 

- 25 mg/l (monthly average) - 35 mg/l (weekly mean) 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (weekly median) – 800/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

• pH 6 - 9 

Vermont • Minimum of 

secondary treatment 

• Tertiary 

• Multiple units 

required 

• Alternative 

power source 

• Storage sized 

so that the system can operate 

• 2 in/wk for 

systems with secondary treated effluent 

• 100 

edge surfa

• 200 

treatment with nitrogen and phosphorus 

required 

• Retention 

pond or tank 

effectively without having to spray during 

• 2.5 in/wk for 

systems with tertiary 

habproproad

removal can be provided instead of 

required with volume sufficient to 

the spring runoff months 

• Minimum 

treatment with nitrogen and phosphorus 

freqthe 

• 200 

secondary treatment 

• BOD <30 mg/l 

at any time 

hold the design flow for 48 hours 

storage capacity required - 45 days of 

removal 

• Maximum 

hourly application rate 

wate

• TSS <30 mg/l 

at any time 

• Disinfection 

design flow of 0.25 in/hour 

based on actual wetted 

with 20 minute area 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

387

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

chlorine contact time immediately prior to spraying 

• 1.0 ppm free 

chlorine residual or 4.0 ppm total chlorine residual at the spray nozzle 

Washington Class D: 

• Oxidized and 

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 240/100 ml (7 day mean) 

Class C: 

• Oxidized and 

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day mean) - 240/100 ml (single sample) 

General compliance requirements: 

• 30 mg/l BOD 

and TSS (monthly mean) 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU (monthly) - 5 NTU (not to exceed at any time) 

• Minimum 

chlorine 

• BOD – 24-hour 

composite samples collected at least weekly 

• TSS – 24-hour 

composite samples collected at least daily 

• Total coliform 

and dissolved oxygen - grab samples collected at least daily 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring of turbidity 

• Warning 

alarms independent of normal power supply 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Emergency 

storage: short-term, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

• Multiple 

treatment units or storage or disposal options 

• Qualified 

personnel available or on call at all times the irrigation system is operating 

• Storage 

required when no approved alternative disposal system exists 

• Storage 

volume established by determining storage period required for duration of a 10-year storm, using a minimum of 20 years of climatic data 

• At a minimum, 

system storage capacity should be the volume equal to 3 times that portion of the average daily 

flow for which no alternative reuse or 

• Hydraulic 

loading rate to be determined based on a detailed water balance analysis 

• May be 

required 

• Monitoring 

program will be based on reclaimed water quality and quantity, site specific soil and hydrogeologic characteristics, and other considerations 

Class 

• 100 

areaaccethe the prop

• 300 

potasupp

Class 

• 50 f

areaaccethe use prop

• 100 

potasupp

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

388

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

residual of disposal 1 mg/l after a system is contact time of permitted 30 minutes 

West Virginia • Secondary • Frequency of • Minimum of 90 • Hydraulic - • Minimum of • Fen

treatment and disinfection 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

reporting determined on a case-by-case 

days storage to be provided 

maximum application rates of 

one well between project site and 

plac50 fespra

• 30 mg/l TSS basis 0.25 in/hr 

0.50 in/day 2.0 in/wk 

public well(s) or high capacity 

• 350 

fencadja

private wells 

• Minimum of 

one well in 

propor hunle

each direction of groundwater movement 

trajespraphysbuffeprov

Wisconsin • Biological, • Total daily flow • Storage • Determined on • Required for • 250 

chemical, physical or a combination of 

monitored 

• Monthly 

monitoring for 

lagoons required for systems 

a case-by-case basis 

• Based on 

design flows greater than 0.015 mgd 

privasupp

• 1,00

treatments necessary to meet effluent 

total dissolved solids, chlorides, 

adversely affected by winter 

hydrogeologic conditions, soil texture, 

• Monitoring 

may be required for 

pubsupp

standards 

• Monthly 

average BOD5 

BOD5, organic 

nitrogen, ammonia 

conditions or wet weather 

permeability, cation exchange 

elevation, BOD5, field 

specific 

may not exceed 50 mg/l 

• Fecal coliform 

nitrogen and nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen 

capacity, topography, cover crop, 

conductance, COD, organic nitrogen, 

bacteria limits • Fecal coliform and ammonia based on potential 

bacteria monitoring 

wastewater characteristics 

nitrogen, nitrate plus 

impact to public health 

• Nitrogen limits 

may be required on a case-by-case 

• Average 

hydraulic application rate 

nitrite nitrogen, chlorides, sulfates, total 

based on needs of cover 

basis 

• Soil at each 

may not exceed 10,000 

dissolved solids, 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops 

389

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dist

crop plus demonstrable denitrification 

individual spray field tested annually for nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium, and pH 

gal/acre/day alkalinity, 

hardness, temperature, and pH 

Wyoming • Minimum of 

Class C wastewaterprimary treatment and disinfection 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml or greater but less than 1000/100 ml 

• Treated 

wastewater to be analyzed for fecal coliform, nitrate as N, ammonia as N, and pH at a minimum 

• Monitoring 

frequency - once per month for lagoon systems - once per week for mechanical systems 

• Frequency 

specified in NPDES permit required if more frequent 

• Multiple units 

and equipment 

• Alternative 

power sources 

• Alarm systems 

and instrumentation 

• Operator 

certification and standby capability 

• Bypass and 

dewatering capability 

• Emergency 

storage 

• Emergency 

storage 

• Will be applied 

for the purpose of beneficial reuse and will not exceed the irrigation demand of the vegetation at the site 

• Not to be 

applied at a rate greater than the agronomic rate for the vegetation at the site 

• Will be applied 

in a manner and time that will not cause any surface runoff or contamination of a groundwater aquifer 

• 30 f

adjaprop

• 30 f

surfa

• 100 

potasupp

• 100

zone spra

Spray • 100 

adjapropand right

Flood I• 30 f

adjapropand right

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

California • Disinfected • Total coliform - • Warning • No 

tertiary sampled at alarms imporecycled water least once • Back-up power of dthat has been daily from the source tertiasubjected to disinfected • Multiple recyconventional effluent treatment units withtreatment (see • Turbidity - capable of of amonitoring continuously treating entire domrequirements if sampled flow with one supprecycled water following unit not in has not filtration operation or received Monitoring storage or conventional requirements if disposal treatment) - recycled water provisions oxidized, has not received • Emergency coagulated conventional storage or (not required if treatment: disposal: membrane • Sampled and short-term, filtration is analyzed 1 day; used and/or monthly for long-term, turbidity Giardia, enteric 20 days requirements viruses, and • Sufficient are met), clarified, filtered, disinfected 

Cryptosporidium for first 12 months and quarterly 

number of qualified personnel 

• Total coliform thereafter 

measured at a • Samples to be point between the disinfection 

taken at a point following 

process and the point of entry to the use 

disinfection and prior to the point where recycled water 

impoundment - 2.2/100 ml (7 day median) - 23/100 ml (not to exceed in more than 

enters the use impoundment 

• Ongoing 

monitoring may be discontinued 

390 
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse 

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

one sample in any 30-day period) - 240/100 ml (maximum any one sample) 

• Turbidity 

requirements for wastewater that has been coagulated and passed through natural undisturbed soils or a bed of filter media - maximum average of 2 NTU within a 24-hour period - not to exceed 5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period - maximum of 10 NTU at any time 

• Turbidity 

requirements for wastewater passed through membrane - not to exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 

after the first 2 years of operation with approval 

391 
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

24-hour period - maximum of 0.5 NTU at any time 

Colorado • Oxidized, • 500 

coagulated, clarified, 

impoto do

filtered, and disinfected 

supp

• 100 

• Total coliform impo

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml 

to airriga

(not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) 

Nevada • At a minimum, 

secondary treatment with disinfection 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

• Fecal coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (30-day geometric mean) - 23/100 ml (maximum daily number) 

Oregon • Level IV -

biological treatment, 

• Total coliform 

sampling - 1/day 

• Standby power 

with capacity to fully operate 

clarification, coagulation, filtration, and 

• Turbidity 

- hourly 

all essential treatment processes 

disinfection • Redundant 

• Total coliform treatment 

392 
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

facilities and monitoring 

- 23/100 ml (maximum any sample) 

equipment to meet required levels of 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU 

treatment 

• Alarm devices 

(24-hour mean) 

to provide warning of loss 

- 5 NTU (5 percent of time during 24-

of power and/or failure of process 

hour period) equipment 

Texas • Type I • Sampling and 

reclaimed water 

Reclaimed water 

analysis twice per week for BOD5 or 

on a 30 day average to have a quality of: 

CBOD5, 

turbidity, and fecal coliform 

• 5 mg/l BOD5 or 

CBOD5 

• Turbidity 

- 3 NTU 

• Fecal coliform 

- 20/100 ml (geometric mean) - 75/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

Utah • Type I treated • Daily • Alternative • Imp

wastewater - secondary treatment with 

composite sampling required for 

disposal option or diversion to storage 

at lefeet pota

filtration, and disinfection 

• 10 mg/l BOD 

BOD 

• Continuous 

turbidity 

required if turbidity or chlorine 

well 

(monthly average) 

monitoring prior to 

residual requirements 

393 
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

• Turbidity prior 

to disinfection - not to exceed 2 NTU (daily average) - not to exceed 

disinfection 

• Daily 

monitoring of fecal coliform 

• Continuous 

total residual 

not met 

5 NTU at any time 

• Fecal coliform 

- none detected (weekly median as 

chlorine monitoring 

• pH monitored 

continuously or by daily grab samples 

determined from daily grab samples) - 14/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

• 1.0 mg/l total 

residual 

chlorine after 30 minutes contact time at peak flow 

• pH 6 - 9 

Washington • Class A -

oxidized, coagulated, 

• BOD – 24-hour 

composite samples 

• Warning 

alarms independent of 

• Storage 

required when no approved 

• May be 

required 

• Monitoring will 

• Unli

impo- 50

filtered, and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

collected at least weekly 

• TSS – 24-hour 

normal power supply 

• Back-up power 

alternative disposal system exists 

be based on reclaimed water quality 

betwperiany 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day mean) - 23/100 ml 

composite samples collected at 

source 

• Emergency 

storage: short-

• Storage 

volume established by 

and quantity, site-specific soil and 

watewell 

• Line

(single sample) 

• 30 mg/l BOD 

and TSS 

least daily 

• Total coliform 

and dissolved 

term, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

determining storage period required for 

hydrogeologic characteristics, and other 

impo- 10betw

(monthly oxygen • Multiple duration of a considerations peri

394 
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

mean) 

• Turbidity 

- grab samples collected at 

treatment units or storage or 

10-year storm, using a 

any wate

- 2 NTU (monthly) - 5 NTU 

least daily 

• Continuous 

on-line 

disposal options 

• Qualified 

minimum of 20 years of climatic data 

well 

(not to exceed at any time) 

• Minimum 

chlorine 

monitoring of turbidity 

personnel available or on call at all times the irrigation 

• At a minimum, 

system storage capacity should be the 

residual of 1 mg/l after a contact time of 

system is operating 

volume equal to 3 times that portion of the 

30 minutes average daily 

flow for which no alternative reuse or disposal system is permitted 

395
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

Arizona • Class A 

reclaimed 

• Case-by-case 

basis 

watersecondary treatment, filtration, and disinfection 

• Chemical feed 

facilities required to add coagulants or polymers if necessary to meet turbidity criterion 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU (24 hour average) - 5 NTU (not to exceed at any time) 

• Fecal coliform 

- none detectable in 4 of last 7 daily samples - 23/100 ml (single sample maximum) 

California • Disinfected 

secondary-2.2 recycled water-

• Total coliform -

sampled at least once 

• Warning 

alarms 

• Back-up power 

• No 

impoof d

oxidized and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

daily from the disinfected effluent 

source 

• Multiple 

treatment units 

secorecywith

- 2.2/100 ml capable of of a(7-day median) - 23/100 ml (not to exceed 

treating entire flow with one unit not in 

domsupp

in more than operation or 

396 
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

one sample in any 30-day 

storage or disposal 

period) provisions 

• Emergency 

storage or disposal: short-term, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

• Sufficient 

number of qualified personnel 

Colorado • Oxidized and • 500 

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

impoto do

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

supp

• 100 

impo

to airriga

Hawaii • R-1 water- • Daily flow • Multiple or • 20 days • Oute

oxidized, filtered, and disinfected 

monitoring 

• Continuous 

turbidity 

standby units required of sufficient 

storage required unless it can 

impoat lefeet 

• Fecal coliform 

– 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) 

monitoring prior to and after filtration 

capacity to enable effective 

be demonstrated that another 

drinsupp

- 23/100 ml (not to exceed in more than 

process 

• Continuous 

measuring and 

operation with any one unit out of service 

time period is adequate or that no storage 

one sample in any 30-day period) 

recording of chlorine residual 

• Alarm devices 

required for loss of power, 

is necessary 

• Storage 

requirements 

- 200/100 ml (maximum any one sample) 

• Daily 

monitoring of fecal coliform 

high water levels, failure of pumps or 

based on water balance using at least a 

• Inactivation 

and/or removal 

• Weekly 

monitoring of 

blowers, high head loss on 

30 year record 

• Reject storage 

397 
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

of 99.999 percent of the plaque-forming units of Fspecific bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus 

• Effluent 

turbidity not to exceed 2 NTU 

• Chemical 

pretreatment facilities required in all cases where 

BOD5 and 

suspended solids 

filters, high effluent turbidity, loss of coagulant or polymer feed, and loss of chlorine residual 

• Standby power 

source required for treatment plant and distribution pump stations 

required with a volume equal to 1 day of flow at the average daily design flow 

• Emergency 

system storage not required where an alternate effluent disposal system has been approved 

granular media filtration is used; not required for facilities using membrane filtration 

• Theoretical 

chlorine contact time of 120 minutes and actual modal contact time of 90 minutes throughout which the chlorine residual is 5 mg/l 

Nevada • At a minimum, 

secondary treatment with disinfection 

398 
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

• 30 mg/l BOD5 • Fecal coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (30 day geometric mean) - 23/100 ml (maximum daily number) 

Oregon • Level III 

- biological treatment and disinfection 

• Total coliform 

sampling - 3/week 

• Standby power 

with capacity to fully operate all essential 

• Total coliform treatment 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml (maximum any sample) 

processes 

• Redundant 

treatment facilities and monitoring equipment to meet required levels of treatment 

• Alarm devices 

to provide warning of loss of power and/or failure of process equipment 

Texas • Type II 

reclaimed 

• Sampling and 

analysis once 

water 

Reclaimed water 

per week for BOD5 or 

on a 30-day CBOD5 and average to have a quality of: 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

fecal coliform 

with treatment using pond 

399 
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

system 

• 20 mg/l BOD5 

or 15 mg/l CBOD5 with 

treatment other than pond system 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (geometric mean) - 800/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

Utah • Type II treated 

wastewater -

secondary 

• Weekly 

composite sampling 

• Alternative 

disposal option or diversion to 

• Imp

at lefeet 

treatment with disinfection 

• 25 mg/l BOD 

required for BOD 

• Daily 

storage required in case quality 

potawell 

(monthly average) 

• TSS 

composite sampling required for 

requirements not met 

- 25 mg/l (monthly average) - 35 mg/l 

TSS 

• Daily 

monitoring of fecal coliform 

(weekly mean) 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml 

• pH monitored 

continuously or by daily grab 

(weekly median) – 800/100 ml 

samples 

(not to exceed in any sample) 

• pH 6 - 9 

Washington • Class B -

oxidized and 

• BOD – 24-hour 

composite 

• Warning 

alarms 

• Storage 

required when 

• May be 

required 

• Unli

impo

disinfected 

• Total coliform 

samples collected at 

independent of normal power 

no approved alternative 

• Monitoring 

program will be 

- 50betw

400 
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse 

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day mean) 

least weekly 

• TSS – 24-hour 

supply 

• Back-up power 

disposal system exists 

based on reclaimed 

periany 

- 23/100 ml (single sample) 

• 30 mg/l BOD 

composite samples collected at 

source 

• Emergency 

storage: 

• Storage 

volume established by 

water quality and quantity, site specific 

watewell 

• Line

and TSS (monthly mean) 

• Turbidity 

least daily 

• Total coliform 

and dissolved oxygen 

short-term, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

determining storage period required for duration of a 

soil and hydrogeologic characteristics, and other 

impo- 10betwperi

- 2 NTU (monthly) - 5 NTU 

- grab samples collected at least daily 

• Multiple 

treatment units or storage or 

10-year storm, using a minimum of 20 

considerations any 

watewell 

(not to exceed at any time) 

• Minimum 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring of 

disposal options 

• Qualified 

years of climatic data 

• At a minimum, 

chlorine residual of 1 mg/l after a contact time of 30 minutes 

turbidity personnel 

available or on call at all times the irrigation system is operating 

system storage capacity should be the volume equal to three times that portion of the average daily flow for which no alternative reuse or disposal system is permitted 

401 
Table A-7. Environmental – Wetlands 

402

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

Florida Treatment • Reclaimed • Maximum 

wetland: water shall be annual 

• Secondary stored in a average 

treatment with holding pond hydraulic nitrification • The holding loading of 

• 20 mg/l CBOD5 pond will have 2 in/wk except 

and TSS sufficient in (annual storage hydrologically average) capacity to altered 

• 2 mg/l total assure wetlands - 

ammonia retention of maximum of (monthly reclaimed 6 in/wk average) water that has • Treatment 

Receiving not been wetland wetland: treated to an - total nitrogen 

• 5 mg/l CBOD5 acceptable loading rate 

and TSS (annual 

quality for discharge to a 

not to exceed 25 g/m2/yr 

average) treatment or - total 

• 3 mg/l total receiving phosphorus 

nitrogen wetland loading rate (annual average) 

• At a minimum, 

this capacity 

not to exceed 3 g/m2/yr 

• 1 mg/l total will be the • Hydrologically 

phosphorus volume equal altered wetland (annual to 1 day of flow - total nitrogen average) at the loading rate 

• 2 mg/l total 

ammonia 

permitted capacity of the 

not to exceed 75 g/m2/yr 

(monthly treatment plant - total average) phosphorus 

loading rate not to exceed 9 g/m2/yr 

South Dakota • Pretreatment • Minimum • Maximum • A minimum of • The 

with stabilization ponds 

recommended storage capacity in 

hydraulic design loading flow through 

three wells, one upgradient and two 

wetlto bwith 

stabilization rate on artificial downgradient fenc

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-7. Environmental – Wetlands 

403

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

pond system of 150 days 

• Minimum 

combined storage capacity of 180 days in stabilization ponds and artificial wetland areas 

wetlands of 25,000 gal/acre/day 

of the site, may be required 

• At a minimum, 

parameters to be sampled include temperature, pH, conductivity, nitrate, ammonia, fecal coliform, nitrites, chlorides, TDS, sulfate, and GW elevations 

provsafelivesdisctres

Washington Natural and 

constructed beneficial use wetlands that provide potential human contact, recreational, or educational beneficial uses: 

• Class A -

oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day mean) - 23/100 ml (single sample) 

Natural and constructed beneficial use 

• BOD, TSS, 

Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonianitrogen, total phosphorus, and metals - 24-hour composite samples collected weekly 

• Total coliform 

- grab samples collected at least daily 

• Continuous 

flow monitoring 

• Warning 

alarms independent of normal power supply 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Emergency 

storage: short-term, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

• Multiple 

treatment units or storage or disposal options 

• Qualified 

personnel available or on call at all times 

• Storage 

required when no approved alternative disposal system exists 

• Storage 

volume established by determining storage period required for duration of a 10-year storm, using a minimum of 20 years of climatic data 

• At a minimum, 

system storage capacity should be the 

• Not to exceed 

an additional average annual hydraulic loading rate of 2 cm/day to Category II wetlands and 3 cm/day to Category III and IV wetlands 

• Maximum 

annual average hydraulic loading rate to constructed beneficial use wetlands is limited to 

• May be 

required 

• Groundwater 

monitoring may be required for a sufficient length of time to determine that the application of reclaimed water will not degrade existing groundwater quality 

• Depends on 

parameter concentrations in reclaimed water and the 

• Unli

unsewetl- 50betwperiany watewell 

• Line

sea- 10betwperiany watewell 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-7. Environmental – Wetlands 

404

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

wetlands that the irrigation volume equal 5 cm/day groundwater provide fisheries, system is to 3 times that • Hydraulic quality criteria or potential operating portion of the loading rate human non- average daily determined as contact flow for which the ratio of the recreational or no alternative average educational reuse or annual flow beneficial uses: disposal rate of 

• Class B - system is reclaimed 

oxidized and permitted water to the disinfected effective 

• Total coliform wetted area of 

- 2.2/100 ml the wetland (7-day mean) - 23/100 ml (single sample) 

Natural wetlands that provide potential noncontact recreational or educational beneficial uses through restricted access 

• Class C -

oxidized and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day mean) - 240/100 ml (single sample) 

General compliance requirements: 

• 20 mg/l BOD 

and TSS (average annual basis) 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-7. Environmental – Wetlands 

405

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

• 3 mg/l total 

Kjeldahl nitrogen (average annual basis) 

• Total ammonia 

nitrogen not to exceed Washington chronic standards for freshwater 

• 1 mg/l total 

phosporus (average annual basis) 

• Metals not to 

exceed Washington surface water quality standards 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

406

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

California Cooling water that 

creates a mist: 

Cooling water that creates a 

• Warning 

alarms 

• Disinfected 

tertiary recycled water -oxidized, coagulated (not 

mist: • Total coliform 

- sampled at least once 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Multiple 

treatment units 

required if membrane filtration is used 

daily from the disinfected effluent 

capable of treating entire flow with one 

and/or turbidity requirements are met), 

• Turbidity 

- continuously sampled 

unit not in operation or storage or 

filtered, disinfected 

• Total coliform 

following filtration 

Cooling water 

disposal provisions 

• Emergency 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day median) - 23/100 ml (not 

that does not create a mist: • Total coliform 

storage or disposal: short-term, 

to exceed in more than one sample in any 

- sampled at least once daily from the 

1 day; long-term, 20 days 

30-day period) - 240/100 ml (maximum any 

disinfected effluent 

• Sufficient 

number of qualified 

one sample) 

• Turbidity 

requirements 

personnel 

for wastewater that has been coagulated and passed through natural undisturbed soils or a bed of filter media - maximum average of 2 NTU within a 24-hour period - not to exceed 5 NTU more 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

407

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period - maximum of 10 NTU at any time 

• Turbidity 

requirements for wastewater passed through membrane - not to exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period - maximum of 0.5 NTU at any time 

Cooling water that does not create a mist: • Disinfected 

secondary-23 recycled wateroxidized and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day median) - 240/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) 

Florida Once-through Once-through Open cooling Once-through Once-

cooling water and cooling water, water tower cooling water, cooling 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

408

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

process water at wash water or applications: wash water or wash wastewater process water: • Class I process water: procestreatment plants: • Parameters to reliability - • System • Setb

• Secondary be monitored requires storage ponds dista

treatment and sampling multiple or not required the 

• 20 mg/l CBOD5 frequency to back-up Open cooling proc

and TSS be identified in treatment units water tower activ(annual wastewater and a applications: site average) facility permit secondary • At a minimum, line 

• 30 mg/l CBOD5 • Minimum power source system storage requ

and TSS schedule for • Minimum capacity shall Open (monthly sampling and reject storage be the volume water average) testing based capacity equal equal to 3 applica

• 45 mg/l CBOD5 on system to 1 day flow at times the • Non

and TSS capacity the average portion of the if the (weekly established for daily design average daily wateaverage) flow, pH, flow of the flow for which rece

• 60 mg/l CBOD5 chlorine treatment plant no alternative seco

and TSS residual, or the average reuse or trea(single sample) dissolved daily permitted disposal filtra

• pH 6 - 8.5 oxygen, flow of the system is high

Wash water or suspended reuse system, permitted disinprocess water: solids, CBOD5, whichever is • Water balance • 300

• Secondary nutrients, and less required with setb

treatment and fecal coliform • Minimum volume of distabasic • Primary and system size of storage based provdisinfection secondary 0.1 mgd (not on a 10-year the 

• 20 mg/l CBOD5 drinking water required for recurrence towe

and TSS standards to toilet flushing interval and a site (annual be monitored and fire minimum of 20 lines average) 

• 30 mg/l CBOD5 

and TSS 

by facilities > 

100,000 gpd 

Open cooling 

protection uses) 

• Staffing -

years of climatic data 

• Not required if 

reclawaterece

(monthly average) 

• 45 mg/l CBOD5 

water tower applications: 

• Parameters to 

24 hrs/day, 7 days/wk or 6 hrs/day, 

alternative system is incorporated 

secotreabas

and TSS (weekly average) 

be monitored and sampling frequency to 

7 days/wk with diversion of reclaimed 

into the system design to ensure 

disin

• 60 mg/l CBOD5 

and TSS 

be identified in wastewater 

water to reuse system only 

continuous facility 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

409

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

(single sample) facility permit during periods operation 

• Chlorine • Minimum of operator 

residual of schedule for presence 0.5 mg/l sampling and maintained testing based after at least 15 on system minutes contact capacity time at peak established for flow flow, pH, 

• Fecal coliform chlorine 

- 200/100 ml residual, (annual dissolved average) oxygen, - 200/100 ml suspended (monthly solids, CBOD5, geometric nutrients, and mean) fecal coliform - 400/100 ml • Continuous (not to exceed on-line in more than 10 monitoring of percent of turbidity prior samples in a to disinfection 30-day period) • Continuous - 800/100 ml on-line (single sample) monitoring of 

• pH 6 - 8.5 total chlorine • Limitations to residual or 

be met after residual disinfection concentrations 

Open cooling of other water tower disinfectants applications: • Monitoring for 

• Secondary Giardia and 

treatment with Cryptosporidium filtration and - sampling one high-level time during disinfection each 2 year 

• Chemical feed period 

facilities to be - samples to provided be taken 

• 20 mg/l CBOD5 immediately 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

410

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

(annual average) 

following disinfection 

• 5 mg/l TSS 

(single sample) to be met after 

process 

• Primary and 

secondary 

filtration and prior to disinfection 

drinking water standards to be monitored 

• Total chlorine 

residual of at least 1 mg/l after a 

by facilities > 

100,000 gpd 

minimum acceptable contact time of 15 minutes at peak hourly flow 

• Fecal coliform 

- over 30-day period, 75 percent of samples below detection limits - 25/100 ml (single sample) 

• pH 6 - 8.5 • Limitations to 

be met after disinfection 

Hawaii Cooling water that 

emits vapor or 

• Daily flow 

monitoring 

• Multiple or 

standby units 

• 20 days 

storage 

droplets or an industrial process with exposure to 

• Continuous 

turbidity monitoring 

required of sufficient capacity to 

required unless it can be 

workers: • R-1 waterprior to and after filtration enable effective demonstrated that another 

oxidized, process operation with time period is filtered, and disinfected 

• Continuous 

measuring and 

any one unit out of service 

adequate or that no storage 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

411

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

• Fecal coliform 

- 2.2/100 ml 

recording of chlorine 

• Alarm devices 

required for 

is necessary 

• Storage 

(7-day median) - 23/100 ml (not to exceed in 

residual 

• Daily 

monitoring of 

loss of power, high water levels, failure 

requirements based on water balance 

more than one sample in any 30-day period) - 200/100 ml 

fecal coliform 

• Weekly 

monitoring of BOD5 and 

of pumps or blowers, high head loss on filters, high 

using at least a 30 year record 

• Reject storage 

required with a 

(maximum any one sample) 

• Inactivation 

suspended solids 

effluent turbidity, loss of coagulant or 

volume equal to 1 day of flow at the average 

and/or removal of 99.999 percent of the 

polymer feed, and loss of chlorine 

daily design flow 

• Emergency 

plaque-forming units of Fspecific 

residual 

• Standby power 

source 

system storage not required where an 

bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus 

required for treatment plant and 

alternate effluent disposal 

• Effluent 

turbidity not to exceed 2 NTU 

distribution pump stations 

system has been approved 

• Chemical 

pretreatment facilities 

required in all cases where granular media filtration is used; not required for facilities using membrane filtration 

• Theoretical 

chlorine contact time of 120 

minutes and actual modal 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

412

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

contact time of 90 minutes throughout which the chlorine residual is 5 mg/l 

Cooling water that does not emit vapor or droplets, an industrial process without exposure to workers or industrial boiler feed: • R-2 wateroxidized and 

disinfected 

• Fecal coliform 

- 23/100 ml (7-day median) - 200/100 ml (not to exceed in more than one sample in any 30-day period) 

• Theoretical 

chlorine contact time of 15 minutes and actual modal contact time of 10 minutes throughout which the chlorine residual is 0.5 mg/l 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

413

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

New Jersey • Requires a 

case-by-case 

• Submission of 

Standard 

• Not required 

when another 

review 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (monthly average, geometric mean) 

Operations Procedure that ensures proper disinfection to the required level of 1.0 mg/l 

permitted reuse system or effluent disposal system is incorporated into the system 

- 400/100 ml (maximum any one sample 

• Annual usage 

report 

design 

• If system 

storage ponds 

• Minimum 

chlorine 

are used, they do not have to 

residual be lined - 1.0 mg/l after 15 minute contact at peak 

• Reject storage 

ponds shall be lined or sealed 

hourly flow 

• TSS 

requirements 

to prevent measurable seepage 

applies to the existing treatment 

• Existing or 

proposed ponds (such as 

requirements as specified in the NJPDES 

golf course ponds) are appropriate for 

permit for the discharge 

• Secondary 

storage of reuse water if the ability of the ponds to function as stormwater management systems is not impaired 

North Carolina • Tertiary quality 

effluent (filtered 

• Continuous 

on-line 

• All essential 

treatment units 

• Determined 

using a mass 

or equivalent) 

• TSS 

monitoring and recording for 

to be provided in duplicate 

water balance based upon a 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

414

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

- 5 mg/l (monthly 

turbidity or particle count 

• Five-day side 

stream 

recent 25-year period using 

average) - 10 mg/l (daily maximum) 

and flow prior to discharge 

detention pond required for effluent 

monthly average precipitation 

• Fecal coliform 

- 14/100 ml (monthly geometric 

exceeding turbidity or fecal coliform limits 

data, potential evapotranspiration,data, and soil 

mean) - 25/100 ml (daily 

• Automatically 

activated standby power 

drainage data 

• No storage 

facilities 

maximum) 

• BOD5 

- 10 mg/l 

source to be provided 

• Certified 

required if it can be demonstrated 

(monthly average) - 15 mg/l (daily 

operator on call 24 hrs/day with a grade 

that other permitted disposal 

maximum) 

• NH3 

- 4 mg/l 

level equivalent to or greater than 

options are available 

(monthly average) - 6 mg/l (daily 

the facility classification 

maximum) 

• Turbidity not to 

exceed 10 NTU 

at any time 

Oregon • Level II is 

minimum 

• Total coliform 

sampling 

• Standby power 

with capacity 

treatment for industrial or commercial 

- Once a week to fully operate 

all essential treatment 

uses - biological treatment and 

processes 

• Redundant 

treatment 

disinfection facilities and 

• Total coliform 

- 240/100 ml 

monitoring equipment to 

(2 consecutive samples) 

meet required levels of 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

415

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

- 23/100 ml (7-day median) 

treatment 

• Alarm devices 

to provide warning of loss of power and/or failure of process equipment 

Texas Cooling tower 

makeup water 

• Type II 

• Sampling and 

analysis once per week for 

reclaimed water 

Reclaimed water 

BOD5 or 

CBOD5 and 

on a 3- day fecal coliform average to have a quality of: 

• 30 mg/l BOD5 

with treatment using pond system 

• 20 mg/l BOD5 

or 15 mg/l CBOD5 with 

treatment other than pond system 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml (geometric mean) - 800/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

416

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

Utah Cooling water: 

• Type II treated 

• Weekly 

composite 

• Alternative 

disposal option 

wastewater -secondary treatment with disinfection 

• 25 mg/l BOD 

(monthly average) 

sampling required for BOD 

• Daily 

composite sampling required for 

or diversion to storage required in case quality requirements not met 

• TSS TSS 

- 25 mg/l (monthly 

• Daily 

monitoring of 

average) - 35 mg/l (weekly 

fecal coliform 

• pH monitored 

continuously or 

average) 

• Fecal coliform 

- 200/100 ml 

by daily grab samples 

(weekly median) - 800/100 ml (not to exceed in any sample) 

• pH 6 - 9 

Washington Industrial boiler • BOD – 24- • Warning • Storage 

feed, industrial cooling water where aerosols or 

hour composite samples 

alarms independent of normal power 

required when no approved alternative 

other mists are not created, and industrial process water with no 

collected at least weekly 

• TSS – 24-hour 

composite 

supply 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Emergency 

disposal system exists 

• Storage 

volume 

exposure to workers: 

• Class C -

samples collected at least daily 

storage: short-term, 1 day; 

established by determining storage period 

oxidized and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

• Total coliform 

and dissolved oxygen 

long-term, 20 days 

• Multiple 

required for duration of a 10-year storm, 

- 23/100 ml 

(7-day mean) 

- grab samples collected at 

treatment units or storage or 

using a minimum of 20 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 

417

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and Reclaimed Water 

State 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Dis

- 240/100 ml least daily disposal years of (single sample) • Continuous options climatic data 

Industrial cooling on-line • Qualified • At a minimum, water where monitoring of personnel system storage aerosols or other turbidity available or on capacity mists are created call at all times should be and industrial the irrigation equal to 3 process water system is times that with exposure to operating portion of the workers: average daily 

• Class A - flow for which 

oxidized, no alternative coagulated, reuse or filtered, and disposal disinfected system is 

• Total coliform permitted 

- 2.2/100 ml (7-day mean) - 23/100 ml (single sample) 

General compliance requirements: 

• 30 mg/l BOD 

and TSS (monthly mean) 

• Turbidity 

- 2 NTU (monthly) - 5 NTU (not to exceed at any time) 

• Minimum 

chlorine residual of 1 mg/l after a contact time of 30 minutes 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

418

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

California • Determined on 

a case-by-case basis 

• Based on all 

relevant aspects of each project, including the following factors: treatment provided; effluent quality and quantity; spreading area operations; soil characteristics; hydrogeology; residence time and distance to withdrawal 

Florida Use of rapid-rate 

land application 

systems: 

• Secondary 

treatment and basic disinfection 

• Fecal coliform -

200/100 ml (annual average) - 200/100 ml (monthly geometric mean) - 400/100 ml (not to exceed 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring for turbidity before applicaton of the disinfectant 

• Continuous 

monitoring for chlorine residual or for residual concentrations of other disinfectants 

• Treatment 

facilities designed to 

• Class I 

reliability -

requires multiple or backup treatment units and a secondary power source 

• For treatment 

facilities required to provide full treatment and disinfection -

minimum reject storage 

• System 

storage not required 

• If system 

storage is provided, at a minimum, system storage capacity shall be the volume equal to three times the portion of the average daily flow for which no alternative reuse or 

• Reasonable 

assurances must be provided that the hydraulic loading rates used in the design must enable the system to comply with the requirements while meeting applicable groundwater quality 

• Required 

• 1 upgradient 

well located as close as possible to the site without being affected by the site’s discharge (background well) 

• 1 well at the 

edge of the zone of discharge down-gradient of the site 

• Zon

discto eclos500 potasup

• 1,00

setbdistainjecused salincontpotasup

• 500 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

419

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

in more than 10% of samples in a 30 day period) - 800/100 ml (single sample) 

• 10 mg/l TSS 

(single sample) prior to discharge to the application/ distribution system for absorption field systems 

• Nitrate 

- 12 mg/l as nitrogen 

Use of rapid-rate 

land application 

systems for 

projects 

considered reuse 

for groundwater 

recharge under 

62-610.525: 

• Secondary 

treatment with filtration and high-level disinfection 

• Chemical feed 

facilities to be provided 

• 5 mg/l TSS 

(single sample) to be achieved prior to 

meet the full treatment and disinfection requirements to sample for TOC and total organic halogen daily, seven days per week 

• Total coliforms 

and TSS analyzed daily if treatment facility is required to meet bacteriological requirements of the drinking water standards 

• Parameters 

listed as primary drinking water standards that are imposed as reclaimed water limits to be analyzed monthly 

• Parameters 

listed as secondary drinking water standards that are imposed 

capacity equal to three day’s flow at the average daily permitted flow of the treatment plant or the average daily permitted flow of the reuse system, whichever is less 

• If full treatment 

and disinfection is not required, the capacity requirement for reject storage shall be reduced to one day’s flow 

• Reject storage 

will not be required if another permitted reuse system or effluent disposal system is capable of discharging the reject water in accordance with 

disposal system is permitted 

• Water balance 

required with volume of storage based on a 10-year recurrence interval and a minimum of 20 years of climatic data 

• Not required if 

alternative system is incorporated into the system design to ensure continuous facility operation 

standards 

• A groundwater 

mounding analysis is to be included in the engineering report and should provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will function as intended and will not result in excessive mounding of groundwaters, increases in surface water elevations, property damage or interference with reasonable use of property within the affected area 

(compliance well) 

• 1 well 

downgradient from the site and within the zone of discharge (intermediate well) 

• 1 well located 

adjacent to unlined storage ponds or lakes 

• Other wells 

may be required depending on site-specific criteria 

• Quarterly 

monitoring required for water level, nitrate, total dissolved solids, arsenic, cadmium, chloride, chromium, lead, fecal coliform, pH and sulfate 

• Monitoring 

may be required for additional 

potasupthat exishave appClaswateClassurf

• Setb

distaClasClassurfredufeet levedisinprov

• 100 

buildpart treafacilsystmunope

• 100 

prop

• Som

distabe rcerttrearequare assu

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

420

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

disinfection as reclaimed requirements parameters are 

• Total nitrogen water limits to • Minimum based on site 

- 10 mg/l be analyzed system size of specific (maximum quarterly 0.1 MGD conditions and annual • pH - daily • Staffing - groundwater average) • Except for total 24 hrs/day, quality 

• Primary (except coliforms and 7 days/wk for 

asbestos and pH, 24-hour systems bacteriological composite required to parameters) samples to be provide full and secondary used for treatment and drinking water parameters disinfection standards must listed as - reduced be met primary or staffing 

• pH to fall within secondary requirement to 

range drinking water 6 hrs/day, established in standards 7 days/wk may secondary • Unregulated be approved drinking water organic for systems not standards contaminants required to 

Groundwater to be sampled provide full 

recharge by annually for treatment with 

injection of Class some types of diversion of 

G-1 and F-1 projects reclaimed 

groundwaters and • Monitoring for water to reuse 

Class G-II Giardia and system only 

groundwaters Cryptosporidium during periods 

containing 3000 required of operator 

mg/l or less of quarterly or presence and 

TDS: one time other 

• Secondary during each provisions for 

treatment with two-year increased filtration and period reliability high-level depending on disinfection type of project 

• Chemical feed • Parameters to 

facilities to be be monitored provided and sampling 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

421

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

• 5 mg/l TSS 

(single sample) to be achieved prior to disinfection 

• Total nitrogen 

- 10 mg/l (maximum annual average) 

• Primary (except 

asbestos) and secondary drinking water standards must be met 

• pH to fall within 

range established in secondary drinking water standards 

• TOC 

- 3 mg/l (monthly average) - 5 mg/l (single sample) 

• Total organic 

halogen (TOX) - 0.2 mg/l (monthly average) - 0.3 mg/l (single sample) 

• Alternative 

TOC and TOX limitations may 

frequency to be identified in wastewater facility permit 

• Minimum 

schedule for sampling and testing based on system capacity 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

422

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

be approved if certain conditions are met 

Groundwater 

recharge by 

injection of Class 

G-II groundwaters 

containing greater 

than 3000 mg/l of 

TDS: 

• Same 

treatment and water quality requirements as above except TOC, TOX and secondary drinking water requirements do not apply 

• Limitations to 

be met before injection to groundwater 

Hawaii • Determined on 

a case-by-case basis 

• Recycled water 

used for groundwater recharge by surface or subsurface application shall be at all 

• Determined on 

a case-by-case basis 

• Multiple or 

standby units required of sufficient capacity to enable effective operation with any one unit out of service 

• Alarm devices 

• 20 days 

storage required unless it can be demonstrated that another time period is adequate or that no storage is necessary 

• Required 

• Groundwater 

monitoring system may consist of a number of lysimeters and/or monitoring wells depending on 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

423

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

times of a quality that fully protects public health 

required for loss of power, high water levels, failure 

• Storage 

requirements based on water balance 

site size, site characteristics, location, method of 

• Projects that 

are over an aquifer classified as nonpotable, where the design monthly (deep) percolation rate 

of pumps or blowers, high head loss on filters, high effluent turbidity, loss of coagulant or polymer feed, and loss of 

using at least a 30-year record 

• Reject storage 

required with a volume equal to 1 day of flow at the average daily design flow 

discharge and other appropriate considerations 

• One well 

upgradient and two wells downgradient for project sites 

(DMPR) is greater than 20 percent of the maximum monthly application rate minus the DMPR, will be designated as a recharge project 

• Projects that 

are over an aquifer classified as potable, where the application rates exceed the 

chlorine residual 

• Standby power 

source required for treatment plant and distribution pump stations 

• Emergency 

system storage not required where an alternate effluent disposal system has been approved 

500 acres or more 

• One well 

within the wetted field area for each project whose surface area is greater than or equal to 1500 acres 

• One lysimeter 

per 200 acres 

• One lysimeter 

for project sites that have greater than 40 but less than 200 acres 

consumptive evapotranspiration of the vegetative cover, will be designated as a 

• Additional 

lysimeters may be necessary to address concerns of public health or 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

424

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

recharge project 

environmental protection as related to variable characteristics of the subsurface or of the operations of the project 

Massachusetts • Secondary 

• Filtration 

(possibly) 

• Disinfection 

• pH 6 - 9 

• BOD - less 

• pH - weekly or 

daily 

• BOD - weekly 

• Turbidity -

continuous 

• Fecal coliform 

• EPA Class I 

Reliability standards may be required 

• Two 

independent 

• Immediate, 

permitted discharge alternatives are required for emergency 

A groundwater 

monitoring plan is 

required and 

must accomplish 

the following 

goals: 

• No w

discbe pthe any wate

than 10 mg/l or - daily or twice and separate situations • Evaluates well 30 mg/l per week sources of upgradient the 

• Turbidity - less • Metals - power (background) enco

than 2 NTU or quarterly • Unit groundwater a m5 NTU • TSS - weekly redundancy quality 400

• Fecal coliform or twice per • Additional • Evaluates the arou

- median of no week storage performance of welldetectable • Nitrogen - land use (asscolonies/100 ml once or twice components greaover per week that are 100continuous, • MS-2 phage - considered withrunning 7 day quarterly part of the ratesampling • Total treatment • Discperiods, not to culturable process Zonexceed viruses - • Evaluates the defi14/100 ml or quarterly overall impact enti200/100 ml • Variable of the project the 

• TSS - 5 mg/l or testing on local dep

10 mg/l requirements groundwater cou

• Total nitrogen - • UV intensity or quality and 

less than chlorine • Acts as an from 10 mg/l residual - daily early warning prod

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

425

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

• Class I 

Groundwater 

system between the 

wellzone 

Permit Standards (SDWA Drinking Water Standards) 

discharge and sensitive receptors 

the drawaftedroucondthe pumwill permcircuwhenecereplstreenhprodand an aandupomitigexisenvcond

Washington Nonpotable 

aquifer recharge: 

• Point of 

compliance is 

• Warning 

alarms 

• Storage 

required when 

• Will be 

required and 

• Rec

wate

• Class A - the point of independent of no approved based on with

oxidized, direct recharge normal power alternative reclaimed noncoagulated, of reclaimed supply disposal water quality purpfiltered and water into the • Back-up power system exists and quantity, be wdisinfected underground source • Storage site-specific at a

• Total coliform • BOD – 24- • Emergency volume soil and from 

- 2.2/100 ml hour storage: established by hydrogeologic of d(7-day median) composite short-term, determining characteristics rech- 23/100 ml samples 1 day; storage period and other • The (single sample) collected at long-term, required for considerations hori

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

426

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

• 5 mg/l BOD least daily 20 days duration of a Nonpotable sepa

and TSS • TSS – 24-hour • Multiple 10-year storm, aquifer recharge: dista(7-day mean) composite treatment units using a • Monitoring betw

• Turbidity samples or storage or minimum of 20 wells shall be poin

- 2 NTU collected at disposal years of established on rech(monthly mean) least daily options climatic data a case-by-case with- 5 NTU • Total coliform - • Qualified • At a minimum, basis a so(single sample) grab samples personnel system storage • Constituents to drin

• Minimum collected at available or on capacity be sampled sup

chlorine least daily and call at all times should be the shall be 2,00residual of at a time when the system is volume equal determined on 1 mg/l after a wastewater operating to 3 times that a case-by-case contact time of characteristics portion of the basis 30 minutes are most average daily • Samples from based on peak demanding on flow for which monitoring hourly flow the treatment no alternative wells and their 

• A chlorine facilities and reuse or sampling 

residual of at disinfection disposal frequency shall least 0.5 mg/l to procedures system is be determined be maintained • Continuous permitted on a case-by- in the reclaimed on-line case basis water during monitoring of Potable aquifer conveyance to turbidity and recharge: the point of chlorine • Monitoring recharge residual wells, at a 

Potable aquifer Additional minimum, shall 

recharge: monitoring be located at 

• Oxidized, requirements for points 500 feet 

coagulated, potable aquifer and 1,000 feet filtered, recharge: (plus or minus reverse- • TOC - 24-hour 10%) along the osmosis treated composite groundwater and disinfected samples flow path from 

• Total coliform collected at the point of 

- 1/100 ml least daily recharge to the (7-day median) • Primary nearest point - 5/100 ml contaminants of withdrawal (single sample) (except total of groundwater 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

427

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

• 5 mg/l BOD 

and TSS (7 day mean) 

• Turbidity 

- 0.1 NTU (monthly mean) - 0.5 NTU (maximum) 

• Total nitrogen 

- 10 mg/l as N (annual mean) 

• TOC 

- 1.0 mg/l 

coliform organisms), secondary contaminants, radionuclides, and carcinogens -24-hour composite samples collected at least quarterly 

• Total nitrogen 

used as a source of drinking water supply 

• Groundwater 

shall be sampled for TOC and primary contaminants, secondary contaminants, radionuclides, 

(monthly mean) 

• Water quality 

criteria for primary contaminants (except nitrate), secondary contaminants, radionuclides 

- grab or 24-hour composite samples collected at least weekly 

and carcinogens listed in Table 1 in chapter 173-200 WAC 

• Samples from 

monitoring wells shall be collected at 

and carcinogens listed in Table 1 

least quarterly 

in chapter 173-200 WAC and any other maximum contaminant levels pursuant to chapter 246-290 WAC must be met 

• Minimum 

chlorine residual of 1 mg/l after a 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
428

Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

contact time of 30 minutes based on peak hourly flow 

• A chlorine 

residual of at least 0.5 mg/l to be maintained in the reclaimed water during conveyance to the point of recharge 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse 

429

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

California • Determined on 

a case-by-case basis 

• Based on all 

relevant aspects of each project, including the following factors: treatment provided; effluent quality and quantity; spreading area operations; soil characteristics; hydrogeology; residence time and distance to withdrawal 

• • • • •

Florida Discharge to 

Class I surface 

waters and to 

water contiguous 

to or tributary to 

Class I waters 

(less than 4 hours 

travel time): 

• Secondary 

treatment with filtration and high-level disinfection 

• Chemical feed 

facilities to be provided 

• 5 mg/l TSS 

• Continuous 

on-line monitoring for turbidity before application of the disinfectant 

• Continuous 

monitoring for chlorine residual or for residual concentrations of other disinfectants 

• Treatment 

facilities designed to 

• Class I 

reliability -

requires multiple or backup treatment units and a secondary power source 

• For treatment 

facilities required to provide full treatment and disinfection -

minimum reject storage 

• System 

storage not required 

• If system 

storage is provided, at a minimum, system storage capacity shall be the volume equal to 3 times the portion of the average daily flow for which no alternative reuse or 

• Reasonable 

assurances must be provided that the hydraulic loading rates used in the design must enable the system to comply with the requirements while meeting applicable surface water and 

• Required 

• 1 upgradient 

well located as close as possible to the site without being affected by the site’s discharge (background well) 

• 1 well at the 

edge of the zone of discharge down-gradient of the site 

• Out

surfdiscto bwithof eapppotaintaClaswate

• Zon

discto eclos500 pota

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse 

430

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

(single sample) to be achieved prior to disinfection 

• Total nitrogen 

- 10 mg/l (maximum annual average) 

• Primary (except 

asbestos) and secondary drinking water standards must be met 

• pH to fall within 

range established in secondary drinking water standards 

• TOC 

- 3 mg/l (monthly average) - 5 mg/l (single sample) 

Use of rapid-rate 

land application 

systems for 

projects 

considered reuse 

for groundwater 

recharge under 

62-610.525: 

• Secondary 

treatment with filtration and 

meet the full treatment and disinfection requirements to sample for TOC and total organic halogen daily, 7 days per week 

• Total coliforms 

and TSS analyzed daily if treatment facility is required to meet bacteriological requirements of the drinking water standards 

• Parameters 

listed as primary drinking water standards that are imposed as reclaimed water limits to be analyzed monthly 

• Parameters 

listed as secondary drinking water standards that are imposed 

capacity equal to 3 day’s flow at the average daily permitted flow of the treatment plant or the average daily permitted flow of the reuse system, whichever is less 

• If full treatment 

and disinfection is not required, the capacity requirement for reject storage shall be reduced to one day’s flow 

• Reject storage 

will not be required if another permitted reuse system or effluent disposal system is capable of discharging the reject water in accordance with requirements 

disposal system is permitted 

• Water balance 

required with volume of storage based on a 10-year recurrence interval and a minimum of 20 years of climatic data 

• Not required if 

alternative system is incorporated into the system design to ensure continuous facility operation 

groundwater quality standards 

• A groundwater 

mounding analysis is to be included in the engineering report for projects involving discharges to groundwater and should provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will function as intended and will not result in excessive mounding of groundwaters, increases in surface water elevations, property damage or interference with reasonable use of property within the affected area 

(compliance well) 

• 1 well 

downgradient from the site and within the zone of discharge (intermediate well) 

• 1 well located 

adjacent to unlined storage ponds or lakes 

• Other wells 

may be required depending on site-specific criteria 

• Quarterly 

monitoring required for water level, nitrate, total dissolved solids, arsenic, cadmium, chloride, chromium, lead, fecal coliform, pH, and sulfate 

• Monitoring 

may be required for additional 

sup

• 1,00

setbdistainjecused salincontpotasup

Injectio

facilitie

• 500 

potasupthat exishave appClaswateClassurf

• Setb

distaClasClassurfredufeet levedisinprov

• 100 

buildpart treafacil

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse 

431

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

high-level as reclaimed • Minimum parameters systdisinfection water limits to system size of based on site- mun

• Chemical feed be analyzed 0.1 mgd specific ope

facilities to be quarterly • Staffing - conditions and • 100 provided • pH - daily 24 hrs/day, groundwater prop

• 5 mg/l TSS • Except for total 7 days/wk for quality • Som

(single sample) coliforms and systems distato be achieved pH, 24-hour required to be rprior to composite provide full certdisinfection samples to be treatment and trea

• Total nitrogen used for disinfection requ

- 10 mg/l parameters - reduced are (maximum listed as staffing assuannual primary or requirement to are average) secondary 6 hrs/day, 

• Primary (except drinking water 7 days/wk may 

asbestos and standards be approved bacteriological • Unregulated for systems not parameters) organic required to and secondary contaminants provide full drinking water to be sampled treatment with standards must annually for diversion of be met some types of reclaimed 

• pH to fall within projects water to reuse 

range • Monitoring for system only established in Giardia and during periods secondary Cryptosporidium of operator drinking water required presence and standards quarterly or other 

Groundwater one time provisions for 

recharge by during each 2- increased 

injection of Class year period reliability 

G-1 and F-1 depending on 

groundwaters and type of project 

Class G-II • Parameters to 

groundwaters be monitored 

containing 3000 and sampling 

mg/l or less of frequency to 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse 

432

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

Se

Dis

TDS: • Same 

treatment and water quality requirements as discharge to Class I surface waters except additional requirement for total organic halogen must be met 

• Total organic 

halogen (TOX) - 0.2 mg/l (monthly average) - 0.3 mg/l (single sample 

• Alternative 

TOC and TOX limitations may be approved if certain conditions are met 

Groundwater 

recharge by 

injection of Class 

G-II groundwaters 

containing greater 

than 3000 mg/l of 

TDS: 

• Same 

treatment and water quality requirements 

be identified in wastewater facility permit 

• Minimum 

schedule for sampling and testing based on system capacity 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse 

433

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

as discharge to Class I surface waters except TOC and secondary drinking water requirements do not apply 

• Limitations to 

be met before injection to groundwater or 

discharge to surface waters 

Hawaii • Determined on 

a case-by-case basis 

• Reclaimed 

water used for groundwater recharge by surface or subsurface application shall be at all times of a quality that fully protects public health 

• Projects that 

are over an aquifer classified as potable, where the application rates exceed the consumptive 

• Determined on 

a case-by-case basis 

• Multiple or 

standby units required of sufficient capacity to enable effective operation with any one unit out of service 

• Alarm devices 

required for loss of power, high water levels, failure of pumps or blowers, high head loss on filters, high effluent turbidity, loss of coagulant or polymer feed, and loss of 

• 20 days 

storage required unless it can be demonstrated that another time period is adequate or that no storage is necessary 

• Storage 

requirements based on water balance using at least a 30-year record 

• Reject storage 

required with a volume equal to 1 day of flow at the average daily design flow 

• Required 

• Groundwater 

monitoring system may consist of a number of lysimeters and/or monitoring wells depending on site size, site characteristics, location, method of discharge, and other appropriate considerations 

• One well 

upgradient and two wells downgradient for project sites 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse 

434

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

evapotranspiration of the vegetative cover, will be designated as a recharge project 

chlorine residual 

• Standby power 

source required for treatment plant and distribution pump stations 

• Emergency 

system storage not required where an alternate effluent disposal system has been approved 

500 acres or more 

• One well 

within the wetted field area for each project whose surface area is greater than or equal to 1,500 acres 

• One lysimeter 

per 200 acres 

• One lysimeter 

for project sites that have greater than 40 but less than 200 acres 

• Additional 

lysimeters may be necessary to address concerns of public health or environmental protection as related to variable characteristics of the subsurface or of the operations of the project 

Massachusetts • Secondary • pH - weekly or • EPA Class I • Immediate, A groundwater • No w

• Filtration daily Reliability permitted monitoring plan is disc

(possibly) • BOD - weekly standards may discharge required and be p

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse 

435

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

• Disinfection 

• pH 6 - 9 

• BOD - less 

than 10 mg/l or 30 mg/l 

• Turbidity - less 

than 2 NTU or 5 NTU 

• Fecal coliform 

- median of no detectable colonies/100 ml over 

• Turbidity -

continuous 

• Fecal coliform 

- daily or twice per week 

• Metals -

quarterly 

• TSS - weekly 

or twice per week 

• Nitrogen -

once or twice per week 

be required 

• Two 

independent and separate sources of power 

• Unit 

redundancy 

• Additional 

storage 

alternatives are required for emergency situations 

must accomplish 

the following 

goals: 

• Evaluates 

upgradient (background) groundwater quality 

• Evaluates the 

performance of land use components that are 

the any watewell the encoa m400arouwell(assgrea100

continuous, running 7-day sampling periods, not to exceed 

• MS-2 phage -

quarterly 

• Total 

culturable viruses -

considered part of the treatment process 

• Evaluates the 

withrate

• Disc

Zondefi

14/100 ml or 200/100 ml 

• TSS - 5 mg/l or 

10 mg/l 

• Total nitrogen -

less than 

quarterly 

• Variable 

testing requirements 

• UV intensity or 

chlorine 

overall impact of the project on local groundwater quality 

• Acts as an 

entithe depcouand from 

10 mg/l 

• Class I 

Groundwater 

residual - daily early warning 

system between the 

prodwellzone 

Permit Standards (SDWA Drinking Water Standards) 

discharge and sensitive receptors 

the drawaftedroucondthe pumwill permcircuwhe

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse 

436

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

necereplstreenhprodand an aandupomitigexisenvcond

Washington • Oxidized, 

coagulated, filtered, reverseosmosis treated and disinfected 

• Total coliform 

- 1/100 ml (7-day median) - 5/100 ml (single sample) 

• 5 mg/l BOD 

and TSS (7-day mean) 

• Turbidity 

- 0.1 NTU (monthly mean) - 0.5 NTU (maximum) 

• Total nitrogen 

- 10 mg/l as N (annual mean) 

• TOC 

- 1.0 mg/l 

• Point of 

compliance is the point of direct recharge of reclaimed water into the underground 

• BOD – 24-

hour composite samples collected at least daily 

• TSS - 24 hour 

composite samples collected at least daily 

• Total coliform -

grab samples collected at least daily and at a time when wastewater 

• Warning 

alarms independent of normal power supply 

• Back-up power 

source 

• Emergency 

storage: short-term, 1 day; long-term, 20 days 

• Multiple 

treatment units or storage or disposal options 

• Qualified 

personnel available or on call at all times the system is operating 

• Storage 

required when no approved alternative disposal system exists 

• Storage 

volume established by determining storage period required for duration of a 10-year storm, using a minimum of 20 years of climatic data 

• At a minimum, 

system storage capacity should be the volume equal to 3 times that 

• Will be 

required and based on reclaimed water quality and quantity, site specific soil and hydrogeologic characteristics and other considerations 

• For direct 

recharge into potable groundwater aquifers, monitoring wells, at a minimum, shall be located at points 500 feet and 1,000 feet (plus or minus 

• The 

horisepadistabetwpoinrechwitha sodrinsup2,00

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse 

437

Reclaimed Water 

State 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

(monthly mean) characteristics portion of the 10 percent) 

• Water quality are most average daily along the 

criteria for demanding on flow for which groundwater primary the treatment no alternative flow path from contaminants facilities and reuse or the point of (except nitrate), disinfection disposal recharge to the secondary procedures system is nearest point contaminants, • Continuous permitted of withdrawal radionuclides on-line of groundwater and monitoring of used as a carcinogens turbidity and source of listed in Table 1 chlorine drinking water in Chapter 173- residual supply 200 WAC and • TOC - 24-hour • Groundwater any other composite shall be maximum samples sampled for contaminant collected at TOC and levels pursuant least daily primary to Chapter 246- • Primary contaminants, 290 WAC must contaminants secondary be met (except total contaminants, 

• Minimum coliform radionuclides, 

chlorine organisms), and residual of secondary carcinogens 1 mg/l after a contaminants, listed in Table contact time of radionuclides, 1 in Chapter 30 minutes and 173-200 WAC based on peak carcinogens - • Samples from hourly flow 24-hour monitoring 

• A chlorine composite wells shall be 

residual of at samples collected at least 0.5 mg/l to collected at least quarterly be maintained least quarterly in the reclaimed water during conveyance to the point of recharge 

• Total nitrogen 

- grab or 24-hour composite samples 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
438

Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse 

State 

Reclaimed Water 

Quality and 

Treatment 

Requirements 

Reclaimed Water 

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Treatment 

Facility Reliability 

Storage 

Requirements 

Loading 

Rates 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

S

Di

collected at least weekly 

(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted. 
Appendix B
 

State Websites
 

439
 
--- ---

--- ---

---

--- ---

440
 

Appendix B. State Website Internet Addresses 

State Type Agency Rules Website 

Alabama Guidelines Department of Environmental Management Guidelines and Minimum Requirements for Municipal, Semi-Public and Private Land Treatment Facilities http://www.adem.state.al.us/ http://209.192.62.106/ Land treatment guidelines not found on website 

Alaska Regulations Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Administrative Code, Title 18 - Environmental Conservation, Chapter 72, Article 2, Section 275 - Disposal Systems http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/home.htm http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/title18/aac72n

Arizona Regulations Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18 - Environmental Quality, Chapter 11, Article 3 - Reclaimed Water Quality Standards and Chapter 9, Article 7 - Direct Reuse of Reclaimed Water http://www.sos.state.az.us/ http://www.sos.state.az.us/public_services/Table_of_Contents.htm 

Arkansas Guidelines Department of Environmental Quality Arkansas Land Application Guidelines for Domestic Wastewater http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/default.htm http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branch_permits/default.htm Land application guidelines not found on website 

California Department of Health Services http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov 

California Regulations Department of Health Services Regulations and Guideance for Recycled Water (The Purple Book) http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/publications/waterrecycling/waterr

California Code of Regulations, Title 17 and 22 http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/ 

Colorado Regulations Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Commission Regulation 84-Reclaimed Domestic Wastewater Control Regulation http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/cdphehom.asp http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/regs/waterregs/100284.pdf 

Connecticut Neither Department of Environmental Protection http://dep.state.ct.us/ Delaware Regulations 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Guidance and Regulations Governing the Land Treatment of Wastes http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/ http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water2000/Sections/GroundWat/GWDS

Florida Regulations Department of Environmental Protection Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application Florida Administrative Code - Chapter 62-610 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/reuse/index.htm http://fac.dos.state.fl.us/ 

Georgia Guidelines Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Guidelines for Water Reclamation and Urban Water Reuse http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/ http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/techguide_files/wpb/reuse.pdf 

Hawaii Guidelines Department of Health Guidelines for the Treatment and Use of Recycled Water http://www.state.hi.us/doh/ http://www.state.hi.us/doh/eh/wwb/reuse-final.pdf Idaho Regulations Department of Environmental Quality 58.01.17 Wastewater Land Application Permit Rules http://www2.state.id.us/adm/index.htm http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa58/58index.htm 

Illinois Regulations Environmental Protection Agency Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35, Subtitle C, Part 372, Illinois Design Standards for Slow Rate Land Application of Treated Wastewater http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/ http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandIEPAEnvironmentalRegulat

Indiana Regulations Department of Environmental Management Indiana Administrative Code, Title 327, Article 6.1-Land Application of Biosolid, Industrial Waste Product, and Pollutant-Bearing Water http://www.in.gov/idem/ http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/title327.html 

Iowa Regulations Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Iowa Wastewater Design Standards, Chapter 21 - Land Application of Wastewater http://www.state.ia.us/epd/ http://www.state.ia.us/epd/wastewtr/design.htm 

Kansas Guidelines Department of Health and Environment KDHE Administrative Rules and Regulations, 28-16. Water Pollution Control http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/ http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/regs/ 

Kentucky Neither http://kentucky.gov/Default.html Louisiana Neither http://www.state.la.us/ Maine Neither http://www.state.me.us/ 
--- ---

--- ---

--- ---

441
 

Appendix B. State Website Internet Addresses Continued 

State Type Agency Rules Website 

Maryland Guidelines Department of the Environment Guidelines for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters Title 26 Department of the Environment http://www.mde.state.md.us/index.asp http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/subtitle_chapters/26_Chapters.h

Massachusetts Guidelines Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Interim Guidelines on Reclaimed Water (Revised) http://www.state.ma.us/dep/dephome.htm http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wwm/t5regs.htm 

Michigan Regulations Department of Environmental Quality Part 22 Rules of Part 31Groundwater Quality Rules Part 22 Guidesheet II Irrigation Management Plan Rule 2215 Various Aboveground Disposal Systems http://www.michigan.gov/deq http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3682-14902--,00.h

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3312_4117-9782--,00.hthttp://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-wmd-gwp-Rule2215Vari

Minnesota Neither http://www.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/portal/mn/jsp/home.do?agency=NortMississippi Neither http://www.mississippi.gov/ Missouri Regulations Department of Natural Resources Code of State Regulations, Title 10, Division 20, Chapter 8 - Design Guides http://www.sos.mo.gov/ http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10csr.asp 

Montana Guidelines Department of Environmental Quality Design Standards for Wastewater Facilities, Appendix B - Standards for the Spray Irrigation of Wastewater http://www.deq.state.mt.us/ http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/Circulars/DEQ2.PDF 

Title 119 Chapter 9 Disposal of Sewage Sludge 

Nebraska Regulations Department of Environmental Quality and Land Application of Effluent - Regulations refer to the use of Guidelines for Treated http://www.deq.state.ne.us/ 

Wastewater Irrigation Systems, February 1986 

Divison of Environmental Protection 

Nevada Regulations Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Nevada Administrative Code 445A.275 - Use of Treated Effluent for Irrigation General Design Criteria for Reclaimed http://ndep.nv.gov/ http://ndep.nv.gov/nac/445a-226.pdf http://ndep.nv.gov/bwpc/wts1a.pdf 

Water Irrigation Use 

New Hampshire Neither http://www.state.nh.us/ 

Department of Environmental 

New Jersey Guidelines Protection-Division of Water Technical Manual for Reclaimed Water for Beneficial Reuse http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/techman.htm 

Quality 

New Mexico Guidelines Environment Department Use of Domestic Wastewater Effluent for Irrigation http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/ Guidelines not found on website New York Guidelines Department of Environmental Conservation State Guidelines for the Use of Land Treatment of Wastewater http://www.dec.state.ny.us/ Guidelines not found on website 

North Carolina Regulations Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Rules, Title 15A, Chapter 02, Subchapter H, .0200 - Waste not Discharged to Surface Waters http://www.oah.state.nc.us/rules/ http://ncrules.state.nc.us/ncadministrativ_/title15aenviron_/chapter0

Division of Water Quality 

North Dakota Guidelines Department of Health Criteria for Irrigation with Treated Wastewater http://www.health.state.nd.us/wq/ 

Recommended Criteria for Land Disposal of Effluent 

Ohio Guidelines Environmental Protection Agency The Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 860 Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater through Irrigation http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ http://ohioline.osu.edu/b860/ 

Oklahoma Regulations Department of Environmental Quality Title 252 Chapter 621 and 656 http://www.deq.state.ok.us/mainlinks/deqrules.htm 
--- ---

442
 

Appendix B. State Website Internet Addresses Continued 

State Type Agency Rules Website 

Oregon Regulations Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Administrative Rules Use of Reclaimed Water from Sewage Treatment Plants - Division 55 340-055 Treatment and Monitoring Requirements for Use of Reclaimed Water http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqrules/wqrules.htm Pennsylvania Guidelines Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Quality Protection Manual for Land Application of Treated Sewage and Industrial Wastewater http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQP_WM/Rhode Island Neither http://www.state.ri.us/ South Carolina Regulations Department of Health and Environmental Control Administrative Code 61 Section 9.505 Land Application Permits and State Permits http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/coderegs/chap61/61-9.htm 

Chapter XII Recommended Design Criteria for Disposal of Effluent by Irrigation 

South Dakota Guidelines Department of Environment and Natural Resources Chapter XIII Recommended Design Criteria for Groundwater Monitoring Wells http://www.state.sd.us/denr/DES/P&S/designcriteria/designT.html 

Chapter XVI Recommended Design Criteria for Artificial Wetland Systems 

Tennessee Regulations Department of Environment and Conservation Chapter 16 of Design Criteria for Sewage Works http://www.state.tn.us/environment/ Texas Regulations Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Administrative Code, Title 30 Environmental Quality, Part 1, Chapter 210 Use of Reclaimed Water http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pub/plsql/readtac$ext.viewtac 

Department of Environmental 

Utah Regulations Quality Utah Administrative Code, Environmental Quality, R-317-1-4 http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code.htm 

Division of Water Quality Agency of Natural Resources Indirect Discharge Rules (for systems >6500 gpd) http://www.anr.state.vt.us/ 

Vermont Regulations Department of Environmental Wastewater Disposal Systems and Potable Water Supplies http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/indirect.htm#IDRs 

Conservation (for systems <6500 gpd) http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/rules/os/Final081602/Subchap5-6

Virginia Neither Department of Environmental Quality http://www.virginia.gov/cmsportal/ Washington Guidelines Department of Health State Department of Ecology Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.html http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/97023.html West Virginia Regulations Department of Health Title 64 Series 47 Chapter 16-1 Sewage Treatment and Collection System Design Standards http://www.wvsos.com/csr/verify.asp?TitleSeries=64-47 Wisconsin Regulations Department of Natural Resources Natural Resources, Chapter NR 206 Land Disposal of Municipal and Domestic Wastewaters http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/ www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code Wyoming Regulations Department of Environmental Quality Wyoming Water Quality Regulations Chapter 21-Reuse of Treated Wastewater http://soswy.state.wy.us/ http://soswy.state.wy.us/RULES/2804.pdf 
Appendix C

Abbreviations and Acronyms

443
Acronyms 

AID U.S. Agency for International Development O3 ozone 

ANSI American National Standards Institute O&M operations and maintenance 

AWT advanced wastewater treatment OM&R operations, maintenance and replacement 

AWWA American Water Works Association OWRT Office of Water Research and Technology 

BNR biological nutrient removal PAC powder activated carbon 

BOD biochemical oxygen demand PCB polychlorinated biphenyls 

POTW publicly owned treatment works 

CBOD carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand PVC polyvinyl chloride 

CFU colony forming units 

COD chemical oxygen demand QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CWA Clean Water Act RAS return activated sludge 

RBC rotating biological contactor 

DO dissolved oxygen RO reverse osmosis 

EC electrical conductivity SAR sodium adsorption ratio 

EIS environmental impact statement SAT soil aquifer treatment 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SBA Small Business Administration 

ESA external support agency SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

ET evapotranspiration SOC synthetic organic chemical 

SRF State Revolving Fund 

FC fecal coliform SS suspended solids 

FmHA Farmers Home Administration 

TCE trichloroethylene 

GAC granular activated carbon TDS total dissolved solids 

GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy THM trihalomethane 

TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen 

HPLC high pressure liquid chromatography TN total nitrogen 

TOC total organic carbon 

IAWPRC International Association on Water TOH total organic hydrocarbons 

Pollution Research and Control TOX total organic halides 

ICP inductively coupled plasmography TP total phosphorus 

I/I infiltration/inflow TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon 

IOC inorganic chemicals TSS total suspended solids 

IRCWD International Reference Centre for Waste 

Disposal UN United Nations 

IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

UV ultraviolet 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MCLG maximum contaminant level goal VOC volatile organic chemicals 

MDL method detection limit 

MPN most probable number WAS waste activated sludge 

WASH Water and Sanitation for Health 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act WHO World Health Organization 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination WPCF Water Pollution Control Federation 

System WRF water reclamation facility 

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations WWTF wastewater treatment facility 

NRC National Research Council 

NTU nephelometric turbidity units 

444
Abbreviations for Units of Measure

Acre ac 

Acre-foot AF 

British thermal unit Btu 

cubic feet per second cfs 

cubic meter m 3 

cubic meters per day m 3

/d 

cubic meters per second m 3

/s 

Curie Ci 

cycles per second cps 

degrees Celsius o

C 

degrees Fahrenheit o

F 

feet (foot) ft 

feet per year ft/yr 

Gallon g 

gallons per day gpd 

gallons per minute gpm 

hectare ha 

horsepower hp 

hour hr 

Inch in 

kilogram kg 

kilometer km 

kiloPascal kPa 

kilowatt kW 

kilowatt hour kWh 

Liter l 

liters per capita per day lcd 

liters per second l/s 

meter m 

meters per second m/s 

microgram μg 

micrograms per liter μg/l 

micrometer μm 

mile mi 

mile per hour mph 

milligram mg 

milligrams per liter mg/l 

millilter ml 

millimeter mm 

million gallons per day mgd 

milliquivalent per liter meq/l 

minute min 

megawatt mW 

million acre feet per year MAFY 

pascal Pa 

plaque forming unit pfu 

pound lb 

pounds per square inch psi 

roentgen R 

second S 

square foot ft2 

square inch in2 

square meter m 2 

year yr 

445
446
Appendix D

Inventory of Reclaimed Water Projects

447
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reuse Projects 

Projects Sponsored by the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) 

Project Number Project Title 

01-CTS-6 Membrane Treatment of Secondary Effluent for Subsequent Use* 

D13000 Membrane Bioreactors: Feasibility and Use in Water Reclamation 

92-HHE-1CO The Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production 

(Cooperative Effort w/ NRC) 

01-HHE-4 Workshop: On-line Toxicologic Methods for Evaluating Potential Chemical Risk 

Associated with Potable Reuse (Workshop) 

01-HHE-4a Online Methods for Evaluating the Safety of Reclaimed Water* 

01-HHE-20T Removal of Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation Systems* 

01-HHE-21T Innovative DNA Array Technology for Detection of Pharmaceutics in Reclaimed Water* 

97-IRM-6 Nonpotable Water Reuse Management Practices 

00-PUM-1 Water Reuse: Understanding Public Participation and Participation 

00-PUM-2T Reduction of Pathogens, Indicator Bacteria, and Alternative Indicators by 

Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Processes* 

00-PUM-3 Evaluation of Microbial Risk Assessment Techniques and Applications in Water Reclamation* 

94-PUM-1CO Soil Treatability Pilot Studies to Design and Model Soil Aquifer Treatment Systems 

99-PUM-4 Impact of Storage on Nonpotable Reclaimed Water: Seasonal and Long Term 

92-WRE-1 Water Reuse Assessment 

448
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reuse Projects Continued 

Projects Sponsored by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) 

Project Number Project Title 

371 Augmenting Potable Water Supplies With Reclaimed Water 

487 Investigation of Soil-Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse 

2568 Membrane Treatment of Waste Filter Washwater for Direct Reuse 

2919 Understanding Public Concerns and Developing Tools to Assist Local Officials in 

Successful Potable Reuse Projects 

2968 Protocol for Developing Water Reuse Criteria With Reference to Drinking Water Supplies 

Projects Sponsored by the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) 

WR-699-531-92 A Comparative Study of UV and Chlorine Disinfection for Wastewater Reclamation 

HRA-699-517-94 Microbial Risk Assessment for Reclaimed Water 

Projects Sponsored by the WateReuse Foundation 

WRF-01-001 Develop Low Cost Analytical Method for Measuring NDMA 

WRF-01-002 Removal and/or Destruction of NDMA in Wastewater Treatment Processes 

WRF-01-004 Understanding Public Concerns of Indirect Potable Reuse Projects 

WRF-01-005 Characterizing Salinity in Sewer Contributions in Sewer Collection and Reclaimed Water 

Distribution Systems (AwwaRF Project) 

WRF-01-006 Characterizing Microbial Water Quality in Non-Potable Reclaimed Water Distribution 

Systems to Optimize End Uses (AwwaRF Project) 

WRF-01-007 The Use of Bioassays and Chemical Measurements to Assess the Removal of Endocrine 

Disrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation Systems (WERF Project via JWRTF) 

WRF-01-008 Evaluation and Testing of Bioassays for Pharmaceutics in Reclaimed Water 

(WERF Project via JWRTF) 

WRF-02-001 Rejection of Wastewater-Derived Micropollutants in High-Pressure Membrane Applications 

Leading to Indirect Potable Reuse: Effects of Membrane and micropollutant Properties 

WRF-02-002 Investigation of NDMA Fate and Transport 

WRF-02-003 Filter Loading Evaluation for Water Reuse 

WRF-02-004 National Database on Water Reuse Projects 

WRF-02-005 Develop a National Salinity Management Clearinghouse and Five-year Research Program 

WRF-02-006a Zero Liquid Discharge for Water Utility Applications 

WRF-02-006b Beneficial and Non-Traditional Uses of Concentrate and Salts 

449
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reuse Projects Continued 

Projects Sponsored by the WateReuse Foundation Continued 

Project Number Project Title 

WRF-02-006c Impacts of Membrane Process Residuals on Wastewater Treatment 

WRF-02-006d Benefits of Regional Solutions in Disposing of Concentrate 

WRF-02-007 Comparative Study of Recycled Water Irrigation and Fairway Turf 

WRF-02-008 Study of Reclaimed, Surface, and Ground-Water Quality 

WRF-02-009 Study of Innovative Treatment on Reclaimed Water 

WRF-02-011 A Protocol for Developing Water Reuse Criteria with Reference to Drinking Water Supplies 

WRF-03-001 Pathogen Removal and Inactivation in Reclamation Plants - Study Design 

WRF-03-005 Marketing Strategies for Non-Potable Recycled Water 

WRF-03-006 Economic Analysis of Sustainable Water Use - Benefits and Cost 

WRF-03-009 Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery: Potential Changes in Water Quality 

WRF-03-010 Water Reuse Research Needs Workshop 

WRF-03-011 Two-Day Research Needs Assessment Workshop on Integrating 

Human Reactions to Water Reuse 

WRF-03-012 Salt Management Guide 

WRF-03-013 Rejection of Contaminants of Concern by Nanofiltration and Ultra-low Pressure Reverse 

Osmosis Membranes for Treating Water of Impaired Quality (AWWARF) 

WRF-03-014 Development of Indicators and Surrogates of Chemical Contaminants and 

Organic Removal in Wastewater and Water Reuse (Co-funding with WERF) 

450