florida water environmentflorida water environment ... · florida water environmentflorida water...
TRANSCRIPT
Florida Water EnvironmentFlorida Water Environment Association Utility Council
(FWEAUC)(FWEAUC)
“The FWEAUC provides a forum in which utility council members from around the State discuss and fully vet important issues
facing our industry and take an active role in the adoption and implementation of effective wastewater legislation andimplementation of effective wastewater legislation and regulations at the Federal, State, and regional levels.”
FWEA Utility Council MembersFWEA Utility Council MembersAECOMArcadisBay County Utility Services
City of SarasotaCity of St. CloudCity of Tallahassee C f
Morrison Environmental LawMWH GlobalOkaloosa County UtilitiesO CBroward County
Carollo EngineersCity of Altamonte SpringsCity of Atlantic BeachCity of Boca Raton
City of TampaCity of Vero BeachCity of West Palm BeachClay County Utility AuthorityCPH, Inc.
Orange County UtilitiesOrlando Utilities CommissionPace Water System, Inc.Palm Beach County Water UtilitiesParsons BrinckerhoffCity of Boca Raton
City of CasselberryCity of ClearwaterCity of Cocoa BeachCity of Fort LauderdaleCit f F t W lt
CPH, Inc.Destin Water Users Inc.Emerald Coast Utilities AuthorityFort Pierce Utilities AuthorityGainesville Regional UtilitiesGreeley and Hansen
Parsons BrinckerhoffPinellas County UtilitiesPolk CountyPolston Applied TechnologiesPremier Magnesia, LLCReedy Creek Improvement DistrictCity of Fort Walton
City of Gulf BreezeCity of HollywoodCity of LargoCity of Margate
Greeley and HansenHazen and SawyerHDR Engineering, Inc.Hernando County UtilitiesHillsborough County Utilities
Reedy Creek Improvement District UtilitiesReiss EngineeringSanta Rosa CountySeminole County
With
Logo
.ppt
x
y gCity of Mount DoraCity of OcalaCity of OrlandoCity of Palm Coast City of Panama City
g yJEAJones Edmunds & AssociatesLee County UtilitiesMarion CountyMartin County Utilities
ySouth Central Regional Wastewater SystemSouth Walton Utilities, Inc.Tetra Tech Inc.Toho Water Authority
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
2
City of Panama City City of Panama City Beach
•
Martin County UtilitiesMiami-Dade Water & Sewer
Toho Water Authority
FWEAUC Past ParticipationThe FWEAUC has participated in numerous efforts to develop state and regional policies regarding the use, treatment and regulation of reclaimed watertreatment and regulation of reclaimed water. • Reclaimed Water Workgroup: Jan. 2009 – Dec. 2012
I d fi l t “P l P ” i M 2012– Issued final report “Purple Paper” in May 2012
• HB 639 (2012)– Clarified that reclaimed water is not a source to be
regulated by the state through consumptive use permitting.– Included Workgroup recommendations to incentivize the
With
Logo
.ppt
x
Included Workgroup recommendations to incentivize the use of reclaimed water through the use of impact offsets and substitution credits.
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
3
FWEAUC Continued Participation• December 2015 FDEP report
– Result of the SB 536(2014) study to determine the best ways to expand the use of reclaimed water stormwaterways to expand the use of reclaimed water, stormwater and excess surface waters.
• The FWEAUC agrees with many of the report’s• The FWEAUC agrees with many of the report s proposals, such as recommendations to:– facilitate reclaimed water aquifer storage and recovery, q g y,– remove unnecessary barriers to supplementing reclaimed
water with stormwater, and
With
Logo
.ppt
x
– repeal outdated and non‐scientific restrictions on the use of reclaimed water to spray irrigate certain crops.
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
4
FWEAUC Current Participation• To facilitate the Reclaimed Water Stakeholder’s
discussion the FWEA Utility Council has prepareddiscussion the FWEA Utility Council has prepared an analysis of: – How local community and geographic factors influence
reclaimed water use practices. – How a utility does not recover full costs thru reclaimed
water saleswater sales
• As a result, the FWEA Utility Council is also proposing several recommendations
With
Logo
.ppt
x
proposing several recommendations.
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
5
Reuse Opportunities• Reuse of Reclaimed Water
– Offset use of groundwater & other limited sourcesOffset use of groundwater & other limited sources• Irrigation• Cooling• Potable• Potable• Other uses
– Groundwater rechargeg– Environmental restoration– Saltwater intrusion barrier
With
Logo
.ppt
x
– Surface water augmentation– Potable reuse
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
6
Reuse Opportunities and Costs are Situation SpecificSituation Specific
• Feasibility of reuse opportunities vary for each utility.
• Reuse opportunities are affected by:– Proximity of reclaimed water use to supply– Amount of benefit (i.e. potable offset, recharge, etc.)– Seasonality/variability in supply & demand– Water quality needed by user
R l t t i t
With
Logo
.ppt
x
– Regulatory constraints• Statewide • Local
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
8
Reuse Opportunities and Costs are Situation SpecificSituation Specific
• Opportunities and costs for industrial, wetland and ppenvironmental restoration, and agricultural use are very case-specific
• Agricultural use also affected by:– Crop rotation– Regulatory limitations on reclaimed water use for food
cropsPublic perception
With
Logo
.ppt
x
– Public perception
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
9
Overarching Economic Considerations
• Utility does not recover full costs thru reclaimed water sales.– Ratepayers should retain benefits of local utility reclaimed
water investments (i e meeting CUP requirementswater investments (i.e. meeting CUP requirements, potable offset, etc.)
• End users may have choice to use groundwater atEnd users may have choice to use groundwater at little or no cost– Potential end users often claim “Economic Infeasibility”
With
Logo
.ppt
x
y
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
10
Factors AffectingFactors Affecting Landscape p
Irrigation Costs
*The following slides use planning level cost estimates to
With
Logo
.ppt
x
The following slides use planning level cost estimates toprovide reclaimed water to bulk customers such as golf coursesor retail customers such as single family homes. For thepurposes of developing these scenarios it is assumed the total
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
11
available reclaimed water supply is 2 million gallons per day.
End User Type, New Development vs. Retrofit, and Consumption FactorsRetrofit, and Consumption Factors
$49
$60
d $49
$40
$50
Delivered
$25
$18
$30
/gal/day D
$7 $12
$18
$10
$20
Capital $/
$‐Bulk/Golf Course High Demand Residential
(12 000 l/ )Low Demand Residential
(3 000 l/ )
C
(12,000 gal/mo) (3,000 gal/mo)
New Development Retrofit
Supply and Demand Variations
140%
120%
Reclaimed Water Supplies
80%
100%
Seasonal Excess Water
Seasonal Excess Water
/Dem
and
60%Supp
ly/
20%
40%
Limited Customer Base
0%Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Limited Customer Base to match existing supplies
Supply and Demand Variations
140%
Monthly demands greater than available supplies must be met using storage or supplemental
t
120%
Reclaimed Water Supplies
water.
80%
100%
man
d
Seasonal Excess Water
Seasonal Excess Water
60%
Supp
ly/D
em
20%
40% Expanded Customer Base results in increased overall reclaimed water useLimited Customer Base
0%Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Limited Customer Base to match existing supplies
Supply & Demand Variation Challenges• Reliable delivery of reclaimed water to customers is
critical• Supplementation• Supplementation
– Requires effluent disposal when supplies exceed demands– Requires a reliable alternate water supply during the driest times of the
yearyear– Regulatory hurdles regarding use of alternative water supplies– Currently used in Altamonte Springs, Cape Coral and several other
utilitiesutilities
• Storage– 100% reuse requires ~120 days of storage (2mgd system = 240 million
With
Logo
.ppt
x
gallons of storage)– ASR may provide a cost effective storage option allowing greater
utilization of reclaimed water as well as other alternative water supplies.
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
15
Factors AffectingFactors Affecting Aquifer RechargeAquifer Recharge
Opportunitiespp
With
Logo
.ppt
xC
arol
loBl
ueTe
mpl
ateW
16
Aquifer Recharge Case Study
$35
$30
Delivered
$20
$25
gal/da
y D
$15
$20
Capital $/
$10RIB Di t I j ti B ki h Di t I j ti F h
C
RIBs Direct Injection, BrackishAquifer
Direct Injection, FreshWater Aquifer
*Adapted from - MWH, Feasibility of Using Reclaimed Water for Aquifer Recharge in the Tampa Bay Area, Task 4.0 Final Summary Report, 3/31/2009
Factors AffectingFactors Affecting Potable ReusePotable ReuseOpportunitiespp
With
Logo
.ppt
xC
arol
loBl
ueTe
mpl
ateW
19
Potable Reuse• Potable reuse can be cost effective
– Successful implementation in California & Texas– No cost comparison at this time for Florida
• Further development needed in Florida• Factors affecting cost and feasibility
– Regulations including required treatmentg g q– Level of treatment– Concentrate disposal
With
Logo
.ppt
x
– Public education
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
20
Potable Reuse Project Costs in Texas & CaliforniaCalifornia
$16.40 $16 00
$18.00
$9 86
$11.82
$12.46
$12.00
$14.00
$16.00
D $9.86
$6.50 $8.00
$10.00
al $
/ GPD
$2 00
$4.00
$6.00
Cap
it
$‐
$2.00
Dripping Laguna Madre Big Spring DPR 2012 ENCINA 2012 ENCINASprings WASTEWATER
AUTHORITYDPR
WASTEWATERAUTHORITY IPR
TexasTexasTexas
California
In Summary
• Florida is the national reuse leader• Geographic geologic & community factors• Geographic, geologic, & community factors
influence new reuse opportunitiesUtilities do not make mone on reclaimed ater• Utilities do not make money on reclaimed water
• Expanded reuse of reclaimed water could be f ilit t d bfacilitated by:– State & regional funding
Modest policy changes
With
Logo
.ppt
x
– Modest policy changes
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
22
Recommendations
• FundingEstablish equitable and recurring funding for reclaimed
F
– Establish equitable and recurring funding for reclaimed water projects including storage and supplementation.
– Alternative Water Supply Funding from FY’05-09Alternative Water Supply Funding from FY 05 09 • $985 Million (22% of total construction costs)• 444 AWS projects constructed from FY’05-15 @ $4.5 Billion
– Resulted in 807 MGD
With
Logo
.ppt
xC
arol
loBl
ueTe
mpl
ateW
23
Recommendations• Incentives
Expand Existing Offset and Credit Policies
I
p g– CUPs using an impact offset or substitution credit
should be considered “in the public interest”.– Identify eligible practices, such as use of reclaimed
water for surface water flow augmentation, salt water intrusion prevention and mitigation, and aquiferintrusion prevention and mitigation, and aquifer recharge.
– Address circumstances where the creation of supply d d d
With
Logo
.ppt
x
precedes demands
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
24
RecommendationsR l t• Regulatory– Establish a presumption of economic feasibility for
reclaimed use in reuse service areas
R
reclaimed use in reuse service areas.– Prioritize reclaimed water use over other alternative
sources in reuse service areas.– Limit new lawn and landscape wells when reclaimed
water is available and feasible.U d l i l i f l i d– Update rules governing supplementation of reclaimed water with surface or storm water to address unduly burdensome heightened disinfection requirements.
With
Logo
.ppt
x
g q– Regulatory audit of technical requirements in FDEP
rules (examples: setback requirements, crop restrictions)
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
25
restrictions).
Recommendations• Education/Public Outreach
– Direct FDEP, FDACS, and the water management districts, to develop a guidance document for agricultural users on
O
to develop a guidance document for agricultural users on evaluating the environmental, economical, and technical feasibility of using reclaimed water.
• Best Use– Regional Water Supply Planning should prioritize reclaimed
U
water projects and be in concert with water supply planning as a tool to achieve the most cost effective way to enhance water resources and water supply
With
Logo
.ppt
x
water resources and water supply.
• TechnologyDevelop FDEP framework to permit potable reuse
T
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
26
– Develop FDEP framework to permit potable reuse.
FWEAUC Detailed Past ParticipationTh FWEAUC d it b h ti i t d i ff t t d lThe FWEAUC and its members have participated in numerous efforts to develop state and regional policies regarding the use, treatment and regulation of reclaimed water. • In 2009 the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) published• In 2009 the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) published
a sixty-eight page report that included specific recommendations for the use and expansion of reclaimed water, conservation and consistency.
• At the request of Representative Trudi Williams, the FWEAUC formed q p ,Reclaimed Water Policy Workgroup with FDEP, the water management districts, and other local government stakeholders. – From January 2009 through December 2012, this ad hoc workgroup of representatives
from FDEP the water management districts the FWEAUC Florida League of Citiesfrom FDEP, the water management districts, the FWEAUC, Florida League of Cities, individual local government utilities, and environmental consulting firms convened monthly meetings in Orlando to discuss how state regulatory policies could better optimize the reuse of reclaimed water.
I M 2012 th i d fi l t th “P l P ”
With
Logo
.ppt
x
• In May 2012, the group issued a final report – the “Purple Paper”. • The Workgroup continued to develop strategies and participate in rulemaking
to implement the recommendations of its 2012 report.
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
28
FWEAUC Detailed Past and Continued Participation
• The intricacies of reclaimed water management and the investments made by utilities and their local ratepayers were recognized by the by the Legislature when it clarified in 2012 that reclaimed water is not a source to be regulated by the state through consumptive use permitting (HB 639 (2012)). – This legislation also included prior Workgroup recommendations to incentivize
th f l i d t th h th f i t ff t d b tit tithe use of reclaimed water through the use of impact offsets and substitution credits.
• In 2014, the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 536, which tasked the FDEP with conducting a study and generating a report to determinethe FDEP with conducting a study and generating a report to determine the best ways to expand the use of reclaimed water, stormwater and excess surface waters within our State.
• The final SB 536 Report was published in December 2015
With
Logo
.ppt
x
• The final SB 536 Report was published in December 2015. – The SB 536 Report provides significant environmental and technical information
that will prove useful in future efforts to further develop reclaimed water as a resource.
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
29
FWEAUC Detailed Current Participation
• The Utility Council agrees with many of the SB 536 Report’s proposals, such as recommendations to:Report s proposals, such as recommendations to:– facilitate reclaimed water aquifer storage and recovery, – remove unnecessary barriers to supplementing reclaimed y pp g
water with stormwater, and – repeal outdated and non‐scientific restrictions on the use of
l i d t t i i t t ireclaimed water to spray irrigate certain crops.
• Some issues can be discussed and accomplished quickly and while others such as Potable Reuse will
With
Logo
.ppt
x
quickly and while others, such as Potable Reuse will take more time to fully vet and implement.
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
30
FWEAUC Detailed Current Participation• To facilitate the Reclaimed Water Workgroup’s
discussion the FWEA Utility Council has prepareddiscussion the FWEA Utility Council has prepared an analysis of: – How local community and geographic factors influence
reclaimed water use practices. – How reclaimed water is a product is typically subsidized
by water/wastewater ratepayersby water/wastewater ratepayers
• As a result, the FWEA Utility Council is proposing several recommendations
With
Logo
.ppt
x
several recommendations.
Car
ollo
Blue
Tem
plat
eW
31