My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150073 Final Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
C150073 Final Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2010 3:33:07 PM
Creation date
4/23/2009 10:05:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150073
Contractor Name
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District - Water Activity Enterprise
Contract Type
Grant
Water District
14
County
Pueblo
Bill Number
SB 01-157
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
183
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Feasibility Evaluation of the Arkansas Valley Pipeline <br />Water Works! Committee <br />June 2003 <br />3.3.3 Potential for Treated Wastewater Reuse to Satisfy Non-Potable Water <br />Demands <br />3.3.3.1 Treated Wastewater Reuse <br />The possibility of using treated wastewater reuse water to satisfy non-potable water demands <br />was evaluated as a possible option for reducing demands on the capacity of the proposed <br />Arkansas Valley Pipeline Project. Implementing wastewater reuse to satisfy non-potable <br />water demands is similar to water conservation and could reduce municipal demand (both <br />average and peak day demands) for treated water, thereby increasing the financial feasibility <br />of the pipeline project. The pipe diameter, pumping station capacity, and storage required for <br />the proposed pipeline project are primarily a function of the peak day demand for municipal <br />water supply. The peak day demand for municipalities in the Arkansas River valley occurs <br />during the summer months as a result of demand for landscape irrigation water supply. <br />Therefore, the greatest benefit from wastewater reuse can be derived from reducing peak <br />summer demands for landscape irrigation water supply. This would reduce the peak day <br />demands and, consequently, the size and cost of the required pipeline infrastructure. <br />Despite the apparent advantages of wastewater reuse, there is also the possible disadvantage <br />of reducing the benefits of return flows that can be gained from use of Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />Project water. Any wastewater reuse program must be coordinated with the water rights and <br />return flow program of each water provider. Also, due to the fact that non-potable landscape <br />imgation demands are typically very seasonal, the maximum benefit of a wastewater reuse <br />program often requires construction of storage facilities to balance the continuous supply of <br />treated wastewater with the short, peak demands for non-potable landscape irrigation. These <br />"gray-water" storage facilities can increase water system operation and maintenance costs <br />because these reservoirs often need to be aerated and/or treated to control algal blooms and <br />managed to maintain public safety. <br />3.3.3.2 Wastewater Reuse Requirements <br />Reducing demand for landscape irrigation supply would require the construction of a non- <br />potablewater distribution system to deliver the reuse water to locations where the landscape <br />irrigation water is applied. Experience with implementation of separate potable and non- <br />potable water distribution systems has shown that wastewater reuse is only cost effective <br />when large, non-potable water demands are located near the source of the treated wastewater. <br />The most common large, non-potable water users are golf courses, parks, cemeteries, and <br />similar large irrigated open space lands. <br />30 <br />GEI Consultants, II1C. 01284 03-06-30 Feasibility Evaluation Final <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.