Water Reuse Regulations and Case

Studies in the USA

James Crook, Ph.D., P.E.

Environmental Engineering Consultant
Boston, Massachusetts
USA
International Symposium on Water Reuse
Curitiba, Paran, Brazil
19 October 2012

Water Reuse Regulations/Guidelines

Guidelines vs. Regulations

Guidelines (in most states) are:
Advisory
Voluntary
Non-enforceable

Regulations are:
Legally-adopted
Enforceable
Mandatory

There are no federal regulations for water

reuse in the U. S.
U.S. EPA has guidelines for water reuse, revised in
2012

Guidelines vs. Regulations

Guidelines
Can lead to inconsistent decisions by regulators
Proponents may be unsure of requirements to meet
May become de facto regulations

Regulations

Provide definitive requirements that must be met

Often take extensive periods to develop and adopt
May not be as flexible as guidelines
May hamper approval of new or innovative treatment
processes not included in regulations
May increase public acceptance

Regulations and Guidelines Vary Depending

on Type of Reuse
Potable reuse

Most Stringent Regulations

Irrigation of food crops

Unrestricted recreational impoundments
Unrestricted urban irrigation
Restricted urban irrigation

Restricted recreational impoundments

Industrial reuse
Environmental reuse
Irrigation of non-food crops

Least Stringent Regulations

Water Reuse Criteria

Generally include:
Water quality requirements
Treatment process requirements
Treatment reliability requirements
Monitoring requirements
Operational requirements
Cross-connection control provisions
Use area controls (signs, color-coded pipes,
setback distances, etc.)

Water Quality Monitoring

Subjective and inconsistent among states

Generally conservative
Total or fecal coliforms usually used as
indicator organisms
Sampling frequency varies among states
Most require daily sampling

Monitoring for pathogens not required (with a

few exceptions)

Typical Monitoring Frequency Requirements

Parameter

Frequency

BOD

Daily weekly

Coliform

Daily

Turbidity

Continuous

Total suspended solids

Daily

Chlorine residual

Continuous

Treatment Reliability

Standby power supply

Alarms
Multiple or standby unit processes
Emergency storage/disposal provisions
Provisions for continuous disinfection
Non-design features
Qualified personnel
Monitoring
O & M program

Use Area Controls

- Examples -

Setback distances
Confinement to authorized use area
Protection of drinking fountains
Signage
Cross-connection control
Prohibition of hose bibbs
Worker protection
Surveillance activities

Cross-Connection Control
(California Criteria)

Air Gap
Potable water used to supplement reclaimed water

Reduced Pressure Principle Device

Premises receiving both potable and reclaimed water

Double Check Valve

Residences using reclaimed water for irrigation

Double Check Valve

On potable water fire protection systems in buildings
where reclaimed water used

Reclaimed Water Valve Cover

Pop-up Spray Irrigation Head

Lockable Vault for Controlled Access

Residential Irrigation Lockable Vault

Color-coded Pipe

Color-coded Tape

Sign at Park

Cross-connection Control Device

EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

- Urban Reuse Type of Reuse

Treatment

Reclaimed Water Quality

Unrestricted:
nonpotable applications
in municipal settings
where public access is
not restricted.

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

pH = 6 9
10 mg/L BOD
2 NTU
No detectable fecal
coli/100 mL
1 mg/L Cl2 residual

Restricted:
nonpotable applications
in municipal settings
where public access is
controlled or restricted

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

pH = 6.0-9.0
30 mg/l BOD
30 mg/l TSS
200 fecal coliform /100 ml
1 mg/l Cl2 residual (min.)

EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

- Crop Irrigation Type of Reuse
Food crops consumed
raw: surface or spray
irrigation
.

Treatment

Reclaimed Water Quality

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

Processed food crops:

Secondary
commercially processed, Disinfection
surface or spray irrigation

Non-food crops: fodder,

fiber, and seed crops,
pastures, commercial
nurseries, and sod farms

pH = 6 9
10 mg/L BOD
2 NTU
No detectable fecal
coli/100 mL
1 mg/L Cl2 residual
pH = 6.0-9.0
30 mg/l BOD
30 mg/l TSS
200 fecal coliform /100 ml
1 mg/l Cl2 residual (min.)

EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

- Impoundments -

Type of Reuse

Treatment

Reclaimed Water Quality

Unrestricted: no
limitations are imposed
on body-contact
.

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

pH = 6 9
10 mg/L BOD
2 NTU
No detectable fecal
coli/100 mL
1 mg/L Cl2 residual

Restricted: body contact

is restricted

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

30 mg/l BOD
30 mg/l TSS
200 fecal coliform /100 ml
1 mg/l Cl2 residual (min.)

EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

- Environmental Reuse -

Type of Reuse
Environmental Reuse:
create wetlands, enhance
wetlands, or sustain
stream flows

Treatment

Reclaimed Water Quality

Variable
Secondary
and
disinfection
(min.)

Variable but not to exceed:

30 mg/l BOD
30 mg/l TSS
200 fecal coliform /100 ml
1 mg/l Cl2 residual (min.)

EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

- Industrial Cooling Water Type of Reuse

Treatment

Reclaimed Water Quality

Once-through cooling
.

Secondary
Disinfection

Recirculating cooling
towers

Secondary
Disinfection
(chemical
clarification
and filtration
may be
required)

Variable, depends on
recirculation ratio
pH = 6.0-9.0
30 mg/l BOD
30 mg/l TSS
200 fecal coliform /100 ml
1 mg/l Cl2 residual (min.)

pH = 6.0-9.0
30 mg/l BOD
30 mg/l TSS
200 fecal coliform /100 ml
1 mg/l Cl2 residual (min.)

EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

- Groundwater Recharge - Nonpotable Reuse -

Type of Reuse

Treatment

Recharge aquifers which

are no used as a potable
dinking water source

Site specific
and use
dependent
Primary (min.)
for spreading
Secondary
(min.) for
injection

Reclaimed Water Quality

Site specific and use
dependent

EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

- Indirect Potable Reuse -

Type of Reuse
Groundwater recharge
by surface spreading
into potable aquifers

Treatment

Reclaimed Water Quality

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection
Soil aquifer
treatment

Includes but not limited to the

following:
No detectable fecal coli/100 mL
1 mg/l Cl2 residual (min.)
pH = 6.5 8.5
2 NTU
2 TOC of wastewater origin
Meet drinking water standards
after percolation through the
vadose zone

EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

- Indirect Potable Reuse -

Type of Reuse
Groundwater recharge
by injection into
potable aquifers
Augmentation of
surface water supply
reservoirs

Treatment

Reclaimed Water Quality

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection
Advanced
wastewater
treatment

Includes but not limited to the

following:
No detectable fecal coli/100 mL
1 mg/l Cl2 residual (min.)
pH = 6.5 8.5
2 NTU
2 TOC of wastewater origin
Meet drinking water standards

The 2012 U.S. EPA Guidelines for Water

Reuse can be downloaded from the following
website:
http://www.waterreuseguidelines.org/images/
documents/2012epaguidelines.pdf

State Standards for Pasture Irrigation with

Reclaimed Water
(Milking Animals Not Allowed)
State

Quality Limits

Minimum Treatment
Required

Arizona

1000 fecal coli/100 mL

Stabilization ponds

California

None specified

Secondary

Florida

200 fecal coli/100 mL

20 mg/L BOD
20 mg/L TSS

Secondary
Disinfection

Texas

200 fecal coli or E.

coli/100 mL
35 Enterococci/100 mL
20 mg/L BOD
15 mg/L CBOD

None specified

State Standards for Landscape Irrigation with

Reclaimed Water (Restricted Access)
State

Quality Limits

Minimum Treatment
Required

Arizona

200 fecal coli/100 mL

Secondary
Disinfection

California

23 total coli/100 mL

Secondary
Disinfection

Florida

No detectable fecal coli/100 mL

20 mg/L CBOD
20 mg/L TSS

Secondary
Disinfection

Texas

200 fecal coli or E. coli/100 mL

35 Enterococci/100 mL
20 mg/L BOD
15 CBOD

Not specified

Why Specify Water Quality Limits and

Treatment Processes?

Indicator/surrogate parameters alone dont

adequately characterize microbial or chemical
water quality
Coliforms, turbidity, etc. not sufficient by themselves

Specifying both treatment processes and water

quality limits obviates need to monitor for
certain constituents
There is a lot of data documenting pathogen
concentrations (or lack thereof) in reclaimed water
based on a combination of water quality limits and
specific treatment unit processes

State Standards for Landscape Irrigation with

Reclaimed Water (Unrestricted Access)
State

Quality Limits

Minimum Treatment
Required

Arizona

No detectable fecal coli/100 mL

2 NTU

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

California

2.2 total coli/100 mL

2 NTU

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

Florida

No detectable fecal coli/100 mL

20 mg/L BOD
5 mg/L TSS

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

Texas

20 fecal coli or E. coli/100 mL

4 Enterococci/100 mL
5 mg/L BOD or CBOD
3 NTU

Not specified

Why No Virus Limits?

Health significance of low levels questionable

Virus analyses complex and expensive
Complete analyses can take 4 weeks
Water sampled is long gone

PCR technology detects genetic material

Doesnt determine concentration or viability

Treatment requirements & water quality limits

(together) effective to indicate virus reduction

State Standards for Reclaimed Water Spray

Irrigation of Food Crops Eaten Raw
(direct contact with edible part of crop allowed)
State

Quality Limits

Minimum Treatment
Required

Arizona

No detectable fecal coli/100 mL

2 NTU

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

California

2.2 total coli/100 mL

2 NTU

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

Florida

Use prohibited*

Texas

Use prohibited*

* Irrigation of edible crops that will be peeled, skinned, cooked, or

thermally processed before consumption is allowed. Reclaimed
water quality and treatment requirements same as for
unrestricted access landscape irrigation.

State Standards for Industrial Cooling* with

Reclaimed Water
State

Quality Limits

Minimum Treatment
Required

Arizona

Not covered

Not covered

California

2.2 total coli/100 mL

2 NTU (24-hour avg.)
10 NTU (max.)

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

Florida

No detectable fecal coli/100 mL

20 mg/L BOD
5 mg/L TSS

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

Texas

200 fecal coli or E. coli/100 mL

35 enteroccci/100 mL
Not specified
20 mg/L BOD
15 mg/L CBOD

* Cooling towers where mist is created that may reach populated areas

Potable Reuse

Indirect vs. Direct Potable Reuse

Indirect potable reuse:
Augmentation of a drinking water source (surface
water or groundwater) with reclaimed water followed
by an environmental buffer that precedes normal
drinking water treatment

Direct potable reuse:

Introduction of reclaimed water directly into a
potable water supply distribution system
downstream of a water treatment plant or into the
raw water supply immediately upstream of a water
treatment plant

Environmental buffer

Environmental buffer:
A natural water body (e.g., reservoir or river)
that physically separates product water from
a water reuse facility and the intake to a
drinking water plant or distribution system.
For groundwater recharge, an aquifer and/or
soil act as the environmental buffer that
separates product water from a water reuse
facility and a potable water extraction well

Incidental or Unplanned Indirect Potable Reuse

(De Facto Reuse)
City A

Wastewater
Treatment
Surface Water
or
Groundwater

City B
Water
Treatment

Indirect Potable Reuse

Surface water
or
Groundwater*

Wastewater
Treatment

Water
Treatment

*Extracted Groundwater may

not receive further treatment

Direct Potable Reuse

(No environmental buffer)
Definitions

Water
Treatment

Wastewater
Treatment

Surface Water
or
Groundwater

Direct Potable Reuse

(Pipe-to-Pipe)
Definitions

Water
Treatment

Wastewater
Treatment

Surface Water
or
Groundwater

Potable Reuse
- Major Concerns/Issues -

Water Quality
Treatment Reliability
Unregulated chemical constituents
Limited Health Effects Data
Treatment process and water quality monitoring
Real-time online monitoring

Public Acceptance
Lack of regulations

Draft California Department of Public Health (CDPH)

Regulations for Groundwater Recharge into Potable Aquifers

Quality Limits

Treatment Required

Spreading
Secondary
10-log Giardia cyst
Filtration
reduction
10-log Cryptosporidium Disinfection
oocyst reduction
Soil aquifer
Drinking water MCLs
treatment (SAT)
(except for nitrogen)
Action levels for lead and
copper
10 mg/L total nitrogen
12-log virus reduction

TOC 0.5 mg/L/RWC

Injection
Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection
Reverse osmosis
Advanced
oxidation process
(AOP)

Control of Chemical Contaminants

- Regulated Chemicals -

Quarterly monitoring of recycled water for:

Primary drinking water MCLs for chemicals (except
nitrogen)
Action levels for lead and copper

Annual monitoring of recycled water for

secondary MCLs
Quarterly sampling at each monitoring well for:

Total nitrogen, nitrate, nitrite

Secondary MCLs
Other chemicals specified by CDPH
Monitoring may be reduced to annually upon CDPH
approval

Control of Unregulated Chemicals

Total organic carbon (TOC) used as a surrogate
for the unknown and unregulated organic
chemicals
RWC = recycled water contribution
Recycled water compliance calculation:
TOC (0.5 mg/L) / (RWC)

Example: If proposed RWC is 20% (0.20)

Allowable TOC of wastewater origin must be
(0.5 mg/L) / (0.20), which is 2.5 mg/L
I.e., dilution can be used to meet TOC requirement

Sample Weekly

Response (Retention) Time

No less than two months required between
recharge and extraction of the water
Need sufficient time to allow for the identification
and effective response to any treatment failures
GRRPs response time must be approved by CDPH
Longer response time may be required

Tracer study required

Other Selected Requirements

Industrial pretreatment and source control
program
Operations plan
Contingency plan
Public hearings
Monitoring well locations and sampling
requirements
Review by an independent advisory panel
Reports

Dual System
(Several Nonpotable Uses)

St. Petersburg, Florida

Operational since 1976

St. Petersburg, Florida

Dual water system in operation since 1977
Focus at that time was on disposal, not conservation
Objective was to achieve zero discharge

Reclaimed water customers 10,600

Reclaimed water uses:
Landscape irrigation, including: residential lawns,
shrubs, and plants; parks, playgrounds,
schoolyards, golf courses, medians
Industrial uses
Air conditioner chiller water
Backup source for fire protection

Residential Irrigation

Air Conditioner Chiller Water

Tennis Courts

Color-Coded Reclaimed Water Hydrant

Storage

Distribution System
100 miles (160 km) of trunk and transmission
mains
10 to 48 inches (25 to 120 cm) diameter

200 miles (320 km) of distribution piping

2 to 8 inches (5 to 20 cm) diameter

Transmission mains from all 4 WRFs are

interconnected
9 booster pump stations (5 are City owned and
operated)
System pressure monitored at key locations

St. Petersburg, Florida

Wastewater flow = 33 mgd (125,000 m3/d) from 4

treatment plants
Quantity reused = 17 mgd (64,000 m3/d)
40% of total water provided by City

In-plant uses 1 mgd (3,800 m3/d)

Deep well injection = 15 mgd (57,000 m3/d)
Potable water pumped = 26 mgd (98,000 m3/d)

Florida Water Reuse Regulations

- Nonpotable Uses -

Type of Use
Restricted Public
Access Irrigation*
Industrial Uses

Water Quality Limits

200 fecal coli/100 mL
20 mg/L TSS
20 mg/L CBOD

Public access
irrigation
No detectable fecal
Food crop irrigation
coli/100 mL
Toilet flushing
5 mg/L TSS
Fire protection
20 mg/L CBOD
Commercial laundries
Vehicle washing

Treatment
Required
Secondary
Disinfection

Secondary
Filtration
Disinfection

* Sod farms, forests, pasture land, areas used to grow trees, fodder, fiber,
and seed crops, and similar areas

St. Petersburg, Florida

Reclaimed water quality (avg. from 4 WRPs):

BOD = 2.6 mg/L

TSS = 1.0 mg/L
Turbidity = 2.4 NTU
TDS = 580-1070 mg/L
NO3 = 0.27 mg/L
NO2 = 0.75 mg/L
NH3 = 16.9 mg/L
PO4 = 2.0 mg/L
Chlorides = 441 mg/L
Fecal coliforms < 1/100 mL
Cl2 residual = 3.9 mg/L

Pathogens in Reclaimed Water (Tertiary Treatment)

- St. Petersburg, Florida -

Enterovirus
(PFU/100 L)

Cryptosporidium
(oocysts/100 L)

Giardia
Helminths
(cysts/100 L)
(ova/L)

100

67

100

33

Average

1,033

1,456

6,890

16.5

Maximum

4,450

12,200

12,500

111

17

25*

Average

0.01

0.75

0.49

---

Maximum

0.133

5.35

3.3

---

Untreated WW
% Positive

Reclaimed Water
% Positive

* All Giardia cysts in reclaimed water were determined to be nonviable

Deep Well Injection

Excess reclaimed water and inadequatelytreated reclaimed water are disposed of via
injection wells
Total of 10 wells at the water reclamation plants
Wells penetrate a saltwater aquifer about 1,000
feet (305 m) below land surface
Groundwater chloride level = 22,000 mg/L
Precludes its use as a potable source of supply

Deep Well Injection

Program Cost*
Cost to date: $145,000,000
EPA grant funding estimated to be $100,000,000
Upgrade the four treatment plants
Construct the distribution system
City funded share $20,000,000 (contribution not
targeted for recover)
The remaining $15,000,000 is recoverable through
the Voluntary Assessment Program
* 1 U.S. Dollar 2 Brazilian Reals

Operating Cost and Subsidy

Operating cost = $5,300,000
System revenue = $2,600,000
Remaining operating cost of $2,700.000
subsidized by citys water and wastewater
utilities
Each utility pays half of that cost

St. Petersburg, Florida

- Residential Irrigation with Reclaimed Water -

Reclaimed water use is voluntary

Residents pay cost of extending distribution
lines to serve them
Ranges from $500 to $1,200 per customer

Total connection charge = $435

$242 tapping fee
$168 for backflow preventer
$15 inspection fee

Operating Cost and Subsidy

Residential user fees
Flat rate charge = $15.62 for first acre (0.4 ha) and
$8.95 for each additional acre (0.4 ha) or portion
thereof

Commercial user fee

Volume rate = $0.45/1,000 gallons ($0.12/m3)

Agricultural Irrigation
Salinas Valley Reclamation Project
(Monterey, California)
Operational since 1998

Monterey Wastewater Reclamation Study for

Agriculture (MWRSA)

7-year Demonstration Project

Completed on 1987
Cost = $7 x 106
Goal: assess safety and feasibility of using tertiary
treated reclaimed water to irrigate crops eaten raw
Artichokes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, and celery

Evaluated 3 types of irrigation water

Tertiary treated reclaimed water receiving direct filtration
Tertiary treated reclaimed water receiving chemical
coagulation-clarification prior to filtration
Local well water (Control)

Demonstration plots = 12 acres (5 ha)

Salinas Valley Reclamation Project

- Operational in 1998 -

Treatment plant capacity = 30 mgd (114,000 m3/d)

Current flow = 20 mgd (76,000 m3/d)
Treatment:

Secondary (trickling filters)

Rapid mix of coagulant and polymer added
Flocculation
Dual media gravity filtration
Disinfection using gaseous chlorine
Diurnal flow equalization storage

Crops irrigated: artichokes, broccoli, cauliflower,

lettuce, celery, and strawberries

Irrigation Distribution System

Distributes reclaimed water to 222 parcels of
farmland
Irrigate 12,000 acres (4,900 ha) of food crops
Distribution pipelines = 46 miles (74 km)
Diameter = 8 to 15 inches (20 to 38 cm)

22 supplemental wells for peak demand

111 flow-metered turnouts
Pressure and flow metering stations
Centralized control system
3 booster pump stations
Cathodic protection for ferrous metal piping

Supplemental Well

Grower turnout

Costs
Capital costs
Treatment facilities: $30 million (US dollars)
Only includes cost of additional treatment

Distribution system: $37 million

O&M costs/year
Treatment facilities: $3.9 million
Distribution system: $1.5 million

Repayment of loans/year: $1.8 million

Cost to treat & deliver water = $0.86/1000 gallons
($0.22/ m3)
Excludes secondary treatment costs
Includes debt service and O&M costs

Salinas Valley Reclamation Project

- Microbial Water Quality Organism

Tertiary
Raw
Secondary
Reclaimed
Wastewater
Effluent
Water

Fecal coliform (MPN/100 mL)

7 x 106
30 x 106

230 x 106
800 x 103

ND

E. Coli 0157:H7 (MPN/100 mL)

ND

ND

ND

Salmonella (MPN/100 mL)

ND 16

2.2 9.2

ND

Giardia (cysts with internal

structure/100 mL)

2,000
22,400

0.4 12.2

ND 0.3
(empty
cysts)

ND 200

ND 1.8

ND 0.41

--

--

ND

Cryptosporidium (cysts with

internal structure/100 mL)
Virus (MPN/L)
ND = Not detected

Acceptance of Produce Grown in Reclaimed water

Acceptable to brokers, wholesalers, and store

managers
Special labeling not required by regulatory
agencies
Growers believe reclaimed water is as good as
or better than other irrigation water they use
Reluctant to advertise source of water
Concerned about perception issues

Indirect Potable Reuse

Orange County Water District (California)
Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS)
Operational since 2008

Orange County

Transfers &
Storage
L.A. Aqueduct

One hour south of Los

Angeles
Coastal community
Dry, arid climate with
little rain
Sources of water include
groundwater and
imported water

State Water Project

Local Supplies
Groundwater & Recycling

Colorado River
Aqueduct

Typical OCWD Water Supply Sources to

Recharge the Groundwater Basin (m3/yr)

Natural
Incidental
Recharge
74 x 106

SAR Stormflows
62 x 106

MWD Untreated
Full Service
Water - 25 x 106

Other - 5 x 106
GWRS - 89 x 106

SAR Baseflows
126 x 106

Joint Partnership
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD):
Wastewater Collection, Source Control, Treatment
and Disposal

Orange County Water District (OCWD):

Manages and protects the Groundwater Basin, AWT

Partnership since 1972 for Wastewater Reclamation

OCSD

Source
Control
Sewage

Primary
Treatment

Secondary
Treatment

OCWD
Advanced Water
Purification

Reuse

GWRS Flow System

70 mgd (265,000 m3/d)

Enhanced
Source
Control

Secondary
Treatment

Microfiltration
(MF)

Reverse
Osmosis
(RO)

Ultraviolet
Light
(AOP)
Product
Water

OCSD
Secondary
Effluent
Backwash
OCSD Plant 1

Brine
OCSD Outfall

with
hydrogen
peroxide

Groundwater
Recharge
(injection &
spreading)

Aerial View of GWRS Treatment Facility

Where Does GWR System Water Go?

Water is returned to groundwater basin
35 mgd (132,500 m3/d) is sent to injection wells for
seawater intrusion barrier
35 mgd (132,500 m3/d) is sent to recharge basins in
Anaheim to augment groundwater aquifers

Orange County Water District Groundwater

Replenishment System (GWRS)
Kraemer/Miller Basins
Santa Ana River

Future Mid-Basin
Injection/Recharge
Santiago Creek

GWRS Pipeline
Seawater
Intrusion
Barrier
Pacific Ocean

Groundwater Basin

Pumping
Facilities

OCWD
OCSD
Facilities

Ocean
Outfall

Water Quality Produced by GWRS

Meets all drinking water standards
Total dissolved solids:
Influent = 1,000 mg/L
Product water = <30 mg/L
Total organic carbon:
Influent = 11-12 mg/L
Product water <0.15 mg/L
Pharmaceuticals removed to nondetectable levels
Other chemicals also effectively removed by RO
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) destroyed by UV
1,4-dioxane removed by RO, AOP
Trihalomethanes reduced to nondetectable levels

GWRS Project Funding

$481 Million Capital Cost

OCSD
Contribution,
$196,000,000

OCWD,
$196,000,000

State Grants,
$69,000,000

,
Federal
Grant,
$20,000,000

Annual operating cost = $425/af ($0.34/m3)

Benefits of GWR System

Higher quality than other water sources in
Orange County
Provides additional groundwater supply
Uses 40% less energy than that needed for
imported water
Reliable, drought-proof source
Protects basin from seawater intrusion
Reduces salinity build up
Decreases wastewater discharge to ocean
Defers need for a new ocean outfall
Provides needed water for Orange County

James Crook, Ph.D., P.E.

Environmental Engineering Consultant
E-mail: jimcrook@msn.com