Recycled Water – California Water Library

Page

Showing
41-45 of 45

Per Page

Sort By

Wastewater Reuse for Agriculture: Development of a Regional Water Reuse Decision-Support Model (RWRM) for Cost-Effective Irrigation Sources

American Chemical Society (ACS) | August 8th, 2016

Summary

Water scarcity has become a critical problem in many semiarid and arid regions. The single largest water use in such regions is for crop irrigation, which typically relie

Water scarcity has become a critical problem in many semiarid and arid regions. The single largest water use in such regions is for crop irrigation, which typically relies on groundwater and surface water sources. With increasing stress on these traditional water sources, it is important to consider alternative irrigation sources for areas with limited freshwater resources. One potential irrigation water resource is treated wastewater for agricultural fields located near urban centers. In addition, treated wastewater can contribute an appreciable amount of necessary nutrients for plants. The suitability of reclaimed water for specific applications depends on water quality and usage requirements. The main factors that determine the suitability of recycled water for agricultural irrigation are salinity, heavy metals, and pathogens, which cause adverse effects on human, plants, and soils. In this paper, we develop a regional water reuse decision-support model (RWRM) using the general algebraic modeling system to analyze the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment trains to generate irrigation water from reclaimed wastewater, with the irrigation water designed to meet crop requirements as well as California’s wastewater reuse regulations (Title 22). Using a cost-minimization framework, least-cost solutions consisting of treatment processes and their intensities (blending ratios) are identified to produce alternative irrigation sources for citrus and turfgrass. Our analysis illustrates the benefits of employing an optimization framework and flexible treatment design to identify cost-effective blending opportunities that may produce high-quality irrigation water for a wide range of end uses.

View Document Download Now Email

Water Quality Control Policy for siting, design, operation, and maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | June 19th, 2012

Summary

The purpose of this Policy is to allow the continued use of OWTS, while protecting water quality and public health. This Policy recognizes that responsible local agencies

The purpose of this Policy is to allow the continued use of OWTS, while protecting water quality and public health. This Policy recognizes that responsible local agencies can provide the most effective means to manage OWTS on a routine basis. Therefore as an important element, it is the intent of this policy to efficiently utilize and improve upon where necessary existing local programs through coordination between the State and local agencies. To accomplish this purpose, this Policy establishes a statewide, risk-based, tiered approach for the regulation and management of OWTS installations and replacements and sets the level of performance and protection expected from OWTS. In particular, the Policy requires actions for water bodies specifically identified as part this Policy where OWTS contribute to water quality degradation that adversely affect beneficial uses. This Policy only authorizes subsurface disposal of domestic strength, and in limited instances high strength, wastewater and establishes minimum requirements for the permitting, monitoring, and operation of OWTS for protecting beneficial uses of waters of the State and preventing or correcting conditions of pollution and nuisance. And finally, this Policy also conditionally waives the requirement for owners of OWTS to apply for and receive Waste Discharge Requirements in order to operate their systems when they meet the conditions set forth in the Policy. Nothing in this Policy supersedes or requires modification of Total Maximum Daily Loads or Basin Plan prohibitions of discharges from OWTS. This Policy also applies to OWTS on federal, state, and Tribal lands to the extent authorized by law or agreement.

View Document Download Now Email

Water Recycling 2030: Recommendations of California’s Recycled Water Task Force

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 3rd, 2003

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 331 was passed by the California Legislature, and signed into law by Governor Gray Davis on October 7, 2001. The bill required the creation of the 2002

Assembly Bill No. 331 was passed by the California Legislature, and signed into law by Governor Gray Davis on October 7, 2001. The bill required the creation of the 2002 Recycled Water Task Force (Task Force) to identify constraints, impediments, and opportunities for the increased use of recycled water and report to the Legislature by July 1, 2003. Although water recycling includes treatment of a broad range of wastewater sources, the Task Force decided to focus on the planned reuse of treated municipal wastewater; specifically, the financial/economic, regulatory, and social issues that typically arise in water recycling projects. Representatives of federal, State, and local agencies, private entities, environmental organizations, universities, concerned individuals and public-interest groups were appointed to the 40-member Task Force in April 2002. The Task Force includes experts in the field of water recycling, including those involved in the production and use of recycled water, public health officials, world-renowned researchers, environmental organizations, and the public. The Task Force established committees (workgroups) to focus on specific topics of concern and produce reports that served as a basis of Task Force decision-making. The Department of Water Resources (DWR), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the DHS provided technical assistance to the Task Force and its workgroups. DHS’ regulations prescribe the level of treatment necessary for the various uses of recycled water. In general, the public has accepted these regulations as being adequate for protection of public health. There are successful indirect potable reuse projects involving groundwater recharge in California and new projects continue to be proposed. However, in some instances, the public has not been receptive to the concept of using recycled water to recharge groundwater basins that serve as drinking water supply sources. Some indirect potable reuse proposals have been mischaracterized by images of recycled water being fed directly into drinking water pipeline systems. The Task Force found the need to involve the public much earlier in the decision-making process for projects, to make the process much more transparent and to provide facts early on in project planning. Therefore, the Task Force devoted considerable attention to issues surrounding public health and the need for increased education and outreach related to the facts and scientific research about recycled water.

View Document Download Now Email

Water Reuse Potential in California

Pacific Institute | June 1st, 2014

Summary

There is tremendous opportunity to expand water reuse in California. In most urban areas, water is used once, treated, and disposed of as waste. Reuse provides a reliable

There is tremendous opportunity to expand water reuse in California. In most urban areas, water is used once, treated, and disposed of as waste. Reuse provides a reliable, local water supply that reduces vulnerability to droughts and other water-supply constraints. It can also provide economic and environmental benefits, for example, by reducing energy use, diversions from rivers and streams, and pollution from wastewater discharges. Some progress is being made. An estimated 670,000 acre-feet of municipal wastewater is already beneficially reused in the state each year (SWRCB and DWR 2012). Onsite reuse—including the use of graywater—is also practiced in communities across California, although data are not available to estimate these volumes. More can and should be done.

View Document Download Now Email

Water Supply and Habitat Resiliency for a Future Los Angeles River: Site-Specific Natural Enhancement Opportunities Informed by River Flow and Watershed-Wide Action

Nature Conservancy | December 15th, 2016

Summary

The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. As the Conservancy engages with the Los Angeles region, they are inve

The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. As the Conservancy engages with the Los Angeles region, they are investigating what it means to carry out this mission in the highly urbanized Los Angeles River ecosystem. As a starting point, it is known that the basic ecological principles of science apply to all environmental systems, regardless of their location. Therefore, the Conservancy is testing these principles by applying them in the Elysian Valley of the Los Angeles River and identifying habitat enhancement requirements, opportunities, and constraints. As a basic principle of ecological systems, a watershed’s hydrology determines the flow characteristics of its river system. These flows define what the biological characteristics of that river will be, which in turn determine what kinds of habitat enhancement projects will succeed at various locations along a river. The study of the Elysian Valley included one full year of multi-taxa biological surveys, a historical ecology investigation of the Elysian Valley, and a review of historic and existing hydrological and hydraulic conditions. Major findings of this study are: Multiple Flow Scenarios = Uncertainty: There are currently multiple visions for the flow characteristics of the Los Angeles River as a whole due to differing management priorities of the agencies and stakeholders that have governance over different aspects of this hydrologic system. Bringing the various hydrologic plans and possibilities for the watershed into a single integrated vision of system flow characteristics will allow certainty and clarity at the site level for the design of habitat projects anywhere in the River system, including the Conservancy’s study area. Flows Drive Biology: The study area currently has higher flood and much higher dry weather flow rates than its historic condition. These high flow rates are supporting and encouraging non-native and invasive species. This leads to a lower level of biological diversity and resiliency than what would exist under lower flow rates, particularly during dry weather conditions. Prioritize Complementary Habitats: Enhancing and increasing the amount of perennial riparian habitat in-stream alone will not create as much biological value as identifying complementary enhancement opportunities outside of the River channel in adjacent upper terrace floodplain and upland habitats (e.g. alluvial scrub, mulefat scrub, willow scrub, oak-sycamore woodland, sage scrub, and grassland). River Adjacent Land Use: Land uses adjacent to the River and throughout the watershed are a part of the solution and part of the Los Angeles River’s biological and hydrologic system. The landscaping and hydrology of these areas should be designed to provide a value-added role to the habitat functions of the Los Angeles River ecosystem. Next steps for advancing the discussion of habitat enhancement include working with local stakeholders and agencies to find consensus on a flow condition for the River and its Watershed as a whole. In the study area itself there are six complementary project opportunities that could be implemented in the near term to advance understanding of habitat enhancement for the Los Angeles River. These smaller, localized projects can be used as pilot projects for the complicated jurisdictional and regulatory processes that all future habitat projects will have to navigate. They will provide a manageable and controlled process that will bring the necessary agencies together to identify the most effective processes for future projects throughout the Los Angeles River ecosystem.

View Document Download Now Email

← Prev

Page : 5

Filter Results

Type

Best Management Practice (2)
Case study (3)
Conference proceedings (1)
Environmental Documents (2)
Fact sheet (1)
Guidance Document (4)
Handbook/Guide (3)
Issue Paper (2)
Journal Article (17)
Legal document (1)
Model (2)
NGO Position Paper (1)
Plan (1)
Policy (5)
Report (10)
Research Article (1)
Science Panel Report (1)
Strategy (1)
Technical Report (1)

Topic

Agriculture (2)
California Water Fix/BDCP/Delta Conveyance (1)
Climate Change (4)
Desalination (3)
Drinking Water (5)
Drought & Hydrology (1)
Ecosystem & Species Management (1)
Ecosystem Restoration (1)
Federal Water Quality (2)
Flood Management (1)
Geochemistry (1)
Geochemistry (2)
Geohydrology (1)
Groundwater (5)
Infrastructure (6)
Integrated Regional Water Management (5)
Landscape Reform (3)
Modeling (3)
People & Water (3)
Planning & Management (15)
Policy (2)
Pollutants (4)
Recycled Water (45)
Salinity (3)
Sanitation (2)
State Water Quality (3)
Storage (1)
Stormwater (8)
Transfers & Markets (1)
Water & Energy (1)
Water Quality (18)
Water Quality Monitoring (4)
Water Rights, Water Law (1)
Water Supply (7)
Water Use & Efficiency (23)

Keywords

agriculture (1)
agriculture water use and efficiency (2)
California Water Plan (1)
Central Valley (1)
climate change (2)
Delta conveyance (1)
desalination (3)
direct potable reuse (6)
drinking water (3)
drought (2)
economic analysis (1)
ecosystem management (1)
flows (1)
funding (1)
Groundwater Exchange (5)
groundwater pumping impacts (1)
groundwater recharge (2)
groundwater-surface water interaction (1)
infrastructure (5)
Integrated Regional Water Management (4)
irrigation (2)
land use (1)
managed aquifer recharge (MAR) - also see Groundwater Recharge (1)
modeling (2)
monitoring (2)
nitrates (1)
outreach and engagement (1)
planning and management (7)
pollutants (1)
reasonable use doctrine (1)
recycled water (32)
Regional Water Quality Control Plan (1)
Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (1)
salinity (2)
science management (1)
storage (1)
stormwater (7)
urban water conservation (15)
wastewater (15)
water and energy (1)
water quality (12)
water rights (1)
water supply (9)
water use efficiency (6)

Publisher

American Chemical Society (ACS) (1)
American Geophysical Union (AGU) (1)
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1)
American Water Works Association (AWWA) (1)
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (2)
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (7)
Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) (1)
Clean Water (1)
Congressional Research Service (CRS) (1)
Environmental Research Communications (IOP) (1)
Environmental Science & Policy (Elsevier) (1)
International Water Association (IWA) Publishing (1)
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) (1)
Nature Conservancy (1)
Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) (3)
Pacific Institute (5)
PLOS (1)
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) (1)
Resources, Conservation & Recycling (Elsevier) (1)
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) (1)
Second Appellate District, Court of Appeal of the State of California (1)
State of California (1)
Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure (Taylor & Francis) (1)
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) (1)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (1)
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) (2)
Urban Water (Elsevier) (1)
Water Education Foundation (1)
Water Research, Elsevier (1)
Water, Multidisciplinary Publishing Institute (MDPI) (1)