|
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Page 15
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />than purchasing and treating additional water, The District
<br />began building its extensive dual distribution system that in-
<br />cludes 107 miles of pipelines for reclaimed water in 1960,
<br />Today, reclaimed water accounts for about 25 percent of all
<br />water lISed within the District. The water-short San Diego
<br />County Water Authority has identified recycling projects that
<br />could yield water with capital and operating expenditures in the
<br />range of $700 af/yeaI, This is much less than the $1,200-
<br />$l,400/af range projected for the desalination plants that the
<br />Authority is also considering,
<br />One of the probIems in recycling municipal waste water is
<br />that clIStomers do not always need the water when municipali-
<br />ties produce it. But a certain amount of ingenuity in structuring
<br />contracts can overcome this problem without requiring the
<br />construction of expensive storage facilities, Tuolumne County
<br />Water District in Sonora, CA, has entered into contracts of
<br />between 20 and 40 yeaIS with 30 ranchers who will take most of
<br />the 1,300 af/yeaI of municipal waste water during the April to
<br />October irrigation season, The incentive for the ranchers to
<br />paIticipate is that they receive the water at no cost. But each
<br />rancher mllSt take a specified amount of water at specific times,
<br />The water is delivered through sprinklers operated automati-
<br />cally by the District and the contract is binding on successive
<br />property owners, This has encouraged the farmers to select
<br />crops and planting times that take the greatest advantage of the
<br />reclaimed water,
<br />The possibility of state fmancial assistance could create a
<br />self-fulfilling demand that might delay viable projects and
<br />inflate project costs, State fmancial assistance comes with laIge
<br />hidden costs, For example, communities funding reclamation
<br />projects by borrowing from existing state wastewater revolving
<br />loan funds may have to comply witb existing federal require-
<br />ments (see "Wastewater Finance After EPA," WS,luly 1989),
<br />The requirement that contractors complywith the Davis Bacon
<br />Act and pay top-scale union rates, for example, can raise con-
<br />struction costs by at least 15 percent--equivalent to wiping out
<br />an interest subsidy of over 175 basis points at today's interest
<br />rates--a hefty price for cutting borrowing costs by a few basis
<br />points, Passing through the intergovernmental project ap-
<br />proval process can also delay projects by many months--
<br />making project costs vulnerable to inflation (see "Escalating
<br />Project Costs," WS, January 1990),
<br />Finally, the promise of generollS state funding reduces the
<br />incentive for communities to fmd the cheapest way of building
<br />and operating reclamation projects, When the federal govern-
<br />ment was picking up almost all of the tab for wastewater
<br />treatment programs, the Gencral Accounting Office found
<br />that projects were overbuilt. Projected costs of meeting federal
<br />standaIds have declined now that fmancing has been turned
<br />over to less-generollS state revolving loan programs, Since
<br />state fmancing assistance tends to cover construction not oper-
<br />ating costs (as EP A wastewater construction grants did),
<br />communities aIe encouraged to build expensive, high-tech
<br />facilities that require low operating expenses, The EP A found
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />:aD
<br />
<br />that these high-tech solutions were often much less reliable
<br />than cheaper, less capital intensive alternatives,
<br />State fmancing may play an important role in the design
<br />and monitoring of demonstration projects, The federal EPA,
<br />for example, contributed to Denver's model program. But
<br />providing state funding across the boaId to all rec1amation
<br />projects may delay rather than encourage community water
<br />rellSe projects, The overwhelming success of reclamation
<br />projects in those states that offer no funding shows states
<br />should focllS on creating a cleaI legal and regulatory frame-
<br />work rather than offering fmancial incentives,
<br />
<br />LEGAL AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
<br />
<br />If a water supplier or lISer wants to invest in a water
<br />reclamation project, they mllSt know what rights they have over
<br />the water they reclaim: can they seU it to other lISers? what aIe
<br />their liabilities concerning the quality ofthe water they supply?
<br />what uses aIe permitted for reclaimed water? And what aIe the
<br />regulatory and legal requirements for a reclamation project?
<br />When questions as important as these surround reclamation
<br />projects, the resulting uncertainty greatly increases the risks of
<br />investing in reclamation projects, States can reduce this uncer-
<br />tainty by taking three steps,
<br />The fifSt step is to defme reclaimed water as a resource
<br />with c1eaIly defmed rights, These rights include the ability to
<br />maIket effluent water, Several states are moving to creating
<br />this framework, In 1991, Ariwna passed (5B 1254: Arzbetger)
<br />redefining effluent. The Act declares that effluent remains
<br />effluent until it acquires the characteristics of groundwater or
<br />surface water, All references in the water code to irrigation
<br />with ground and surface water are expanded to include effluent
<br />water, Nevada passed (AB 173) which establishes a system of
<br />effluent water rights, The Act declares it the state's goal to
<br />promote the use of effluent water and authorizes the state
<br />engineer to issue permits for the appropriation of effluent
<br />water or recharged water that contains water originally appro-
<br />priated from the Colorado River, The problem is that most
<br />municipalities have been discharging waste water for many
<br />years, and many agricultural lISers depend on these return
<br />flows for irrigation water, Adjudications have traditionally
<br />failed to address directly the claims on municipal return flows,
<br />The second step is to review the complex health and
<br />environmental regulations, Many laws and regulations were
<br />created when new water sources were cheap, when treatment
<br />technologies and our understanding ofthe link between poUut-
<br />ants were less developed than they aIe today, and when water
<br />quality monitoring was a less exact science, A California report
<br />notes that "many reclamation projects are currently working
<br />successfully, The Department of Health Services and local
<br />health and regulatory agencies have been integrally involved
<br />with both the development and the operation ofthese projects,
<br />The noticeable absence of health incidents is a tribute to the
<br />
<br />continued on page 16, "
<br />
<br />WATER STRATEGIST Published by Stratecon, Inc, P,O, Box 963, ClaIemont, CA 91711 (714) 621-4793
<br />
|