Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 165
10
Social, Legal, and Regulatory Issues and Opportunities
Water reuse projects, like any large-scale water to the ocean. However, in an inland environment,
project, affect numerous stakeholders and are affected water reuse may affect downstream users of the ef-
by a complex legal and regulatory framework that fluent. Thus, the right to use wastewater needs to be
spans many sectors. Water reuse, once an exceptional examined. The law of water rights in the United States
and little-regulated practice, is now recognized as an has evolved under two distinct systems: (1) prior ap-
important component of water resources management. propriation doctrine in the West and (2) riparian rights
Our growing need and expectation of reliable water in the East. Broadly speaking, the prior appropriation
supplies have driven technological innovation in water doctrine evolved in regions where water has always
treatment, storage, and conveyance that has created been scarce, and it provides a means of allocating water
new opportunities to integrate reclaimed water into our in times of shortage according to the date that a right
water systems. As one might expect in any field evolv- was perfected. In contrast, riparian rights evolved in
ing as dramatically as wastewater treatment and reuse, more humid regions and give rights to landowners who
the regulatory, legal, economic, public understanding, border rivers. Within this broad construct, each state’s
and public policy aspects of water reuse are not well rules have evolved within their respective borders; thus
aligned. the doctrines are just a general indication of how water
In this chapter, the committee reviews the legal rights may be attributed. Finally, legislation in some
and regulatory framework, including water rights and states has specifically addressed water reuse and clarifies
regulation of water quality, that influences the applica- legal questions surrounding the right to reuse water.
tion and design of water reuse projects at the local level.
The chapter then describes existing state water reuse Water Reuse Under Prior Appropriation
regulations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) guidelines, and relevant international guidelines. In accordance with each state’s legal structure,
U.S. wastewater and drinking water regulations are also treatment facilities planning to reuse water must con-
discussed as they relate to reuse. The chapter also in- sider the effect on downstream users. Traditionally,
cludes an analysis of factors that contribute to positive wastewater has been considered a liability, and munici-
or negative public attitudes toward reuse. palities have used the least expensive means to bring the
water into compliance with water quality requirements
so the effluent could be discharged. As communities
WATER RIGHTS
expand and treatment and monitoring technologies im-
If one’s experience with water reuse is in a water- prove, wastewater in some arid regions is changing from
scarce coastal city, one might assume that it is desirable being regarded as a liability to an asset. This evolution
for water to be treated and reused before it is released raises important legal questions of who has rights to
165
OCR for page 166
166 WATER REUSE
the treated effluent and when and how the owner can California’s reuse statute provides that “The owner
use the resource. Another perspective is to ask whether of a waste water treatment plant operated for the pur-
the use of wastewater constitutes a “new” water supply; pose of treating wastes from a sanitary sewer system
it might in a region where flows otherwise are released shall hold the exclusive right to the treated waste water
to the ocean, but not in a region where a downstream as against anyone who has supplied the water dis-
user relies on them. charged into the waste water collection and treatment
system” (California Water Code § 1210).
In Utah, the right to reuse water must be speci-
Approaches to Water Reuse Under the Prior
fied in the original water right where wastewater reuse
Appropriation Doctrine
is included as a beneficial use (Schempp and Austin,
The primary conflict with respect to water rights 2007). A public agency that owns or operates a waste-
stems from downstream water rights holders and the water treatment facility may use, contract for the use,
potential for reuse activities to impair their use of or reuse such water obtained under a water right under
certain conditions.3 Water rights do not automatically
the water. Some states give water treatment facilities
greater rights to treated water, whereas other states may attach upon treatment. Most basins in Utah are fully
protect downstream senior rights holders. If the water appropriated, and therefore a significant part of the re-
reuse proponent must purchase a separate water right use program is dependent on contractual arrangements
to the wastewater (i.e., the locality does not have the that provide wastewater treatment facility owners with
right to retain its treated wastewater), the costs of reuse rights to the treated wastewater (Schempp and Austin,
will increase substantially. 2007).
In general, the owner of a wastewater facility has In Arizona, the State Supreme Court held that
the ability to reuse the water without purchasing it from the entity that treats the wastewater is entitled to put
it to any reasonable use.4 This essentially provides
another. However, this is not always the case. In Utah
the right to reuse must be specified in the operator’s wastewater reuse facilities the rights to all the water
water permit, and in New Mexico the operator’s right they treat. The court explained that the rule “will allow
to wastewater may be dependent on its consumptive municipalities to maximize their use of appropriated
rights (which can be less than the water it discharges). water and dispose of sewage effluent in an economi-
In the following paragraphs, a brief survey of how states cally feasible manner.” The court added that “the spirit
have approached the reuse of wastewater is presented. and purpose of Arizona water law . . . is to promote
In Colorado, wastewater can be used by the munic- the beneficial use of water and to eliminate waste of
ipal wastewater treatment plant owner when the water
is “developed” water. The term is used to describe water
that is not natural to a stream, such as water imported In 1972, the court in Metro Denver Sewage v. Farmers Reservoir rec-
from another basin or pumped from groundwater. ognized that this “wastewater rule” was also applicable to municipal
wastewater effluent (499 P.2d 1190 (1972)). Subsequently, the court
These wastewaters would be available for use by the
clarified the wastewater rule distinguishing that wastewater, as op-
city that operates the wastewater treatment works. This posed to return flow and seepage, was not subject to appropriation
concept provided the ability for Denver to reuse waters by downstream entities (City of Boulder v. Boulder & Left Hand
Ditch Co., 557 P.2d 1182 (1976)).
that had been piped from the Colorado River basin into
3 Such restraints include that the water right is administered as
the Platte basin (Tarlock, 2009).1 Further, the courts
a municipal water right, the reuse is consistent with the underly-
have held that there is no right in downstream entities ing water right, and the reuse is approved by both the Utah Water
to appropriate wastewater of another if that water has Quality Board and the State Engineers Office (Utah Code Ann.
§ 73-3c-201(1) and 73-3c-202(1)a-c.
been “developed.”2 4 S enior water rights holders downstream from a municipal
wastewater treatment plant alleged impairment as a result of the
1 S ee City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2nd 1, treatment plant’s sale of its treated effluent to other parties, which
65-78 (1996). significantly decreased discharges to the stream. The court held that
2 The issue of water rights and water reuse was determined by the “the ‘producer’ of the effluent is a senior appropriator, those who
Colorado Supreme Court beginning with Burkhar v. Meiberg, where have appropriated the effluent gain no right to compel continued
the Colorado Supreme Court determined there was no vested right discharge.” Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Long, 773 P.2d 988, 991-97
to the captured irrigation wastewater of another (86 P. 98 (1906)). (Ariz. 1989).
OCR for page 167
167
SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
this precious resource.”5 However, this reasoning has stages. Finally the burden of proving whether impair-
been criticized because “one equally could argue that ment will occur is significant, and it matters where the
in a highly appropriated state, the water is not wasted burden is imposed. Schemp and Austin (2007) note
if it is returned to the watercourse and subsequently that when the burden is placed on the water utility,
appropriated downstream—as was the situation in this the costs of the reuse project can increase. When the
case” (Schempp and Austin, 2007). burden is placed on a state agency, the utility burden
In New Mexico, the State Supreme Court ruled in is reduced but the approval time may be lengthened
Reynolds v. City of Roswell that the city’s “sewage efflu- while the state calculates the expected consequences to
ent is private water which the City may use or dispose the hydrological system. When the burden of proving
of as it wishes.”6 Neither downstream users of the dis- impairment is left to the downstream user, upfront
charged wastewater effluent nor the state engineer can project costs are reduced but the chance of subsequent
compel the continued supply of treated effluent without litigation is increased, with less long-term confidence
a contract, grant, dedication, or condemnation.7 The in a utility’s water rights.
Supreme Court ruled that permit conditions are al-
lowed only to protect existing water rights. Water Reuse Under the Riparian Doctrine
It is important to note that the principles of water
rights are not the only ones under which water flows The riparian doctrine is used in the more humid
can be protected downstream. Environmentally based Eastern states and essentially bases the right to use
standards, such as instream flow rights, also could affect rivers on proximity to the waterway. Hence, the water
the ability to reuse wastewater flows. right resides in the “riparian” land owner, in contrast
In summary, municipal wastewater treatment to the prior appropriation doctrine where land owners
plant operators in many states have the right to reuse who are not adjacent to the water source can acquire
wastewater effluent, but in others it may be necessary to water rights. The doctrine has evolved with changing
procure water rights to do so. The application process, circumstances, and modern practice involves adminis-
described below, can affect these rights. trative requirements and the ability to transfer water
rights. Generally the wastewater operator would be able
to reuse wastewater unless it would likely cause harm
Water Rights Application Process Under the Prior
to downstream riparian rights holders.
Appropriation Doctrine
As would be expected, states’ application processes Approaches to Water Reuse Under the Riparian Doctrine
for reuse projects range from simple to complex. Key
aspects of the application process for water rights to In general, water rights are less contentious in
reclaimed wastewater by state are listed in Table 10-1. riparian states. In the eastern United States, Florida is
A common feature is that downstream water users are at the forefront of water reuse and recycling activities.
protected from impairment by upstream users. Gener- Water reuse is statutorily encouraged and the state rec-
ally, impairment is used in water law to indicate that ognizes that the “promotion of water conservation and
a given user’s water right has been reduced or in some reuse of reclaimed water, as defined by the department,
way negatively impacted by another user. If reuse rep- are state objectives and considered to be in the public
resents a change of use, generally the applicant must interest” (Fl. Stat. § 373.250[1]). All five of Florida’s
demonstrate “no injury” to other users (Tarlock, 2009). Water Management Districts have reuse programs
States tend to acknowledge downstream uses that have and, generally, reuse is regulated under consumptive
become established in reliance on wastewater dis- use permits. In New Jersey, the state has directed the
charges (e.g., California). In some states environmental Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
protection of the stream is addressed in the application to encourage and promote water reuse along with
water conservation (N.J. Admin. Code § 7:14A-2.1).
Examples of key aspects of the water rights permit-
5 Id.at 997.
ting scheme in Florida and New Jersey are provided
6 Reynolds, 654 P.2d at 539 (1982).
in Table 10-1.
7 Reynolds v. City of Roswell, 654 P.2d 537 (1982).
OCR for page 168
168 WATER REUSE
TABLE 10-1 Key Aspects of Application Process for Water Rights to Reused Wastewater for Selected States
State Examples of Key Aspects of Water Rights Application Process in Selected States
Prior Appropriation Doctrine
California “Prior to making any change in the point of discharge, place of use, or purpose of use of treated wastewater, the owner of any wastewater
treatment plant shall obtain approval of the board [California Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB)] for that change “(Cal. Water
Code § 1211(a)).
These provisions apply to water reuse activities unless “changes in the discharge or use of treated wastewater . . . do not result in decreasing
the flow in any portion of a watercourse” (Cal. Water Code § 1211(b)).
Nevada Can include two applications: a primary application quantifying the total discharge of the wastewater treatment facility, and a secondary
application quantifying how, and what amount of, the discharge will be beneficially reused (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.440).
The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) must confirm that proposed water reclamation projects will meet water quality
standards.
The Nevada Department of Water Resources reviews applicants proposing to reuse effluent that historically has been discharged into a water
body, to determine whether the project is likely to impair the rights of downstream users.
Oregon Water reuse projects are exempt from obtaining water appropriation permits if there are not negative impacts on fish and wildlife. Statutory
focus on water quality rather than quantity (Or. Rev. Stat. § 537.131, .132(1)).
Applications must include the traditional water right elements of source, use, amount of the use, and description and location of the
conveyance mechanism to be used to transport the reuse water (Or. Rev. Stat. § 537.132[2]).
Utah Reuse is approved under two separate applications: one to the Utah Water Quality Board and another to the State Engineer’s Office for
streamflow appropriation (Utah Code Ann. § 73-3c-302(2)a-c).
Applicants must describe their water right including the diversion, depletion, and return flow requirements, in addition to the proposed
water to be reused. In regard to reused water, the application must include the place, purpose, and extent of the proposed water reuse, and an
evaluation of the depletion to the hydrological system caused by the reuse (Utah Code Ann. § 73-3c-302(2)g).
Washington The distribution of water by agricultural production plants and industrial plants are exempt from traditional permit requirements (Wash.
Rev. Code §§ 90.46.150, .160), easing water reuse, where water rights for the use of the reclaimed water are obtained in a single permit with
associated water quality and Department of Health provisions (Wash. Rev. Code § 90.46.030).
Statutes protect downstream users from impairment by assuring that “facilities that reclaim water under this chapter shall not impair
any existing water right downstream from any freshwater discharge points of such facilities unless compensation or mitigation for such
impairment is agreed to by the holder of the affected water right” (Wash. Rev. Code § 90.46.130(1)). However, the statute does not specify
what constitutes “impairment” or how and by whom impairment is determined (Schempp and Austin, 2007).
Riparian Doctrine
Florida Reuse is generally regulated under consumptive use permits for which domestic wastewater treatment facilities must identify such factors
as: the level of treatment, the volume of reclaimed water available, and the volume of reclaimed water provided to reuse customers. All
wastewater facilities must reuse water of the “lowest acceptable quality” and if reclaimed water satisfies this mandate and is determined
feasible, the applicant is required to implement and maximize its use.a
Each Water Management District is designated as being inside or outside of a water resource caution area (FL OPPAGA, 1999), which
dictates water use permitting requirements. Permittees within water resource caution areas are “required to use reclaimed water within five
years and total use of reclaimed water within 20 years unless it is determined to be economically, environmentally or technically infeasible”
(Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 40A-2.802(1)c(3)).
New Jersey Application process requires the wastewater treatment facility to provide (1) the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
associated with the reused water, (2) an operations protocol, (3) an engineer’s report if application is not within the confined area, and (4) a
reuse supplier and user agreement. The operations protocol section requires an applicant to provide a narrative of the project that includes
the proposed procedures to be followed in applying reuse water, how the water will be transported and where the water will be applied
(NJDEP, 2011).
aSee http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/reuse/wmdprog.htm.
Rights to Aquifer Storage buy storage rights in a reservoir owned by another. If,
however, the project relies on groundwater storage, a
A water reuse project may rely on a reservoir to different legal problem is presented.
store remediated water prior to its distribution. The The right to use of an aquifer to store water may
rights to reservoir storage are well understood: the be addressed through a statutory framework, in which
project may own the land and the reservoir, or may case rights are likely to be defined. In some states, such
OCR for page 169
169
SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
as Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, and New Mexico, statutory Program) affect the quality of water used for reuse, in-
schemes address when water may be stored and how cluding de facto reuse scenarios. Regulations also affect
rights to its withdrawal are governed. the treatment level and quality of wastewater, which
Rights to store water in the subsurface are gener- can affect the extent of treatment required for water
ally not controlled by the ownership of the overlying reuse applications. Water quality regulations involving
property. A recent case in Colorado8 explained why groundwater affect water reuse operations that use the
ownership of the overlying property did not create a subsurface for additional engineered natural treatment
property right in an aquifer below the property. The and storage. Drinking water regulations also affect the
proposal would have used an aquifer that covered 115 degree of reclaimed water treatment required. In sum-
square miles of land in South Park, Colorado. The over- mary, while many aspects of water reuse are addressed
lying landowners contended that the use of the aquifer by different federal regulatory programs, there is no
would constitute trespass, in the absence of a contract integrated regulatory approach to this process. The
giving permission for the use of the aquifer. The state following sections outline the various federal regulatory
Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that programs that affect water reuse operations.
“ When parties have use rights to water they have cap-
tured, possessed, and controlled, they may place that The Clean Water Act and Wastewater Discharge
water into an aquifer by artificial recharge and enjoy the
benefit of that water as part of their decreed water use The Clean Water Act was developed to protect
rights, if the aquifer can accommodate the recharged the health of the nation’s surface waters with the states
water without injury to decreed senior water rights.”9 (or tribes) given authority to determine the uses to be
protected. The Act establishes the basic structure for
* * *
regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of
In summary, the ability to utilize wastewater for the United States and for regulating quality standards
reuse is controlled by state water law. As water be- for surface waters. Water quality standards are adopted
comes scarcer, states will need to address the differing by states and include water quality criteria, designated
interests in wastewater. Generally, in regions where uses of water bodies, and antidegradation provisions.
the wastewater generator has unambiguous ownership These waters may be protected to very high standards,
of the water, reuse is more easily facilitated. However, such as the protection of a cold-water fishery, or given
in arid states, reuse may be affected by the interests of lesser protection. Although the use of surface waters
downstream water users. for water supply can affect stream designation, very
few rivers in the United States are classified solely on
their use as a drinking water source (i.e., “drinkable”).
THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY
States can take drinking water use into consideration
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
in standard setting under the Act, and there are a few
As discussed in earlier chapters, effectively manag- who do so.
ing water quality concerns is central to the protection Discharges from municipal wastewater treatment
of public health and the environment in water reuse plants were regulated in the earliest days of the Clean
projects. Although there are no federal regulations Water Act. These facilities are subject to National
specific to water reuse, several federal regulations have Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
a bearing on water reuse operations. Regulations ad- permits, which reflect national standards, and state (or
dressing the quality of discharges to surface waters (e.g., tribal) requirements. The Act does not protect against
the Clean Water Act) or discharges to municipal waste- all sources of pollution (e.g., non-point-source pollu-
water treatment plants (e.g., the National Pretreatment tion and certain types of agricultural return flows) so
that treatment is required for almost all waters drawn
from surface sources.
8 Board of County Commissioners of the County of Park v. Park
Clean Water Act requirements also frequently limit
County Sportsmen’s Ranch, LLP, 45 P.3d 693 (Colo, 2002))
the discharge of saline brines (or concentrate) from
9 Id. at 703-04.
OCR for page 170
170 WATER REUSE
membrane treatment processes (e.g., reverse osmosis) sufficiently removed by conventional wastewater treat-
to freshwater lakes and streams. Thus, the costs of re- ment (Box 10-1).
claimed water treatment options for inland communi- Future pretreatment program reviews conducted
ties are affected by these water quality standards, which as part of requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA
can vary across the states and even stream by stream. § 301(d)) should be conducted with serious consider-
One particular type of pollution—“indirect” in- ation of the increasingly intimate connection between
dustrial discharges to wastewater treatment plants—is domestic wastewater discharge and domestic water
regulated under the National Pretreatment Program, supply. Capturing contaminants at their industrial
which was developed to reduce the discharge of in- source can be an efficient method of keeping these con-
dustrial pollutants at their source. This program is stituents out of drinking water supplies from potable
administered locally, and reuse facilities can impose reuse projects and de facto reuse scenarios. The present
more stringent regulation for chemicals that are not list of 129 priority pollutants regulated by the National
BOX 10-1
The National Pretreatment Program and Expanding Source Control
The Clean Water Act (CWA), passed in 1972, was designed to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters and to achieve
fishable and swimmable water quality levels. EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), one of the CWA’s key components,
requires that all direct discharges to the nation’s waters comply with an NPDES permit, but many industries discharge through municipal wastewater
treatment plants. Consequently, EPA established the National Pretreatment Program, which requires industrial and commercial dischargers to treat
or control pollutants in their wastewater prior to discharge to municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Generally, wastewater treatment plants are designed to treat domestic wastewater only. Under the Pretreatment Program, local governments must
implement pretreatment standards requiring that pollutants be removed from any industrial or commercial discharge to a wastewater collection
system. The current objectives of the program are to
• prevent the discharge of pollutants that may pass through the municipal wastewater treatment plant untreated;
• protect wastewater treatment plants from hazards posed by untreated industrial wastewater; and
• improve the quality of effluents and biosolids so that they can be used for beneficial purposes (Alan Plummer Associates, 2010).
Under this program, wastewater authorities must adopt ordinances, issue permits, monitor compliance, and take enforcement action when
violations occur. EPA has established numeric effluent guidelines for 56 categories of industry, and the Clean Water Act requires that EPA annually
review its effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards to identify new categories for standards.
A summary of the Pretreatment Program’s achievements (EPA, 2003b) demonstrates that it has resulted in significant reductions in the discharge
of toxic chemicals to the environment. Most standards have been based on the 129 priority pollutants, which were included in the 1977 Amendments
to the Clean Water Act as a result of the Toxics Consent Decree (NRDC v. Train, 421 U.S. 60 (1976)). Recently, an update has been proposed to
the Universal Wastes Rule to incorporate pharmaceuticals and thereby streamline disposal of hazardous pharmaceutical wastes and reducing the
amount of these chemicals in wastewater (73 Fed. Reg. 73520, Dec. 2, 2008), although no subsequent action has been taken.
In Issues in Potable Reuse (NRC, 1998), the committee recommended that EPA develop a priority list of contaminants of public health signifi-
cance that are known or anticipated to occur in wastewater and that individual communities institute stringent industrial pretreatment and pollutant
source control programs, based on this guidance. EPA has not developed such a list, although some utilities have taken actions on their own. For
example, the Orange County Sanitation District, which supplies reclaimed water for the Orange County Water District’s Groundwater Replenishment
System (see Box 2-11), has expanded the agency‘s source control program to include pollutant prioritization, enhanced outreach to industry and
the public, and a geographic information-system-based toxics inventory. Through its source control program the Orange County Sanitation District
was able to reduce the industrial discharge of 1,4-dioxane and N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) into the wastewater collection system. Oregon
is developing rules that that will require municipal wastewater treatment plants to develop plans for reducing listed priority persistent pollutants.
The Oregon list includes well-studied pollutants as well as some for which little information exists (Alan Plummer Associates, 2010). The Other
programs have been developed to reduce the introduction of pharmaceutical products into the wastewater systems.a
aSee http://www.nodrugsdownthedrain.org/
OCR for page 171
171
SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Pretreatment Program was established more than three Under the existing federal regulations, Class V in-
decades ago as a result of the Toxics Consent Decree jection wells do not require a federal permit if they do
(Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train, 421 U.S. not endanger underground sources of drinking water
60 (1976)) and the 1977 amendments to the Clean and comply with other UIC program requirements
Water Act. The nation’s inactive inventory of manufac- (49 CFR § 144.82). However, states may include ad-
tured chemicals has expanded considerably since that ditional requirements with regard to treatment, well
time, as has our understanding of their significance. construction, and water quality monitoring standards
Updates to the National Pretreatment Program’s list prior to permitting any injection of reclaimed water
of priority pollutants would ensure that water reuse into aquifers that are currently being, or could be, used
facilities and de facto reuse operations are protected for potable supply.
from trace contaminants of concern. These updates
can be accomplished through the existing rulemaking U.S. Drinking Water Regulations: The Safe
process. In the interim until such updates can be made, Drinking Water Act
EPA should develop guidance on additional priority
chemicals to include in enhanced local pretreatment The U.S drinking water regulations set standards
programs in localities implementing potable reuse. that all drinking water treatment plants are required to
Consideration should also be given to expanding meet, whether they use pristine water supply sources,
source control to residential releases of constituents supply water from potable reuse projects, or practice
of concern. Regional, statewide or national regula- de facto reuse (see Box 10-2). This section provides a
tions could drive the development of less troublesome review of the regulatory framework and an evaluation
substitutes for constituents that are difficult to remove of its adequacy for potable reuse.
in wastewater systems. Moreover, if a pollutant source
is a consumer product, regional, statewide, or national
regulations may be required. BOX 10-2
Consideration of De Facto Water Reuse in
U.S. Drinking Water Standards
Federal Regulation for Injection or Infiltration of
Reclaimed Water
The U.S. Public Health Service published drinking water
standards in 1962 (U.S. Public Health Service, 1962) which
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 4, numerous water
provide some insight into concerns regarding de facto (or
reuse projects use subsurface injection or infiltration as unplanned) water reuse. Although the standards specifically
part of the wastewater treatment and storage process. state that “The water supply should be obtained from the most
In some instances, aquifer recharge has additional pur- desirable source which is feasible,” the document goes on
poses such as preventing subsidence or reducing salt- to state: “If the source is not adequately protected by natural
means, the supply shall be adequately protected by treatment.”
water intrusion into freshwater supplies. When water is
The 1962 standards included alkylbenzene sulfonate (ABS),
stored through infiltration, rather than injection, state
an anionic surfactant that was commonly used in detergent.
and local regulations rather than federal regulations, The statement is made that “waters containing ABS are likely
address the quality of the recharge water. to be at least 10 percent of sewage origin for each mg ABS/
Aquifer recharge by direct injection and aquifer liter present.” Also of pertinent interest was the use of carbon
storage and recovery wells are regulated under the Safe chloroform extract (CCE) in the 1962 standards as an indicator
of anthropogenic organic compounds in water. A standard of
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as Class V wells under
200 μg/L CCE was established to “represent an exceptional
the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program (42
and unwarranted dosage of the water consumer with ill-defined
USC § 300h to 300h-4). The UIC program regulates chemicals,” whether from wastewater or other sources. The
the construction, operation, and permitting of wells ABS and CCE standards promulgated in 1962 demonstrate
where fluids are injected underground for storage or that the federal government understood that de facto water
disposal to prevent contamination of underground reuse was occurring and that the contamination of drinking
water from a diversity of synthetic organic contaminants was
drinking water resources. Reclaimed water injected into
possible.
these wells is typically treated to meet both primary and
secondary drinking water standards.
OCR for page 172
172 WATER REUSE
In 1974, Congress authorized the SDWA, which Every 6 years, EPA also must review existing regula-
provides authority to EPA to establish and enforce tions to determine if modifications are required. An
national standards for drinking water to protect public overview of the CCL process and its development is
health. For priority contaminants, EPA determines a provided in Box 10-3.
maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG), the level To move a contaminant from the CCL and into
below which there is no known or expected risk to regulation, EPA must show that regulation would
human health. A maximum contaminant level (MCL) “provide a meaningful opportunity to reduce health
is the highest concentration of a contaminant that risk.” This process can be extremely arduous, time-
is allowed in drinking water through an enforceable consuming, and controversial. The promulgation of a
primary standard. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs regulation is preceded by numerous opportunities for
as possible, considering best available treatment tech- public comment.
nology and costs versus benefits. Regular testing and
reporting is required to ensure that contaminants do New Approaches in Consideration for Contaminant
not exceed the MCL. For some contaminants, includ- Regulation
ing microorganisms, EPA instead requires specific
treatment techniques (TT) be used in the drinking In March 2010, EPA announced a new drinking
water treatment process in lieu of an MCL. Individual water strategy that outlines the principles to expand
states are allowed to adopt more stringent standards, if public health protection for drinking water (EPA,
desired. In 2009, the EPA National Primary Drinking 2010a). The new strategy comprises four major points:
Water Regulations included three MCLs for disinfec-
tants, four MCLs for radionuclides, five MCLs or TTs • Address contaminants as groups rather than
for microorganisms, 16 MCLs or TTs for inorganic one at a time so that enhancement of drinking water
chemicals, and 53 MCLs or TTs for organic chemicals protection can be achieved cost-effectively.
(EPA, 2009b). • Foster development of new drinking water tech-
To assess the occurrence of unregulated contami- nologies to address health risks posed by a broad array
nants that are suspected to affect drinking water, EPA of contaminants.
established the Unregulated Contaminant Monitor- • Use the authority of multiple statutes to protect
ing Regulation (UCMR) program under the SDWA. drinking water.
Under this program and a prior related program, the • Partner with states to share more complete data
presence of unregulated contaminants in drinking wa- from monitoring at public water systems.
ter has been purposefully monitored across the country
since 1988. The list of contaminants to be monitored is The grouping of contaminants is one of the key
updated in the UCMR every 5 years. issues still remaining to be addressed. Addressing
EPA’s Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) pro- contaminants as groups is expected to lead to efficien-
cess, introduced in the 1996 SDWA Amendments cies in implementing effective treatment, provide ef-
(Public Law 104-182), addresses unregulated contami- ficiencies in developing and administering regulations
nants that are known, or anticipated, to occur in U.S. based on coherent scientific and policy rationale, and
drinking waters and that may require future regulation. foster development of new drinking water treatment
The list specifically includes contaminants that (1) are technologies. Regulating groups of contaminants has
not currently regulated under the SDWA, (2) may been done in the past for specific contaminants (e.g.,
cause adverse health effects, (3) have been detected or total trihalomethanes, a group of five haloacetic acids
are anticipated to occur in public water systems, and (4) disinfection byproducts, radioactive substances).
may require regulation under the SDWA. The SDWA In the new drinking water strategy, EPA continues
Amendments of 1996 require EPA to revise the CCL to identify protection of source water as a key priority.
every 5 years, make regulatory determinations for at Multiple statutes can be applied to control contami-
least five of the CCL contaminants, and identify up nants prior to their entering the water supply. This
to 30 contaminants for monitoring under the UCMR. may include the use of “regulatory authority under the
OCR for page 173
173
SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
BOX 10-3
The Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) Process
The EPA released the first CCL (CCL1) containing 60 contaminants (50 chemical and 10 biological) in March 1998. After the release of CCL1,
EPA asked the National Research Council (NRC) for guidance in establishing a system to prioritize contaminants listed on the CCL (NRC, 1999b).
EPA also asked the NRC to provide advice regarding the development of subsequent CCLs by identifying and prioritizing emerging contaminants.
NRC (1999b) recommended that within 1 year of a CCL release, EPA should use a three-part assessment for each contaminant listed. The sug -
gested process would review (1) existing data on health effects, (2) existing data on exposure, and (3) existing information on treatment methods
and analytical procedures. Using these data, the NRC recommended that EPA conduct a preliminary risk assessment followed by separate deci -
sion documents for any contaminant to be dropped from the list, slated for additional research, or considered for regulation. NRC (1999b) further
advised EPA to publish health advisories for all compounds that remain on the CCL within 3 months after completion of initial decision documents.
In a subsequent report based on a workshop on emerging drinking water contaminants, NRC (1999a) suggested that ideal CCLs should
• meet the statutory requirements of the 1996 SDWA amendments,
• identify the “entire universe of drinking water contaminants” before ranking,
• consider all routes of exposure, including dermal, inhalation, and ingestion,
• use the same identification and selection process for chemical and microbial contaminants, and
• include mechanisms to identify similarities among contaminants and contaminant classes that can be used for evaluation of individual
chemicals.
The committee recommended a two-step process that would prioritize chemicals from a broad universe to a preliminary CCL (PCCL) through
screening criteria and expert judgment followed by use of a prioritization tool and expert judgment to develop the final CCL. To generate the CCL,
chemical attribute scores for health effects (severity and potency) and occurrence (prevalence and magnitude) were assigned to each chemical.
Using both classification models and expert judgment, a draft CCL is generated and published for public comment. The NRC committee estimated
that the number of contaminants in the “universe” could be close to 100,000, considering that the Toxic Substances Control Act inventory alone
includes approximately 72,000 substances produced or imported at greater than 10,000 pounds/year.
In 2001, the NRC published a report that provided more detailed information regarding the suggested approaches for moving contaminants
from the universe to the PCCL and eventually to the CCL (NRC, 2001). The 2001 NRC report suggested the use of selected attributes to evaluate
the likelihood of a particular contaminant occurring at a concentration that could pose risk to public health through drinking water. In relationship
to water reuse, NRC (2001) specifically recommended the inclusion of “any constituent of wastewater treatment or septage” within the contaminant
universe. The committee also recommended the use of virulence-factor activity relationships, within which microorganisms that have the “ability
to survive wastewater treatment and to re-enter drinking water” are specifically addressed.
The suggestions within NRC (2001) were not available in time to be incorporated in the second CCL (CCL2). CCL2 was published in Febru-
ary 2005 and contained 51 of the original 60 contaminants from CCL1. EPA determined that regulations were not required for the additional nine
compounds that were then removed from the CCL.
The third CCL (CCL3) was published in 2009, largely using the processes suggested by the NRC as modified by the National Drinking
Water Advisory Council (NDWAC, 2004). The EPA established a contaminant universe that contained more than 6,000 potential drinking water
contaminants. The CCL3 universe includes compounds known or anticipated to occur in water supplies, considering releases to the environment,
production volume, and fate characteristics. Additionally, the CCL3 universe includes contaminants with demonstrated or adverse health effects,
regardless of occurrence data. EPA followed the two-step process suggested by the NRC by establishing a PCCL followed by a draft CCL. The
final CCL3 contains 116 chemical and biological contaminants, including nine steroid hormones and one antibiotic, which were not included on
the draft CCL3. The inclusion of these compounds suggests that wastewater-derived compounds are currently being considered in assessments
of drinking water safety, although a direct responsibility to regulate potable reuse would probably cause greater scrutiny of compounds likely to
be in municipal wastewater.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act suggest that the regulation of discrete chemicals along
(FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) with new treatment strategies may evolve into a more
to ensure that decisions made for new and existing holistic approach that considers mixtures and groups
industrial chemicals are protective of drinking water” of contaminants according to both treatment efficacy
(EPA, 2010a). Together, the recent actions by EPA and health risk.
OCR for page 174
174 WATER REUSE
Evaluation of the Sufficiency of the Federal adequately targeted contaminants for water reuse ap-
Regulatory Framework When Applied to Reuse plications. From a review of the history of the CCL (see
Box 10-3), it is evident that the process used to gather
The overarching question in relationship to potable data for the CCL is evolving to become increasingly
water reuse is whether the CWA and the SDWA offer comprehensive in character. This becomes particularly
sufficient protection for water supplies that are derived clear in the third CCL (CCL3). Nevertheless, expand-
from sources that include significant municipal waste- ing the water quality monitoring datasets that inform
water effluent. As described in Chapter 2, there are the CCL process, particularly targeting contaminants
many communities in the United States where munici- encountered in municipal effluents, could improve the
pal wastewater treatment plant discharges make sig- effectiveness of the CCL for reuse applications.
nificant contributions to the drinking water source. In The CCL3 universe encompasses a wide array
some cases wastewater discharges are a principal source; of potential water contaminants, both chemical and
thus, it can be argued that the SDWA has already been microbial. To generate the CCL3 universe, EPA relies
given this assignment. The SDWA and the CWA are primarily on databases that are electronically accessible
the federal laws in place to protect the public from at no charge. Although some databases include data
contaminants of wastewater origin. The SDWA alone on contaminants in municipal effluents, much of the
applies to groundwater resources where septic systems data published in peer-reviewed literature is not in-
or other sources of pollution contribute to the overall cluded. The UCMR program under SDWA monitors
groundwater replenishment. Potable reuse projects may unregulated contaminants in drinking water, but this
also be required to meet local or state regulations, above program does not directly target contaminants in wa-
the requirements of the SDWA (state reuse regulations ter reuse systems or municipal wastewater. At present,
are discussed later in the chapter). However, de facto the data on unregulated contaminants in wastewater
reuse scenarios are not subject to additional regulations. discharges primarily originate from research efforts
As outlined earlier, the SDWA does provide limits conducted by utilities and academic research funded
(MCLs) for many chemical and biological contami- by water industry research foundations. The program
nants, and a great deal of research, careful thought, and would benefit from an effort to include these data in the
public dialogue underlies each of these limits. For con- CCL as well. Also, a federal monitoring program for
taminants regulated through MCLs, it is logical that unregulated contaminants directed toward wastewater
the same limits would apply regardless of the source effluents, mirroring the UCMR program for drinking
of the water. Where potable reuse is concerned, un- water, would be highly beneficial in characterizing the
regulated organic contaminants are an issue of special occurrence of emerging contaminants in reuse (and de
interest. The question remains as to the adequacy of facto reuse) applications.
existing drinking water regulations to protect public
health where unregulated trace organic contaminants
The Challenge of Unknown Contaminants
are concerned. In the following section, the committee
examines the adequacy of CCL datasets for evaluating Although the SDWA provides protection to public
contaminants relevant to water reuse, the challenge of health from priority chemicals and microbial contami-
unknown contaminants, and the concern of greater nants, unknown chemical compounds (i.e., those that
microbial risks when raw water supplies contain signifi- have not yet been identified through chemical analysis
cant amounts of municipal wastewater effluent. or whose occurrence has not been characterized) rep-
resent a primary concern in potable reuse projects that
is not currently addressed by the SDWA. This concern
Adequacy of CCL Data for Prioritizing Chemicals
also applies to conventional supplies to the extent that
Relevant to Water Reuse
they are influenced by wastewater sources or exposed
The CCL process (Box 10-3) is the primary to independent sources of contamination. The current
mechanism for considering trace organic contami- paradigm for discrete chemical monitoring of a pre-
nants for regulation under the SDWA. Therefore, the identified suite of contaminants will not be capable of
committee first evaluated whether the CCL process addressing the large number of potential but currently
OCR for page 175
175
SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
unknown contaminants within wastewater effluents. application of existing processes) would also result in
Although the inclusion of production volume and fate increased reduction of bacteria, viruses, and Giardia. It
characteristics in the CCL3 is a reasonable start, truly is uncertain whether this regulatory framework is suf-
identifying unknown chemicals will likely require ad- ficient when source waters contain a high proportion
vanced instrumental techniques and biological assays of wastewater.
to provide more holistic and comprehensive screening Failure of any of the treatment processes used
tools to assess overall biological potency. Addressing to control pathogens would carry a risk of sporadic
contaminants by groups, in addition to individually, “ breakthrough” of pathogens. To the degree that high
as employed by EPA in the original trihalomethane levels of pathogen reduction are achieved by engineered
regulation (EPA, 1979), in subsequent regulations on processes, rather than use of a protected watershed
disinfection byproducts (EPA, 1998b, 2003c) and as (with lower levels of pathogens), it becomes more criti-
recently proposed by EPA for addressing contemporary cal to maintain multiple barriers designed to improve
issues (EPA, 2010a) could provide a useful strategy to reliability (see Chapter 5), whether in a planned reuse
address the challenge of unknowns. situation or in a conventional water system treating
An example of the emergence of one previously un- impaired surface waters.
known chemical is N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA),
which is commonly detected in potable reuse practices Assessment of the Existing Federal Regulatory
using combined chlorine for disinfection (see Box 3-2). Framework for Potable Reuse
Prior to widespread awareness of the chemical, NDMA
was likely present in reclaimed and potable waters for Reclaimed water used for potable reuse ultimately
quite some time at concentrations far greater than 0.7 is required to meet all physical, chemical, radiologi-
ng/L, an EPA-established groundwater cleanup level cal, and microbiological standards for drinking water.
(EPA, 2010b). Although nitrosamines were known to The SDWA will provide a measure of human health
occur in potable water systems as early as the 1970s, protection in terms of discrete chemicals based upon
NDMA did not gain widespread attention until the standards established and enforced by EPA (whether
1990s when it was discovered in elevated levels in in the form of a numerical MCL or a treatment tech-
California reuse systems (Najm and Trussell, 2001). nique). However, as established earlier in this section,
NDMA was added to the CCL in 2009 and was in- the SDWA does not yet establish standards for all
cluded in the UCMR2. potentially harmful constituents that may be present
in wastewater. At present, the rules promulgated under
the CWA and SDWA do not sufficiently address the
Protection Against Greater Microbial Risks
public health concerns associated with reclaimed water
As previously discussed, under the SDWA, viruses for potable reuse. Also, the datasets used to develop the
and protozoa are regulated by treatment techniques universe of contaminants considered for regulation are
rather than MCL. Under the original Surface Water not yet sufficient to capture the range of contaminants
Treatment Rule (SWTR [42 USCA 300g-1(b)(2) that may be present in reclaimed water for potable
(c)), all surface water treatment plants (unless exempt reuse applications. More detailed reuse regulations ex-
by waiver) had to have treatment sufficient to achieve ist in some states to address some, but not all, of these
99.9 percent reduction in Giardia and 99.99 percent concerns (discussed in the next section). A discussion
reduction in viruses, and the operational characteristics of potential advantages and disadvantages of federal
of treatment steps needed to achieve this were defined reuse regulations follows the discussion of state reuse
in guidance manuals. Bacterial pathogens are also pre- regulations. However, it is critical to understand that
sumed to be reduced. Under the Long Term 2 SWTR many drinking water systems in the United States uti-
(LT2SWTR), utilities have been required to take lize source waters with significant contributions from
measurements of the source water concentrations of treated wastewater. Therefore, a revised regulatory
Cryptosporidium to determine if further reductions of paradigm that provides greater protection for potable
Cryptosporidium are required. This additional reduc- reuse applications would need to consider the extent
tion (either by additional processes or by more intensive
OCR for page 182
182 WATER REUSE
organisms to very low or nondetectable levels in the
BOX 10-5
reclaimed water. A few states rely solely on the water
Cross-Connection Control
quality of the product water and do not specify treat-
ment process requirements.
State nonpotable reuse regulations often address cross-
connection control by specifying requirements that reduce
Reclaimed Water Uses. No state water reuse regula- the potential for cross connections, including the following:
tions include requirements for all potential nonpotable
reuse applications; they generally include the most • Identification of transmission and distribution lines
and appurtenances via color coding, taping, or other means
common or likely types of use. Regulations in many
• Separation of potable water and reclaimed water lines
states allow types of use not specifically included in
• Allowable pressures
their regulations if they are shown to the satisfaction • Operation and maintenance procedures
of the regulatory agency to provide an adequate degree • Monitoring and testing
of health or environmental protection. States listed in • Surveillance
Table 10-3 that have uses that are not covered in their • Backflow protection devices to reduce the potential of
contaminating the potable water system in the event of a cross
regulations do not necessarily prohibit such uses. In-
connection at a use area
stead, those uses (and their attendant reclaimed water
treatment and quality requirements) may be evaluated California has additional cross-connection control re-
and accepted on a case-by-case basis. quirements where reclaimed water is used in buildings for
toilet and urinal flushing or for fire protection. The require-
Other Variables. Many state water reuse regulations ments stated in the California Water Recycling Criteria (CDPH,
2009) for reclaimed water in dual-plumbed facilities include
include requirements for water quality monitoring fre-
the following:
quency, treatment reliability, cross-connection control
(see Box 10-5), emergency storage and disposal, and use 1. Internal use of reclaimed water within any individually
area controls (e.g., setback distances, signage). As with owned residential unit, including multiplexes and condomini-
treatment and reclaimed water quality requirements, ums, is prohibited.
these requirements are not uniform from state to state. 2. Facilities that produce or process food products or
beverages can use reclaimed water internally only for fire
suppression systems.
State Guidelines and Regulations for Potable Reuse 3. Reclaimed water cannot be used within a building until
a detailed description of the intended use areas, plans and
Some states (e.g., Hawaii) have guidelines that ad- specifications, and cross-connection control provisions and
dress potable reuse; in those states, regulatory agencies testing procedures is submitted and approved by the regula-
evaluate projects on a case-by-case basis. Many states tory agency.
4. The dual-plumbed system within each facility or use
do not have potable regulations, and several states rely
area must be inspected for cross connections prior to the
on the EPA underground injection control regulations
initial operation and annually thereafter. Additionally, the
to protect potable groundwater basins. A few states, reclaimed water system must be tested at least once every
such as California (draft regulations), Florida, Wash- four years for possible cross connections.
ington, and Massachusetts, have developed compre- 5. The California Department of Public Health must be
hensive water reuse regulations for potable reuse (most notified of any incidence of backflow from the nonpotable
reclaimed water system into the potable water system within
of them for groundwater recharge), but the absence
24 hours of the incident’s discovery.
of state criteria for potable reuse does not necessarily
prohibit potable reuse applications. Some states evalu- Direct connections between potable and nonpotable
ate potable reuse projects on a case-by-case basis, even distribution systems are not allowed in any state (Asano et
without guidelines or regulations. To date, no regula- al., 2007). Detailed information on cross-connection control
tions have been adopted for potable reuse without measures is available in manuals published by the American
Water Works Association (AWWA, 2004, 2009) and the U.S.
the use of an environmental buffer (sometimes called
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2003c).
direct potable reuse; see also Chapter 2) anywhere in
the United States.
OCR for page 183
183
SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
As examples of regulations, existing and draft the federal program. EPA sets standards for pollutants
potable reuse regulations for groundwater recharge using health, technology, cost, or some combination of
in California and adopted groundwater recharge and these elements. The standard-setting process allows for
surface water augmentation regulations in Florida are participation and allows for appeals if certain criteria
summarized in Boxes 10-6 and 10-7. California pub- are met.
lished new draft regulations in November 2011 and There are several potential advantages of devel-
expects to finalize them in the first half of 2012. oping national regulations for water reuse. First, it
would be more efficient for EPA to develop risk-based
regulations than the effort that would be required if
National Standards for Reuse?
regulations were developed by each individual state.
The previous section highlights how water reuse EPA could tap its internal experts with various areas of
regulations and guidelines vary considerably from state expertise that would be needed to establish scientifically
to state in terms of the reuse applications covered, supportable criteria (e.g., public health, microbiology,
treatment and water quality requirements, design or treatment technology, risk assessment). Further, na-
operational controls, the rationale for setting require- tional water reuse regulations may reduce the potential
ments, and the specific objectives of the regulations or of local regulatory decisions that may not be support-
guidelines. Although the EPA’s Guidelines for Water able from a public health or environmental standpoint.
Reuse (EPA, 2004) were developed for states that have On the basis of a survey of stakeholders, including
not yet developed their own regulations or are updating water reuse practitioners and state and federal regula-
their existing regulations, they have not significantly tors, Nellor and Larson (2010) identified the following
affected the lack of uniformity among state regulations. advantages of national regulations for water reuse:
Further, they were not developed in a rigorous manner
• Because the development of regulations is a rig-
comparable to, for example, the SWDA or CWA, and
orous process with public input, compliance with the
thus were not subjected to the scrutiny required of
regulations should provide enhanced public confidence
formal federal regulatory processes.
that a water reuse project is safe.
The imbalance that results from different standards • The regulations should establish credibility of
in each state is demonstrated by food crops grown with and public confidence in water reuse.
reclaimed water where, for example, lettuce grown in • The regulations should create minimum uniform
standards relative to the end use that are applied across
one state may have been irrigated with different quality
the country, thereby eliminating concerns about lack
water than lettuce grown in another state, yet both may
of consistency among state regulations/guidelines in
be sold anywhere. A consumer does not know the dif-
terms of public health protection.
ferent standards in each state, but rather assumes that • The regulations should eliminate the gap for
the level of protection is the same regardless of where states without rules.
the lettuce was grown. From the industry perspective,
an instance of food contamination will injure agricul- There are also some disadvantages outlined by Nellor
tural growers everywhere, so that even a grower in a and Larson (2010) that may result from the promulga-
state with stricter standards could be negatively affected tion of national regulations for reuse:
by a product from a state with more relaxed regulations.
The typical model in environmental regulation is • It would be necessary to amend the CWA or
SWDA, or create a new enabling federal law to provide
one in which Congress creates a regulatory program
authorization for the development of regulations for
in broad outline, and EPA is entrusted by Congress
these uses. Changes to national statutes are difficult
with giving it more specificity, including setting stan-
and resource intensive.
dards for health and environmental protection. Most • To address national variation and uncertainty,
federal statutory schemes allow EPA to delegate the federal regulations generally incorporate a margin of
administration of the program to a state (or tribal) safety. The resulting standards may be very conserva-
tive.
agency. Delegation is contingent upon the state creat-
• More conservative standards could create ob-
ing and maintaining a program that is as stringent as
OCR for page 184
184 WATER REUSE
BOX 10-6
California Draft Regulations for Potable Water Reuse
The California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH’s) existing California Water Recycling Criteria, which were adopted in 2000, outline the
requirements for recharging water supply aquifers with reclaimed water via surface spreading. According to the regulations, reclaimed water used
to recharge water supply aquifers “shall be at all times of a quality that fully protects public health” (CDPH, 2009). Under the regulations, the
CDPH can make project-specific recommendations based on factors such as treatment employed, effluent quality and quantity, soil characteristics,
hydrogeology, residence time, and distance to withdrawal. CDPH embarked on drafting comprehensive groundwater recharge regulations for both
surface spreading and injection projects several years ago that would replace the existing language in the Water Recycling Criteria and, although
the draft regulations have gone through several iterations in the last decade, they have yet to be finalized and adopted. Until criteria are formally
adopted, proposed groundwater recharge projects will be regulated on the basis of the most recent draft regulations (summarized in Table 10-4;
CDPH, 2011), which are subject to substantial revision prior to adoption.
The draft groundwater recharge regulations apply to planned projects that are operated for the purpose of recharging a groundwater basin
designated as a source of municipal and domestic water supply or a project determined to be a groundwater replenishment reuse project by a
California Regional Water Quality Control Board based on a project’s existing or projected replenishment of an affected groundwater basin.
Based on a bill passed by the California Senate and approved by the governor in 2010 (California State Senate, 2010), the California Water
Code (CSWRCB, 2011) was amended in 2010 to require CDPH to (1) adopt uniform water reuse criteria for indirect potable reuse for groundwater
recharge by December 13, 2013; (2) develop and adopt uniform water reuse criteria for surface water augmentation by December 31, 2016, if an
expert panel convened in response to the legislation finds that the criteria would adequately protect public health; and (3) “investigate and report
to the Legislature on the feasibility of developing uniform water recycling criteria for direct potable reuse” by December 31, 2016.
TABLE 10-4 Draft California Regulations for Groundwater Recharge into Potable Aquifers
Water Quality Limits
for Recycled Water Treatment Required Other Selected Requirements
• ≥12-log virus • Industrial pretreatment and source control program
Spreading
• Initial maximum RWC ≤20% for spreading tertiary treated water
reduction • Oxidationd
• ≥10-log Giardia cyst • Filtratione • Initial maximum RWC for injection based on California Department of Public Health
reduction • Disinfectionf (CDPH) review of engineering report and other information from public hearing
• ≥10-log • ≥2-month retention (response) time undergroundg
• Soil aquifer treatment
• 1-log virus reduction credit automatically given per month of subsurface retention
Cryptosporidium
oocyst reduction • 10-log Giardia reduction and 10-log Cryptosporidium reduction credit given to spreading
Spreading with full advanced
• Drinking water projects that have at least 6 months’ retention time underground
treatment
MCLs (except for • Oxidation • Monitor recycled water and monitoring wells for priority toxic pollutants, chemicals with
nitrogen) • Reverse osmosis state notification levels specified by CDPH, and unregulated constituents specified by CDPH
• Action levels for lead • Advanced oxidation process • Operations plan
and copper • Soil aquifer treatment • Contingency plan
• ≤10 mg/L total • Spreading projects with full advanced treatment must meet the requirements for injection
nitrogena projects, except that after one year of operation the project sponsor may apply for a reduced
Injection
• TOCb ≤0.5 mg/L/ • Oxidation monitoring frequency for any monitoring requirement
RWCc • Reverse osmosis
• Advanced oxidation process
aThe total nitrogen limit can be met in the recycled water or in the combination of recycled water and diluent water applied at the recharge site.
bTotal organic carbon.
cThe recycled water contribution (RWC) is the quantity of recycled water applied at a recharge site divided by the sum of the quantity of recycled water
applied at the site and diluent water.
dOxidized wastewater is wastewater in which the organic matter has been stabilized, contains dissolved oxygen, and is not liable to become putrid.
eFiltered wastewater is oxidized wastewater that (1) has been coagulated, filtered through media, does not exceed an average turbidity of 2 NTU, does not
exceed 5 NTU more that 5% of the time within a 24-hour period, and does not exceed 10 NTU at any time; or (2) has received membrane treatment and
does not exceed an average turbidity of 0.2 NTU more than 5% of the time within a 24-hour period and does not exceed 0.5 NTU at any time.
fDisinfected recycled water is water that has been disinfected by either chlorine that provides a CT (product of total chlorine residual and modal contact
time) ≥450 at all times with a modal contact time of at least 90 minutes; or a disinfection process that inactivates/removes at least 5 logs of MS2 bacteriophage
or polio virus. The 7-day median total coliform concentration in the disinfected water cannot exceed 2.2/100 mL.
gMust be verified by a tracer study.
SOURCE: Adapted from CDPH (2011).
OCR for page 185
185
SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
BOX 10-7
Florida Potable Reuse Regulations
The Florida reuse rule (Fla. Admin. Code, Chapter 62-610) includes treatment and water quality requirements for groundwater recharge via
infiltration basins or injection and for indirect potable reuse by surface water augmentation (Table 10-5). The rules address rapid-rate infiltration
basin systems and absorption field systems, both of which may result in groundwater recharge. Although groundwater recharge projects located
over potable aquifers are not specifically designated as indirect potable reuse systems, they could function as an indirect potable reuse system.
However, rapid-rate land application systems that result in the collection and discharge of more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water are
considered as effluent disposal systems. Loading to these surface infiltration systems is limited to 9 inches/d (23 cm/d). Reclaimed water from
systems having higher loading rates or a more direct connection to an aquifer than normally encountered must receive at least secondary treatment,
filtration, and disinfection. The treated water must meet primary and secondary drinking water standards.
The Florida regulations include requirements for planned indirect potable reuse by injection into water supply aquifers and augmentation of
surface supplies. For injection, a minimum horizontal separation distance of 500 ft (150 m) is required between reclaimed water injection wells and
potable water supply wells. The injection regulations pertain to groundwaters that are classified as potable aquifers. The Florida reuse regulations
identify discharges to Class I surface waters (public water supplies) as indirect potable reuse. Wastewater discharges to watercourses that are
less than 24 hours’ travel time upstream from Class I waters also fall under the definition of indirect potable reuse. Wastewater outfalls for surface
water discharges cannot be located within 500 ft (150 m) of existing or approved potable water intakes within Class I surface waters. Pilot testing
is required prior to implementation of injection or surface water augmentation projects.
TABLE 10-5 F lorida Rules for Groundwater Recharge and Indirect Potable Reuse
Type of Use Treatment Water Quality Limits
• ≤200 fecal coli/100 mL
Groundwater recharge • Secondary
• ≤20 mg/L CBOD
(Rapid infiltration basins) • Disinfection
• ≤0 mg/L TSS
• ≤12 mg/L NO3 (as N)
Groundwater recharge • Secondary • No detectable fecal coli/100 mL
≤20 mg/L CBOD
(Rapid infiltration basins in unfavorable • Disinfection •
≤5.0 mg/L TSS
hydrogeological conditions [e.g., karst areas]) • Filtration •
• ≤10 mg/L total N
• Primarya and secondary drinking water standards
Groundwater recharge (Injection to • Secondary • No detectable total coli/100 mL
groundwaters having TDS < 3,000 mg/L) ≤20 mg/L CBOD
• Disinfection •
≤5.0 mg/L TSS
• Filtration •
≤3.0 mg/L TOC
• Multiple barriers for control •
≤0.2 mg/L TOXb
of pathogens and organics •
≤10 mg/L total N
• Pilot testing required •
• Primarya and secondary drinking water standards
Groundwater recharge (Injection to • Secondary • No detectable total coli/100 mL
≤20 mg/L CBOD
groundwaters having TDS 3,000–10,000 mg/L) • Disinfection •
≤5.0 mg/L TSS
• Filtration •
≤10 mg/L total N
•
• Primary drinking water standardsa
Indirect potable reuse • Secondary • No detectable total coli/100 mL
≤20 mg/L CBOD
(Discharge to Class I surface waters (used for • Disinfection •
≤5.0 mg/L TSS
public water supply) • Filtration •
≤3.0 mg/L TOC
•
≤10 mg/L total N
•
• Primarya and secondary drinking water standards
• WQBELsc may apply
a W ith
some exceptions, e.g., asbestos.
bTOX= total organic halogen.
cWQBELs are water quality-based effluent limitations to ensure that water quality standards in a receiving body of water will not be violated.
SOURCE: Adapted from Fla. Admin. Code, Chapter 62-610.
OCR for page 186
186 WATER REUSE
environmental protection, and economic growth. Pub-
stacles for promoting and/or continuing to implement
reuse projects in states with existing standards that are lic policy processes take the form of feasibility studies,
less stringent than the federal regulations. environmental review, approval of funding, and zoning
• Almost certainly, states would retain the legal au-
and siting of facilities, nearly all of which are subject
thority to prescribe more stringent regulations, thereby
to public hearings. There are also robust dialogues
eliminating uniformity.
in letters to the editors, blogs, public meetings, and
• The development and promulgation of the regu-
elsewhere. The goals of these processes are to inform
lations may take a significant amount of time and
resources. the public of pending decisions, seek public input, and
in some cases to seek direct public approval. Another
There are other potential disadvantages associated source of public review occurs when state or national
with national regulations. National standards may not funding is sought for reuse projects that have extensive
be sensitive to local or regional conditions and could nonlocal benefits.
limit flexibility at the local level. Conflicts could arise In this section, research on public perception with
regarding compatibility with existing state wastewater respect to water reuse is discussed. Additionally, the
discharge requirements, environmental controls, or role of communication in successful reuse projects is
other regulations or statutes. It may be difficult to rec- examined. The bulk of the research on these issues has
oncile differences or conflicts between national criteria occurred in countries outside of the United States. In
and existing state water reuse standards, policies, or this section, the committee briefly reviews research
guidelines. For example, if national criteria were more findings on public perception worldwide, but examines
restrictive than a state’s criteria, the national criteria data from the United States in somewhat more detail.
would override local criteria. In such cases, it may result Public perception with respect to water reuse has
in considerable cost to upgrade existing projects, call been studied with increasing interest in the United
into question past practices in the state, and poten- States and Australia since the mid-1990s (summarized
tially damage the credibility of the regulatory agency. in Russell and Lux, 2006), and with interest expand-
All these present challenges that a national regulatory ing globally since the early 2000s (e.g., Jeffrey, 2002;
program would need to address. Al-Kharouf et al., 2008; Ching, 2010; Domenech and
The committee concludes that there are important Sauri, 2010). The long and challenging drought experi-
inconsistencies among existing water reuse regula- enced by Australia in the 2000s focused intellectual and
tions/guidelines. Reclaimed water is of ever-growing policy attention on water reuse, with extensive research
importance as an integral component of the nation’s on public perception and policy processes emerging.
water resources portfolio, and action to embark on the Beliefs about the importance of public perception to the
development and implementation of risk-based na- successful establishment of water reuse projects range
tional water reuse regulations would allow the nation to from “crucial importance” (Marks et al., 2008) to one
more efficiently and effectively maximize this resource. factor among many (Stenekes et al., 2006).
Regulations can be crafted that do not stifle innovation Fear of contaminated water (or anything that is
but allow for new and innovative treatment and quality perceived to be contaminated) is a common human
assurance processes. response. Numerous factors influence risk perception
with respect to water, including sensory input (odor and
taste), delivery context (tap vs. bottle, visual cues from
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ATTITUDES
surface waters), prior experience with the water, sources
Planning for water reuse projects regularly involves of information (informal, interpersonal), level of trust
public involvement and evaluation, which influence the in the water purveyor, and one’s perceived control over
type of reuse projects pursued and whether the project the quality of the water (Doria, 2010). Water reuse
will move forward (Hartley, 2006). Proposed water projects necessarily involve the use of water that was
reuse projects (especially potable reuse projects) have once contaminated. The perception that something is
numerous aspects for the public to consider, including contaminated can trigger a strong, immediate reaction
public health, public finance, local land use, regional of revulsion (see Box 10-8; Rozin and Royzman, 2001;
OCR for page 187
187
SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
al., 1982; Slovic, 1987, 1993; Slovic et al., 2002, 2004).
BOX 10-8 Surveys and experiments have shown that people of-
Public Discourse on Water Reuse in ten connect perceived benefits of an activity with their
Pembroke Pines, Florida evaluation of its risk: the more they think they will
benefit, the lower they consider its risk. This approach
A new water reuse facility has been proposed for Pembroke
is different from a scientific evaluation of risk, which
Pines, Florida. The city of 150,000 people plans to inject 7
would not consider the benefits in any quantitative risk
MGD of wastewater into the Biscayne Aquifer, rather than pip-
assessment. Thus, there is a predisposition among those
ing it to an ocean outfall. The effluent would receive primary,
secondary, and reverse osmosis membrane treatment prior who dislike water reuse to believe it puts them at risk.
to injection. Restoring flows into the Biscayne Aquifer, which
Willingness to use reclaimed water is, in part, a
is shared by several cities, is required by the regional water
function of the intended use, with willingness higher
management authority.
for uses that minimize human contact, including ir-
Although this project is still in the study phase, patterns
rigation, car washing, and other cleaning (Bruvold,
of communication surrounding the disgust response and
1988; Hills et al., 2002; Dolnicar and Schäfer, 2009;
concerns over trace organic chemicals are already emerg-
ing. A local newspaper began its review article of the project Hurlimann and Dolcinar, 2010). In a nationwide survey
with this sentence: “The water in Pembroke Pines toilet
of attitudes toward potable reuse, Haddad et al. (2010)
bowls may soon show up in the drinking glasses of South
reported that 38 percent said they would be willing to
Floridians from Miami to Boca Raton” (Barkhurst, 2011). The
drink “certified safe recycled water,” 49 percent were
article quotes an environmental activist: “You can’t remove
uncertain, and 13 percent said they would refuse to
all pharmaceuticals from the water. It can’t be done. You are
drink the water. This result, especially the small but
putting drugs into our drinking water—Tylenol, birth control
medication, antipsychotics.’’ The article later quotes a water not insignificant number of individuals who initially
agency official who comments positively on available water
say they would refuse such water, is consistent with
treatment technologies.
the reported experience of water agencies that have
This is a common pattern in public communication over
proposed water reuse projects. The survey showed few
proposed water reuse facilities. The debate has been framed as
demographic or geographic differences in attitudes
disgusting water source that threatens public health vs. scien-
toward potable reuse. However, studies outside the
tific demonstrations of water need and safety. The debate also
is framed as the public (in opposition) vs. the water agency United States have found weak but significant demo-
(in support), which departs from the ideal of water agencies
graphic differences in water-related risk perception (Po
playing the role of neutral implementer of the public’s wishes.
et al., 2003; Hurlimann, 2008; Doria, 2010). Hurli-
Instead, the public would be best served by informed public
mann (2008), for example, found that males, people
discourse on a wide range of topics pertaining to water reuse,
older than age 50, and people with college degrees
including relative risks compared to other water supply alter-
were more willing to use reclaimed water for personal
natives and sources already used widely today (see Chapter 7).
uses (including showering, clothes washing, drinking).
A general criticism of this line of research is that it
does not analyze actual behavior and use of reclaimed
water but instead focuses on the stated intentions of
Nemeroff and Rozin, 1994). Although technology is
respondents. Saying one is willing to reuse water in the
available to treat such water to meet or exceed drink-
hypothetical is not the same as actually doing so, ac-
ing water standards (see Chapter 4), members of the
cording to Mankad and Tapsuwan (2011), who call for
public may remain skeptical of such claims (Haddad et
more research on communities already using decentral-
al., 2010). The history of water matters to many people
ized water reuse systems (e.g., residence-scale reuse).
more than the type and concentrations of impurities
Part of the challenge of public acceptance of water
remaining in the water. This can result in a public pref-
reuse hinges on perception of the origins of the water
erence for lower quality water emerging from a “natural”
and whether it can be considered “natural” (see also dis-
aquifer or river over higher quality water emerging di-
cussion of environmental buffers in Chapter 2). Survey
rectly from an advanced wastewater reclamation facility.
results showed that individuals’ trust in the water as a
The research field of judgment, risk perception,
supply for drinking improved if the reclaimed water is
and decision making is well established (Kahneman et
OCR for page 188
188 WATER REUSE
passed through systems perceived to be natural. Aquifer als who were strongly opposed to indirect potable reuse
storage for 10 years was favored over aquifer storage for could be influenced by paragraphs that cast water reuse
1 year, and passing water down a swift-flowing river in a positive light. Macpherson and Slovic (2011) found
for 100 miles was preferred over passing water down a that the water reuse profession does not have standard
1-mile stretch. Aquifer storage overall was preferred to definitions for commonly used technical terms, and
passage down a river (Haddad et al., 2010). this causes confusion among customers. They have
According to Haddad et al. (2010), local inde- generated a glossary of terms and advocate that the
pendent (e.g., university) scientists are viewed by the profession adopt it as standard terms and definitions.
public as the most credible sources of information on The sophistication of communication between
reclaimed water (see Table 10-6), because they combine water agencies and the public continues to evolve
topical expertise and knowledge of the local situation (Box 10-9). There is more public outreach, including
and have no professional stake in water management visitor centers and tours at water reclamation facili-
decisions. Dolnicar and Hurliman (2009), in qualitative ties, more Web sites, and better communications with
interviews, found friends and relatives to be the most regional political leaders and media outlets. Surveys in
trusted sources of information on whether to drink Australia by Dolnicar et al. (2010) and in Barcelona,
reclaimed water. However, those negatively predisposed S pain, by Domenech and Sauri (2010) found that
to potable reuse were least willing to be convinced of knowledge of the water treatment process increased
its efficacy by anyone, although relative rankings of acceptance of water reuse. One often cited example
trusted sources were generally consistent among all of public relations success is Singapore’s NEWater
respondents regardless of their willingness to drink Facility, which invested extensively in a visitor center.
reclaimed water (Haddad et al., 2010). Positive media coverage of water reuse in Singapore
compared with Australia is also recognized as a factor
influencing the success of water reuse (Ching and Yu,
Public Communication
2010). However, it is difficult to ascertain if the absence
The choice of words matters when describing of domestic opposition to the NEWater program is be-
water reuse. Menegaki et al. (2009), studying farming cause of the successful visitor center, positive press cov-
behaviors on the Island of Crete, identify differences in erage, cultural differences, national policies that limit
farmers’ willingness to pay for reclaimed water based on civic discourse, or all of these reasons. In the United
whether it is called “recycled water” or “treated waste- States, tours of water reuse facilities are common, but
water.” Haddad et al. (2010) found that even individu- to date, research has not been undertaken to link tours
TABLE 10-6 Trusted Source of Information on Reclaimed Water Safety: Overall and by Willingness to Drink “Certified
Safe Recycled Water” on a Scale of 0-10
Overalla Unwillingb Uncertainb Willingb
An actor or athlete you admire hired to represent the water treatment facility 2.14 1.05 1.79 2.54
Your neighbor 3.20*** 2.30 2.83 3.64
A private firm hired by the water treatment facility 4.11*** 2.55 3.40 4.87
The manager of the water treatment facility 4.62*** 3.00 4.07 5.27
Staff of the water treatment facility 4.67 3.32 4.00 5.36
A doctor who lives nearby 4.68 3.65 4.00 5.33
Someone who has drunk reclaimed water for years 5.06** 3.18 4.60 5.74
A board made up of engineers and other representative of the community 5.70*** 3.48 5.05 6.58
Engineers/inspectors from the federal government 5.88 3.78 5.02 6.85
Engineers/inspectors from the state government 5.95 4.02 5.09 6.86
A qualified scientist from a nearby university 6.59*** 5.15 6.25 7.08
aThe items are arranged from top to bottom in terms of increasing trust for the full sample (overall). Asterisks indicate that the value is significantly dif -
ferent from the item immediately above it. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001
bBy willingness: ANOVAs on all rows for trust as a function of membership in the three groups are significant at p < .001.
SOURCE: Haddad et al. (2010).
OCR for page 189
189
SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
BOX 10-9
Lessons Learned on Public Communication and Involvement in Redwood City, California
Redwood City, located in the San Francisco Bay area, has 75,000 residents. By 2000, the city was exceeding its assured supply of 11 MGD
(41,000 m3/d) from the Hetch Hetchy regional system, with demand projected to increase. After a study of supply alternatives, the city in 2003
settled on water conservation and water reclamation and reuse (supplying 1.8 MGD [6,800 m3/d]). In an otherwise politically active community,
only two individuals attended a mandatory public meeting on environmental impacts held in 2002. These two individuals then formed the Safewater
Coalition, which objected to use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in residential areas and in schoolyards, playgrounds, and parks. The
Safewater Coalition focused public attention on the project, effectively using the Internet and local media. The Redwood City Recycled Water Task
Force was then formed, with equal balance of membership in favor and opposed to the project, and tasked to find 1.8 MGD in water reuse and/or
additional water conservation. After 5 months of deliberation, the Task Force recommended and the City Council approved a plan that addressed
some of the Safewater Coalition’s concerns. The Task Force plan would rely on 1.6 MGD water reuse and an additional 0.2 MGD in water conserva-
tion, including artificial turf on the playing fields.
Lessons from Redwood City focus more on tactics of public communications than on fundamental changes to project review and approval.
The Redwood City experience highlights the importance of public acceptance of a project in addition to completion and certification of formal
environmental impact reviews. In the case of Redwood City, which echoed the experience of Los Angeles and San Diego in the 1980s, opposition
to a proposed reuse project did not emerge until very late in the formal review process. Additionally, the project exemplifies the capacity of a very
small group of people (as few as one in the case of Redwood City) to impact a project’s progress and the power of the Internet as an organizing
tool and source of information (and sometimes misinformation) on a proposed project. A public vote against a proposed water reuse facility in
Toowoomba, Australia, also appears to have hinged on the actions of one citizen who adamantly opposed the project (van Vuuren, 2009). Water
agency personnel were not, at first, prepared to respond with trusted sources of information for the community to address the Coalition’s claims. The
Redwood City case also highlights the importance of extensive ongoing public communication on water issues in urban areas. Water is no longer a
behind-the-scenes question of infrastructure development, implementation, and financing. It is now an issue of immediate and active public concern.
Today, the Redwood City Recycled Water Project is considered to be successful and is supported by the community. In late 2002, it was
perceived to be held up by a small, determined group. It represents the transition of water agencies into the current era of savvy communication
between water agencies, the public, and political leaders.
SOURCES: Ingram et al. (2006); M. Milan, Data Instincts, personal communication, 2009.
and other improvements in public communication success of water reuse projects. Similarly, Stenekes et al.
with achievement of other goals (e.g., maintaining or (2006), also writing in the Australian context, propose
increasing public trust in the water supply, public sup- that a more productive public engagement is needed,
port for investments in water infrastructure). including a better public understanding of the cost
There are many reasons why a major infrastructure of water, greater participation of the public in water
project gets delayed or canceled. Public perception that planning, and institutional reforms that would clear
water produced from a water reclamation facility is the way for water agencies to pursue more sustainable
objectionable could be one, but public perception may water technologies and strategies. Public perception
not be determinative. Rather, a richer understanding and agency–public communications matter but should
of the social, technical, procedural, and policy-related be understood in a larger economic, procedural, and
aspects of a particular proposal may be the more reli- governance context.
able determinant of whether a project proceeds (Russell
and Lux, 2009). Marks and Zadoroznyj (2005) identify CONCLUSIONS
institutional and knowledge factors, including the ex-
Water rights laws, which vary by state, affect
tent of social capital (e.g., homeowners associations),
the ability of water authorities to reuse wastewater.
accountability of water managers for promised water
quality, public awareness of environmental problems States are continuing to refine the relationship between
and the benefits of water reuse, and public trust in wastewater reuse and the interests of downstream enti-
reclaimed water and water managers as crucial to the ties. Regardless of how rights are defined or assigned,
OCR for page 190
190 WATER REUSE
projects can proceed through the acquisition of water the health of consumers who obtain potable water from
rights after water rights have been clarified. The right supplies subject to many different sources of contami-
to use aquifers for storage can be clarified by states nants but does not include specific requirements for
through legislation or court decision. The clarifica- treatment or monitoring (see Chapters 4 and 5) when
tion of these legal issues can provide a clearer path for source water consists mainly of municipal wastewater
project proponents. effluent. Presently, many potable reuse projects include
Scientifically supportable risk-based federal reg- a dditional controls (e.g., advanced treatment and
ulations for nonpotable water reuse would provide increased monitoring) in response to concerns raised
uniform nationwide minimum acceptable standards by state or local regulators or the recommendations of
of health protection and could facilitate broader expert advisory panels. Adjustment of the SDWA to
implementation of nonpotable water reuse projects. consider such requirements when planned or de facto
Existing state regulations for nonpotable reuse are potable reuse is practiced could serve as a mechanism
developed at the state level and are not uniform across for achieving a high level of reliability and public health
the country. Further, no state water reuse regulations or protection and nationwide consistency in the regulation
guidelines for nonpotable reuse are based on rigorous of potable reuse. In the process, public confidence in
risk assessment methodology that can be used to deter- the federal regulatory process and the safety of potable
mine and manage risks. EPA has published suggested reuse would be enhanced.
Application of the legislative tools afforded by
guidelines for nonpotable reuse, which are based, in
the CWA and SDWA to effluent-impacted water
part, on a review and evaluation of existing state regula-
s upplies could improve the protection of public
tions and guidelines and are not based on rigorous risk
health. Increasingly, we live in a world where munici-
assessment methodology. Federal regulations would
not only provide a uniform minimum standard of pro- pal effluents make up a significant part of the water
tection, but would also increase public confidence that a drawn for many water supplies, but this is not always
water reuse project does not compromise public health. openly and transparently recognized. Recognition
Scientific research, which requires resources beyond the of this reality necessitates increased consideration of
reach of most states, should inform the development ways to apply both the CWA and the SDWA toward
of nonpotable reuse regulations at the federal level to improved drinking water quality and public health. For
address the wide range of potential nonpotable reuse example, the CWA allows states to list public water
applications and practices. If federal regulations were supply as a designated use of surface waters. Through
developed through new enabling legislation, individual this mechanism, some states have set up requirements
states would maintain the authority to impose more on discharge of contaminants that could adversely af-
stringent criteria at their discretion. Therefore, EPA fect downstream water supplies.
Updates to the National Pretreatment Program’s
should fully consider the advantages and disadvantages
list of priority pollutants would help ensure that wa-
of federal reuse regulations to the future application of
ter reuse facilities and de facto reuse operations are
water reuse to address the nation’s water needs while
protected from potentially hazardous contaminants.
appropriately protecting public health.
Modifications to the structure or implementa- The National Pretreatment Program has led to signifi-
tion of the SDWA would increase public confidence cant reductions in the concentrations of toxic chemicals
in the potable water supply and ensure the presence in wastewater and the environment. However, the list
of appropriate controls in potable reuse projects. Al- of 129 priority pollutants presently regulated by the
though there is no evidence that the current regulatory National Pretreatment Program has not been updated
framework fails to protect public health when planned since its development more than three decades ago,
or de facto reuse occurs, federal efforts to address po- even though the nation’s inventory of manufactured
tential exposure to wastewater-derived contaminants chemicals has expanded considerably since then, as has
will become increasingly important as planned and our understanding of their significance. Updates to the
de facto potable reuse account for a larger share of National Pretreatment Program’s priority pollutant list
potable supplies. The SDWA was designed to protect can be accomplished through existing rulemaking pro-
OCR for page 191
191
SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
cesses. Until this can be accomplished, EPA guidance them evaluate proposals and frame the issues. A general
on priority chemicals to be included in local pretreat- investment in water knowledge, including improved
ment programs would assist utilities implementing public understanding of a region’s available water sup-
potable reuse. plies and the full costs and benefits associated with
Enhanced public knowledge of water supply and water supply alternatives, could lead to more efficient
treatment are important to informed decision mak- processes that evaluate specific projects. Public debate
ing. The public, decision makers, and decision influenc- on water reuse is evolving and maturing as more proj-
ers (e.g., members of the media) need access to credible ects are implemented and records of implementation
scientific and technical materials on water reuse to help are becoming available.
OCR for page 192
