Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MWSI Project <br />Phase II Effluent Management Summary Report - DRAFT <br /> <br />Another major perceived obstacle has been public perceptions about health effects <br />and the need to convince the public of the reliability of potable reuse technology. While <br />many urban arcas in the United States are located downstreant from wastewater treatment <br />plants and receive effluent as a partial source of their potable water supply, such <br />situations have not come about by deliberate design and have often lead to both episodic <br />and chronic public health concerns. However, in areas where potable reuse has been <br />approached deliberately as a part of the water supply planning process, experience has <br />shown that the public's understanding and acceptance can be gained through <br />comprehensive research, public involvement, sensitive design and monitoring and <br />citizens' review efforts. <br /> <br />August 22, 1995 <br /> <br />In the Denver area, it may be possible to include potable reuse as a part of a larger <br />water supply program in which water quality concerns would be reduced through regional <br />blending of potable reused water with other water sources. This arrangement could <br />significantly increase the physical supply of potable water, ameliorate concerns about <br />urban South Platte jnstream flows and reduce the region's further reliance on transbasin <br />diversions. However, the costs of potable reuse would be high compared to the costs of <br />some water supply alternatives such as water conservation, and the political issues <br />associated with implementing potable reuse on a regional scale may bJ:: considerable, <br />given the relatively unequal positions of many providers with rcspect to their individual <br />supplies and demands. Most providers' potable water supply plans are currently orientcd <br />in the opposite direction, focusing on obtaining high quality water supplies. For these <br />reasons potable water reuse is not examined in detail the Phase II addressed in this study. <br />However, as the costs of other cooperative water supply alternatives are developed and <br />refined in this Project, the subject of potable reuse should be revisited. <br /> <br />Nonpotable Reuse Water Quality Considerations <br /> <br />In the state of Colorado, two different protocols come into consideration in <br />determining requirements for the level of treatment provided. As discussed in A, <br />effluent discharged into a stream where there are agricultural uses (or urban irrigation <br />uses) is controlled by the Agricultural Use Stream Standards which are adopted by the <br />Colorado Water Quality Control Commission and translated into permit limits by the <br />Water Quality Control Division. For circumstances where the discharge is directly to <br />an urban irrigation use or an agricultural use, the Water Quality Control Division <br />follows draft guidelines which are more stringent than the stream standards. The <br />difference between the two programs is whether or not the effluent is discharged to a <br />public water before it is applied to the use. <br /> <br />Exchange Poleotial <br /> <br />Substitution opportunities are physically limited by exchange potential. Exchange <br />potential is defined as the continuous flow occurring between the point of effluent release <br />and the point of diversion, in excess of intervening water rights requitements including <br />instream flow rights, during a period of downstream water calls. (For the purposes of this <br /> <br />18 <br />