Headwaters Fall 2018: The Promise of Reuse

THE PROMISE OF REUSE FA LL 2 0 1 8

Past, present and future: Water connects us all.

Learn about our 100th anniversary at denverwater.org

KEEP CALM AND

RE-THINK REUSE

Promoting safe and effective water reuse throughout the state Come visit the Conservation Gardens at Northern Water

Conservation is changing at Northern Water, and we want to hear from you. Learn more and participate at www.northernwater.org/ ConservationGardens Northern Water 220 Water Ave. Berthoud, CO

Pulse React & Recover Five years after the 2013 flooding in northern Colorado, recovery projects are wrapping up.

11 The Colorado River’s Risky Future How will we cope if the Colorado River comes up water short? A study examines options.

12

An Ambitious Reuse Plan for the South Platte Basin A conceptual project seeks to capitalize on untapped reusable South Platte flows.

13

Could Salinity Threaten Interstate Accord?

The salinity of southeastern Colorado’s Lake Cheraw causes concern.

14

Inside

Contents | Fall 2018

DIRECTOR’S NOTE

4 WHAT WE’RE DOING

WEco's upcoming events, reporting and more.

5 FROM THE EDITOR

THE REUSE ISSUE Water recycling and the expansion of reuse mean maximizing the state’s resources for a more sustainable Colorado and generating “new” supply options for growing and water-stressed communities. As citizens gain comfort and confidence with reuse, some communities are eager to level up in their recycling efforts. But is the public ready and can the state keep up?

7 THANK YOU

A sincere thank you to WEco’s members and donors.

AROUND THE STATE

16

8

Purified

15

Is Colorado ready for direct potable reuse?

Water news from across Colorado.

MEMBER’S CORNER

F E AT U R E

Engage, volunteer and celebrate the impact of WEco’s work.

By Allen Best

25

27

The National Rise Of Reuse

Saved From The Drain

Water providers across the country turn to water recycling.

Water users aim for sustainability by recycling water on site.

By Allen Best

By Kelly Bastone

31 On the cover: Mark Marlowe, director of Castle Rock Water, stands inside one of the utility’s pilot testing units beside Castle Rock Reservoir No. 1 near Sedalia. Castle Rock is piloting new reuse treatment processes that will be built into the Plum Creek Water Purification Facility. Photo by Matthew Staver Above: Purple pipes indicate that water has been treated for non-potable reuse. Courtesy Flickr user John Loo/Creative Commons

DIRECTOR’S NOTE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Jayla Poppleton Executive Director

Lisa Darling President

Jennie Geurts Director of Operations

Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. Vice President

Stephanie Scott Leadership & Education Programs Manager

C

olorado is buzzing with innovation. New ideas and approaches are being spurred through incubator programs like 10.10.10, supported by the Colorado Nonprofit Development Center, and Trout Tank, sponsored by TAP-In and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.

Creative problem solving and innovation is widely recognized as integral to solving today’s water challenges. Innovation in water recycling and reuse, for example, is making it possible for water-strapped communities to reduce dependency on groundwater and stream depletions.

Innovation requires front-runners, and reuse may be an arena for tracking a bell curve that identifies people’s readiness to accept a new idea. On one side, there’s a small group of innovators, leading the way with out-of-the-box thinking. They’re followed by a slightly larger group known as your early adopters, visionaries who see and believe in the promise of those new ideas early on. In the middle, you have your early and late majority, pragmatic and conservative. They’re likely to begin trusting the newness only after it’s been put to the test. On the other side are the skeptics, concerned about potential ramifications and unforeseen consequences those in the lead still haven’t laid to rest. Communities across Colorado are at different stages of the continuum, driven in most instances by necessity, that great mother of invention.

I was part of the 10.10.10 project last year, looking at “wicked problems” in water. I provided what context I could to a gentleman who, in the wake of Flint, Michigan, wants to enable average household consumers to test the water at their tap, using a device that plugs into their iPhones. When his product hits the market, I hope he remembers me and the resources I shared with him. Perhaps, we’ll be able to credit our Fall 2016 Headwaters issue on drinking water concerns as providing inspiration for his new technology!

This continues to be one of our water education goals: informing the conversation, and keeping our members and readers up to date on the latest technology, ideas and policies shaping water in Colorado and the West.

Help us fuel water innovation momentum in Colorado! Consider joining as a member, if you haven’t already. Plug into our community. We pledge to keep our network of concerned citizens, seasoned professionals, and dedicated public servants growing in pursuit of trusted information and good ideas.

—Executive Director—

4 • WAT E R E D U C AT I O N C O LO R A D O

STAFF

Sophie Kirschenman Education & Outreach Coordinator Alicia Prescott Development Coordinator Jerd Smith Digital Content Editor Caitlin Coleman Headwaters Editor & Communications Specialist Charles Chamberlin Headwaters Graphic Designer

Gregg Ten Eyck Secretary Alan Matlosz Treasurer Eric Hecox Past President Rep. Jeni Arndt Nick Colglazier Jorge Figueroa Greg Johnson Scott Lorenz Dan Luecke Kevin McBride Kate McIntire Reed Morris Amy Moyer Lauren Ris Travis Robinson Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg Laura Spann Chris Treese Reagan Waskom

THE MISSION of Water Education Colorado is to promote increased understanding of water resource issues so Coloradans can make informed decisions. WEco is a non-advocacy organization committed to providing educational opportunities that consider diverse perspectives and facilitate dialogue in order to advance the conversation about water.

HEADWATERS magazine is published three times each year by Water Education Colorado. Its goals are to raise awareness of current water issues, and to provide opportunities for engagement and further learning.

THANK YOU to all who assisted in the development of this issue. Headwaters’ reputation for balance and accuracy in reporting is achieved through rigorous consultation with experts and an extensive peer review process, helping to make it Colorado’s leading publication on water. © Copyright 2018 by the Colorado Foundation for Water Education DBA Water Education Colorado. ISSN: 1546-0584

What we’re doing Congratulations Water Leaders!

Congratulations to our 2018 Water Leaders Program graduating class! We were fortunate to work with these 16 outstanding individuals to help them develop their leadership and communication skills between April–August 2018. They are assets to their organizations and communities!

Frank Alfone—Mt. Werner Water and Sanitation District Corey Beaugh—Colorado Division of Water Resources Blake Beyea—Water Quality Control Division, CDPHE Hunter Causey—Colorado River Water Conservation District Allegra da Silva—Brown and Caldwell Nathan Elder—Denver Water Kimberly Gortz—Colorado Springs Utilities Kate Greenberg—National Young Farmers Coalition Brendon Langenhuizen—SGM Mark Mitisek—Leonard Rice Engineers Katherine Morris—Grand County Jill Ozarksi—Walton Family Foundation Kent Pflager—Morgan County Quality Water District Rachel Theler—Colorado State Conservation Board

Rob Viehl—Colorado Water Conservation Board Esther Vincent—Northern Water We will begin accepting applications for the 2019 class in late November. Add your name to a notification list by emailing jennie@wateredco.org.

Welcome Jerd Smith

Water Fluency Grads 2018!

This engaged class came thirsty for water knowledge and, based on their feedback, our 2018 course did not disappoint! The class of 35 received their certificates in July. Thank you to our 2018 Water Fluency Title Sponsors CoBank, Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority and Special District Association of Colorado for making this experience possible.

Jerd Smith joined the Water Education Colorado team earlier this year to lead our Fresh Water News initiative, expanding our coverage of water issues in Colorado and the West. A respected, award-winning journalist with a deep background on water in Colorado, Jerd's original reporting is distributed through an email news report each Wednesday and posted on our website. Jerd has been a regular contributor to Headwaters magazine over the past 10 years, and we love getting to work with her now on a daily basis. If you know of news stories deserving coverage, email jerd@wateredco.org.

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

5

What we’re doing A Fully Stocked Reference Library Two of the most popular publications in Water Education Colorado’s highquality reference series—the Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Water Law, Fourth Edition and the Citizen’s Guide to Colorado’s Water Heritage—are back in stock! Find your favorite guides in the WEco store or pour over them online at watereducationcolorado.org.

Thank you to sponsors Aurora Water, Southwestern Water Conservation District, Denver Water, Northern Water, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, and the Board of Water Works of Pueblo for making it possible to reprint the law guide.

And thank you to Wright Water Engineers for making it possible to reprint the Citizen’s Guide to Colorado’s Water Heritage.

A conversation with…

LISA DARLING TIME ON THE WECO BOARD:

Six years BOARD PRESIDENT SINCE:

January 2018 HOME:

Golden

Lisa Darling, Water Education Colorado’s trusted board president, has years of experience working with water reuse—we sat down with her to learn more.

Lisa works as executive director of the South Metro Water Supply Authority (SMWSA), an organization that formed in 2004 when rapidly growing south metro communities reliant on declining non-renewable groundwater realized they had to shift their water portfolios if they were to be sustainable. Now SMWSA relies on the Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency Partnership (WISE) between Denver Water, Aurora Water, and 13 SMWSA members, reusing water from Aurora’s Prairie Waters Project—which Lisa worked on for Aurora before moving to SMWSA in 2017.

Why was the South Metro Water Supply Authority started?

So, the whole idea was we’re stronger together than we are apart, and if we use our money together, if we invest together, and invest in the future together, we’ll be stronger and we’re going to be the most efficient users of water of anybody, in terms of conservation, in terms of reuse, that’s our goal. We’re going to be state leaders.

Have you succeeded in finding renewable water supplies?

We’ve moved off of the non-renewable water resources significantly, to the point where at buildout, which is around 2065, 15 percent of our water portfolios will be this non-tributary groundwater, everything else will be renewable supplies which is pretty incredible when you think that no one had any [renewable water], right?

How did people perceive the WISE project when it came online? Has public perception been a challenge?

Everybody has been like what a great idea, this is a great project … so the public perception hasn’t been a challenge at all. In fact, it’s been really rewarding. What is more challenging is actually [implementation], you know, everybody sitting around a table shaking hands is one thing, taking a 30-page agreement and saying “now, go do this,” that’s a lot harder.

How important is collaboration for WISE? We’re not going to get anywhere in the future, I don’t think, unless we collaborate … It just makes sense, you can’t build a big project on your own, I mean you could, but why would you? Why wouldn’t you get a partner who can share it and share the costs and share the challenges and the successes … collaboration is the way of the future, it’s the way of the present, it’s what we’re doing now, we don’t really have a choice.

BY RACHEL CHAMPION Read more of the interview and watch excerpts online at watereducationcolorado.org.

6 • WAT E R E D U C AT I O N C O LO R A D O

Colorado Gives Day Help Water Education Colorado make a bigger impact by donating on Colorado Gives Day! Give online at coloradogives.org/watereducationcolorado.

FROM THE EDITOR

C

WEco RADIO “[Reuse] has a negative connotation with it which is not really something that is valid, it’s one of those perceptions. If you consider water throughout the entire United States, that water is used, put back in the river, used, put back in the river, used, put back in the river. It’s a common concept throughout the entire United States.”

hronologies aren’t often the most interesting way to tell a story. They can, however, be useful and reveal a story of their own. As you flip through this issue of Headwaters, you’ll notice a timeline tracing some of the major historical and recent events related to water recycling efforts and legislation in Colorado. The frequency of entries has increased over recent years, meaning that acceptance, adoption, possibilities and opportunities for reuse in Colorado have been growing at a good clip.

The calendar begins in the 1950s and 60s with early adoption in and around Colorado Springs. At the time, Colorado Springs Utilities was readying for the arrival of the Air Force Academy, which required the acquisition of new water rights. The water provider purchased new supplies from the Western Slope under the Blue River Decree, which allowed, and encouraged or even required, the reuse of that water. Why? The West Slope was asking the growing Front Range to take full advantage of its water rights that allow for “use to extinction” of the resource.

The adoption of reuse has only grown since, with increased public acceptance and even advocacy for water recycling, as well as the development of better technology. Reuse has become less taboo and more necessary. You can see it on the timeline, where new entries come one after the other. Just look at the many reuse bills, projects, and rulemaking processes in 2018.

What a year! There’s more to come, but we could be, over the next few years, at a turning point when it comes to water recycling.

Of course, our journalists go beyond the chronology to introduce you to the advocates and researchers who have inched reuse forward, and to communities like Monument, Castle Rock, Aurora, Denver and others that have looked to water recycling or are waiting for the next wave of reuse.

That next wave will likely take reuse to new places, including direct potable reuse, as explored in our cover story “Purified,” by Allen Best (see page 16), and through localized systems where water is reused on site, which Kelly Bastone explores in “Saved from the Drain” (see page 27).

As you read this issue, consider the timing—this isn’t any old year, but we’re in a place in time where reuse is likely becoming an essential, go-to water use practice.

—Dawn Jewell, manager of the South Platte River Basin Program for the City of Aurora.

She says one of the biggest challenges initially in the Prairie Waters Project was one of public perception of water reuse.

—Editor—

Listen to the full episode of our radio show, Connecting the Drops, on our website.

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

7

Thank you!

Diverse contributors provide the financial support that makes our work possible! This statewide community is connected by a deep appreciation for water and a love for our state. Together, we’re committed to advancing water education for Colorado citizens, decision makers, and industry professionals alike.

We’d like to take a moment to recognize our Fiscal Year 2018 (July 1, 2017–June 30, 2018) members and donors who contributed $100 and above. Look for a full listing of our members and donors, including our valuable $50 members, in our annual report at watereducationcolorado.org.

8 • WAT E R E D U C AT I O N C O LO R A D O

ENDOWING PARTNERS | $20,000+

CoBank • Colorado Water Conservation Board • Walton Family Foundation

HEADWATERS | $5,000+

Aurora Water • Board of Water Works of Pueblo • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment • Colorado River District • Colorado Springs Utilities • Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority • Denver Water • Jefferson County • Meridian Metropolitan District • MillerCoors • Northern Water • Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Streams Board • Southwestern Water Conservation District • Special District Association of Colorado • ThinkWater • Wright Water Engineers

BASIN | $2,000+

City of Fountain • City of Thornton • Collins Cockrel & Cole • Colorado Water Congress • Environmental Defense Fund • Farm Credit of Southern Colorado • HDR • Eric Hecox • Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District • Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority • Bret and Jayla Poppleton • Rio Grande Water Conservation District • SGM • Shea Properties • South Metro Water Supply Authority • Heather Stauffer • The River Network • Ute Water Conservancy District

AQUIFER | $1,000+

Anadarko Petroleum • Applegate Group • Central Colorado Water Conservancy District • City of Fort Morgan • City of Grand Junction—Utilities • City of Longmont • Colorado Contractors Association • Colorado Potato Administrative Committee • Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. • Metropolitan State University • Metro Wastewater Reclamation District • Morgan County Quality Water District • Northern Water Municipal Subdistrict • Republican River Water Conservation District • San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District • South Platte Water Related Activities Program • Gregg Ten Eyck & Corrin Campbell • Town of Monument • Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association • Barbara Ullmann • Vranesh and Raisch, LLP • White and Jankowski • Wright Family Foundation

RIVER | $500+ Adaptive Resources, Inc. • Cheryl Benedict • Kevin Bergschneider • Bishop-Brogden Associates, Inc. • Brown and Caldwell • Carlson, Hammond & Paddock, LLC • City of Fort Collins—Natural Areas Department • Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Lisa Darling • Ducks Unlimited • Blaine Dwyer • Farnsworth Group, Inc. • Forsgren Associates, Inc. • Mary Gearhart • George K. Baum & Company • Guaranty Bank and Trust • Greg Hobbs • Greg Johnson • Knopf Family Foundation • Kogovsek and Associates, Inc. • Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District • Ken Lykens • Mallon Lonnquist Morris & Watrous • Margaret A. Frank Fund at the Chicago Community Foundation • Alan Matlosz • John Maus • Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheftel • John McClow • Lisa McVicker • NOCO Engineering Company • Jim Pokrandt • Roggen Farmers Elevator Association • Roxborough Water and Sanitation District • Scott Schreiber • Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District • Summit County • TZA Water Engineers • University of Colorado Office for Outreach & Engagement • Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District • Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District • Weld County Farm Bureau • Wilson Water Group

TRIBUTARY | $250+ Agri-Enterprises, Inc. • Big Thompson Watershed Forum • CDM Smith • Centennial Water and Sanitation District • City of Fort Collins • Colorado Corn • Colorado Livestock Association • Colorado Municipal League • Colorado Water Institute • Colorado Water Trust • Conejos Water Conservancy District • Cottonwood Water and Sanitation District • Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc. • Delta County • Donala Water and Sanitation District • Douglas County • ELEMENT Water Consulting • Evans Group, LLC • Fairfield and Woods, P.C. • Dala Giffin • Harris Water Engineering, Inc. • Headwaters Corporation • Scott Hummer • Jeff Larson Insurance Agency • JLB Engineering Consultants • J-U-B Engineers, Inc. • Laurna Kaatz • Paul Lander • Left Hand Water District • Dan Luecke • Martin and Wood Water Consultants • Dennis McGrane • Middle Park Water Conservancy District • North Poudre Irrigation Company • North Sterling Irrigation District • North Table Mountain Water and Sanitation District • North Weld County Water District • Otero County • Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District • Howard Ramsdell • Red Rocks Community College • Renew Strategies, LLC • Robert Rich • Frank Riggle • Rocky Mountain Farmers Union • Schmidt Construction • Mark Scott • Bo Shaffer • Simon Land and Cattle Co., Inc. • South Adams County Water and Sanitation District • Stifel Nicolaus • Keith Swerdfeger • Town of Castle Rock • Town of Windsor • Bill Trampe • Chris Treese • Ulliman Schutte • Garrett Varra • Water Demand Management • Dianna Welton • Brian Werner & Tina Del Ponte • West Greeley Conservation District • West Sage Water Consultants • WetData • David & Desiree Wubben

STREAM | $100+ 20 Sleeps West Real Estate • David Akers • Frank Anesi • Arkansas River Basin Water Forum • Jeni Arndt • Kathleen Arsenault • David Bailey • Dianne Bailey • John Bartholow • Matthew Becker • Richard Belt • Bradford Benning • Amy Blackwell • Richard Bratton • Andrey & Galina Butylev • Carollo Engineers • Anne Castle • Tom Cech • Jon Chambers • Steve Coffin • Caitlin Coleman • Colorado Water Protective and Development Association • Confluence Water Consulting • Amy Conklin • Ken Curtis • Rebecca Dowling • Dynotek • Patrick Emery • Nathan Fey • Mike Fink • Jim Ford • Angie Fowler • Mark Fuller • Jay Gallagher • Pam Gardiner & Lyle Geurts • Russell George • Kevin Gertig • Sheila Giusti • Thomas Gougeon • Hillary Hamann • Christine Hartman • Taylor Hawes • Alan Heath • Matt Heimerich • Hoffman Insurance Agency • Julio Iturreria • Brian Jackson • Katie Jagt • Amy Johnson • Dave Kanzer • Chris Kraft • Lambert Realty • Donald Langley • Katryn Leone • Lutin Curlee Family Partnership, Ltd. • Matt Machado • Janet Marlow • Patricia Matthews • Richard McAllister • Kevin McBride • Mark McCluskey • Bill McCormick • Julie McKenna • Rebecca Mitchell • Diane Mitsch Bush • Reed Morris • Katy Neusteter • Josh Nims • Ian Paton • Bob Peters • Hensley Peterson • Sarah Pitts • Allison Plute • David Pusey • Patty Rettig • Collin Robinson • Steven Rogowski • Rick Sackbauer • Thomas Sharp • Glen Simpson • Zach Smith • Claire Sollars • Laura Spann • D. Randall Spydell • David Stiller • Jennifer Tanaka • Rachel Theler • Rich Tocher • Jean Townsend • Daniel Tyler • W. W. Wheeler & Associates, Inc. • Michael Weakley • Robert Weaver • Eric Wilkinson • Tom Williamsen • Dick Wolfe • Kenneth & Ruth Wright • Mickey Zeppelin • The Water Information Program • St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District • Town of Breckenridge—Water Division

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

9

PLEASE GIVE ONLINE AT COLORADOGIVES.ORG/WATEREDUCATIONCOLORADO

Life depends on water. water depends on you.

Sustaining a rural community is hard work.

Let CoBank handle the financing.

844-846-3135 • water@cobank.com www.cobank.com

S O U T H M E T R O WAT E R S U P P LY A U T H O R I T Y

The 2018 PureWater Colorado Direct Potable Reuse Demonstration showed how advanced water purification processes can produce clean drinking water from reclaimed water without creating a brine waste stream.

Carollo provided all engineering services for the non-RO DPR demonstration, building on our work with WateReuse Colorado to develop a DPR regulatory framework and a statewide outreach and communication plan for Colorado. Key PureWater Colorado partners were CWCB, Denver Water, Xylem, Pall Corporation, and Calgon Carbon.

LEARN MORE

carollo.com phone: 303.635.1220 email: jrehring@carollo.com

10 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

Pulse

React & Recover: Progress Since the 2013 Flood

I

BY ZACK PENSAK

SAINT VRAIN CREEK

n September 2013, flooding in Northern Colorado left a wake of homes and entire towns that were destroyed, roads torn up, streams that had changed course, and a pressing need to rebuild. Five years later, river corridors have been restored and communities are transitioning away from the hustle of recovery and looking toward a more resilient future—ready for whatever might come next.

“We are proud to say that as we approach the five-year anniversary of the flooding, 95 percent of the funded stream recovery projects are completed,” said Chris Sturm, the stream restoration coordinator at the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), in August.

Immediate financial aid came from the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) in 2014 and 2015, totaling $71 million. Funds were administered by the CWCB and went toward the creation of 10 master plans—eight of which were drafted by new watershed coalitions formed in the aftermath of the flood.

Those master plans aimed to protect life and property while restoring ecological function. The result? More resilient watersheds. “We have incorporated the natural tendencies of streams, while redesigning the landscape to evolve and adapt for potential future incidents,” Sturm says.

The Saint Vrain Creek Coalition (SVCC) formed in reaction to the 2013 flooding.

Created in early 2014 by a combination of local, state and federal funding, the SVCC is focused on developing a collaborative, voluntary process to balance the economic, social, and environmental needs of the Saint Vrain watershed.

Since its inception, the coalition has implemented more than $4.5 million in flood recovery projects in the Saint Vrain watershed to make the river more resilient to future flooding, protect life and property, foster healthy aquatic ecosystems, and encourage recreational safety and access to the river corridor.

Now, entering a post-flood-recovery phase, the coalition’s work continues to evolve. “We are now pursuing a more traditional [watershed coalition] approach, which focuses on both overall watershed health and community engagement,” says SVCC board president Karla Brown. H

↑ Lumber and machinery were used to stabilize the banks and restore the channel of Left Hand Creek.

LEFT HAND CREEK The Left Hand Creek Watershed was severely damaged during the flooding, with one Jamestown resident killed by debris flow, hundreds of homes damaged or destroyed, and the streambed significantly altered. Residents were eager to get involved with local recovery and restoration efforts. They found that experience with the Lefthand Watershed Oversight Group (LWOG)—a coalition that has existed since

2005, but faced a new set of challenges after the 2013 floods.

Among its recovery projects, LWOG targeted resilience by strategically installing riparian plants along the reconstructed creek and relocating power lines underground.

The plantings create fortified buffers to protect the banks and surrounding land from potential floods, while buried power lines are naturally protected from the elements so that residents might not lose electricity during future flood events.

Now, LWOG is monitoring the effectiveness of restoration in order to adjust course if needed. Executive director Jessie Olson is spearheading monitoring efforts through the coalition’s Stewardship through Citizen Science project. Through the project, members are gauging overall watershed health by tracking conditions at various sites. With constant updates and live data, LWOG can adaptively manage the creek, Olson says.

Courtesy the Lefthand Watershed Oversight Group; Courtesy St. Vrain Creek Coalition

↑ Volunteers seed and mulch a large floodplain bench in Apple Valley.

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

11

Pulse

The Colorado River’s Risky Future Study examines risks—and how to reduce them

A

BY NELSON HARVEY

s they look to the future, Colorado water managers face a vexing question: How to do more with less? A nearly 20-year drought in the Colorado River Basin has cut river flows to 80 percent of their long-term average and left the region’s major reservoirs less than half full. Scientists predict that climate change will worsen and prolong this trend. At the same time, Colorado continues to grow, with the Western Slope’s population projected to increase by nearly 70 percent by 2050, according to the Colorado State Demographer’s Office.

How can Colorado supply water for new growth while bypassing sufficient flows downstream to avoid violating the Colorado River Compact?

That’s the question at the heart of the ongoing Colorado River Risk Study, a nearly four-year effort funded by the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the Southwestern Water Conservation District and the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Water Supply Reserve Fund. “If the hydrology we’ve seen [in recent decades] continues, there is not enough water in the system, and we are going to have to do things differently,” says Eric Kuhn, the retired general manager of the Colorado River District. “This study is just looking at what

12 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

↑ If Colorado River flows continue to decline, Lake Powell could fall so low that Glen Canyon Dam wouldn’t be able to generate hydropower and upper basin states could risk violating the Colorado River Compact.

some of those options are. What are the risks that we would have to reduce diversions to manage reservoir levels? How would we do it?”

Phase I of the study, completed in fall 2016, modeled a range of scenarios to gauge the risk of Lake Powell falling so low that Glen Canyon Dam could no longer generate hydropower, or that the upper basin could no longer ensure the lower basin receives its water allocation under the Colorado River Compact. It found that "drought contingency measures" as contemplated by Colorado and the Upper Colorado River Commission could reduce the

risk of those outcomes, through actions including increasing precipitation through cloudseeding, transferring water from upstream reservoirs to Lake Powell, and reducing water diversions through voluntary, compensated measures known as “demand management.”

Still, if a drought as severe as the one that hit between 2000 and 2004 struck today, it could take more than 1 million acrefeet of demand management— far more than could be implemented in a single year—to keep Lake Powell high enough to generate power. Phase II of the study, completed in 2018, recommended that upper

basin states create a water bank, where smaller deposits can be made annually and the balance can be drawn down in times of shortage. According to the study, banking 100,000 acre-feet of water annually would sharply reduce the risk of power generation or compact compliance issues, though questions remain about how to shepherd water downstream to Lake Powell past other would-be diverters.

The third phase of the study, now underway, aims to refine estimates of how much these efforts can reduce risk, while also exploring how demand management might be carried out across Colorado. If the state were called upon to boost levels in Lake Powell, how would that be administered?

The study will explore options, including curtailing post-1922 Colorado River Compact water rights according to the priority system, curtailing water use based on each river basin’s prorata share of total Colorado River depletions, or curtailing post-compact water rights evenly between the Western Slope and the Eastern Slope.

For each option, the study will explore which water users would have to curtail their use, and for how long. Modeling should be complete by year’s end and could inform a future statewide demand management program. H

Adobe Stock

C

BY NELSON HARVEY

olorado is expected to add 3 million new residents by 2050, and many of them will likely settle along the northern Front Range. That growth will spur a massive mismatch between water supply and demand—a gap of roughly 500,000 acre-feet per year by midcentury, according to Colorado’s Water Plan. Since 2015, a group of Front Range water providers called the South Platte Regional Opportunity Working Group (SPROWG) has been looking for ways to bridge that future gap through collaborative multi-purpose water projects, without diverting more water from Colorado’s Western Slope or drying up eastern Colorado farmland in the process. “[This is] about making our water systems as efficient as we possibly can, and then seeing how large the remaining supply gap is and what the next steps will be,” says Lisa Darling, executive director of the South Metro Water Supply Authority, a member of SPROWG, and president of Water Education Colorado’s board.

Along with South Metro, SPROWG includes representatives from Denver Water, Aurora Water, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District, the North Sterling Irrigation District and the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District. The group is seeking to capitalize on a surplus of untapped reusable water in the lower South Platte River near the Nebraska border, which accumulates there through return flows from the Denver Metro area and farms upstream. According to the South Platte Storage Study, an effort funded by the Colorado legislature and completed in early 2018, Colorado sent an annual median volume of 293,000 acre-feet more water to Nebraska than the South Platte River Compact requires between 1996 and 2015.

SPROWG aims to enable the reuse and exchange of more of that water before it leaves the state.

“The central problem is that [future] demand will largely materialize in growing communities located roughly along the north-south axis of Interstate 25, while data and modeling tell us that available water supplies in the basin generally occur

Adobe Stock

An Ambitious Reuse Plan for the South Platte Basin Conceptual project would capture and store flows before they cross into Nebraska.

↑ SPROWG is pursuing a conceptual project that could capitalize on untapped water in the lower South Platte River.

much further downstream where the river traverses the plains,” says Doug Robotham, a consultant who helped initiate SPROWG and facilitates the group’s discussions.

The conceptual project that SPROWG is now pursuing would remedy that mismatch through the creation of about 175,000 acre-feet of new water storage in three locations: 50,000 acre-feet near Henderson, 100,000 acre-feet downstream near Kersey, and 25,000 acre-feet further east near Snyder. The concept could also involve the construction of a pipeline from the Snyder-area reservoir back to the South Platte River north of Denver. This would enable the storage, reuse and exchange of several types of water, including native

South Platte River flows in wet years, and legally reusable water supplies. Reusable supplies include transbasin diversion water, unconnected well water, and other sources imported into the South Platte system.

SPROWG’s analysis suggests the concept would generate 54,600 acre-feet of dependable “firm yield” every year. That’s only about one-tenth of the South Platte Basin’s looming water supply gap, but Joe Frank of the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District says the concept would have added benefits for farmers and ranchers in eastern Colorado.

“It provides a viable alternative to buy and dry that has and continues to threaten lands within our boundaries,” says Frank. The economies of many eastern Colorado towns are dependent on irrigated agriculture and will suffer if acres are removed from production by cities acquiring agricultural water to support growth, Frank says.

Much research remains before SPROWG’s concept solidifies into an actual water project. SPROWG partners recently received $155,000 in funding from the Metro and South Platte Basin roundtables, and at press time they were waiting on approval for an additional $195,000 from the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Water Supply Reserve Account. Over the next year, they’ll use those funds, together with $120,000 of their own money, to hone in on which municipal, agricultural and recreational water users could benefit from the SPROWG concept. They’ll also study how the concept would be funded and governed, and the exact size and location of the proposed storage facilities and water reuse pipeline. H

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

13

Pulse ← In the Arkansas River below Lake Cheraw, water officials worry that if the lake drains, salinity levels in the river will rise so much as to incite enough concern downstream to trigger lawsuits.

Could Salinity Threaten Interstate Accord?

A

BY JERD SMITH

lake on Colorado’s southeastern plains whose salinity rivals that of the Great Salt Lake has residents of a small town ready to do battle with water officials over how to keep its alarmingly salty waters from reaching the Arkansas River.

The 250 or so residents of Lake Cheraw, the town that shares the lake’s name, want the lake to drain because they fear its salinity will damage their farms and homes. When lake levels rise, so do nearby water tables, seeping into basements and farm fields.

But draining the lake could cause salinity levels in the already salt-burdened Arkansas River to rise high enough to trigger potential legal battles with Kansas, which has a right to a portion of the river’s waters.

The two states’ relationship with the river is governed by the much-litigated Arkansas River Compact and both states have spent tens of millions of dollars fighting over the water. The compact also dictates that water

14 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

crossing the state line be “usable” for Kansas.

Highly saline water is a concern because it can cause severe damage to crops.

“How do we know this isn’t a lawsuit coming?” says Mike Weber, an engineer with the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District. “Why even risk it?”

Lake Cheraw, according to most descriptions, is a natural low spot into which small amounts of irrigation water from nearby fields and reservoirs seep.

Shale formations below the lake release salt when wet. The lake was dry through the early 2000s, but filled after large rain events in 2016 and 2017, according to Weber. Now, despite the drought, the lake has refilled and its salinity levels are topping 13,600 parts per million, according to recent sampling conducted by the water conservancy district.

Salinity levels on the Arkansas River at the Kansas state line hover around 4,000 ppm, less than one-third those of the lake

currently. Salt isn’t a regulated contaminant, so prescribed standards on acceptable levels don’t exist. Still, water officials worry that if salinity rises above current levels, it could cause enough concern downstream to trigger lawsuits.

To cope with the lake’s recent rebirth, Lake Cheraw residents went to the Arkansas Basin Roundtable seeking a $21,000 grant to clear out a drainage below the lake that would allow the water to flow. Their grant request was denied, in part because of salinity concerns. Residents, according to Lake Cheraw Mayor Pro Tem Nick Koch, believe that with the drainage cleared, the water will drain slowly enough that its salinity levels will decline before reaching the Arkansas River, causing no noticeable increase there.

Water officials in the past, however have been reluctant to take that risk. Lake Cheraw was the subject of a state water quality rule known as Reg. 75 from the late 1980s through 2014 when it was repealed due to dry conditions—no releases were being made so the regulation was no longer needed. Reg. 75 dictated that water from the lake could only be released through a control structure and only in amounts that would keep salinity levels in the released water at or below 4,300 ppm.

Looking forward, management of Lake Cheraw could demand a new approach. The Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District and others believe they could protect the Arkansas River and manage releases from Lake Cheraw by lining Holbrook Reservoir to prevent seepage into the lake; creating a natural, plant-based buffer between Lake Cheraw and the ditch that drains into the Arkansas River; and building a new control structure to manage releases. H This story originally appeared in Fresh Water News, an initiative of Water Education Colorado. Read Fresh Water News online at watereducationcolorado.org.

Jerd Smith

Around the state | BY JERD SMITH “People thought they were ‘call proof.’ They thought it would never happen to them.”

Erin Light, Division Engineer for the Yampa Basin, in regard to the fact that the mainstem of the Yampa saw its water curtailed for the very first time.

ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN Colorado Springs Utilities has signed an $8.75 million agreement to share farm water in times of drought, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette. The deal, with the Lower Arkansas Water Management Association, gives Colorado Springs access to 2,100 acre-feet of water which it is allowed to use during five years of a 10-year cycle, which then repeats. The deal qualifies as an alternative transfer method, or ATM, and allows the city to tap agricultural water without buying the farms outright and permanently drying up their fields. It must still be approved in water court. The case is expected to be filed early next year and could take three or more years to be reviewed there.

COLORADO RIVER BASIN

to have the projects up and running this fall.

“We’ve had a ton of interest,” she said.

REPUBLICAN RIVER BASIN The State of Colorado in August agreed to pay Kansas another $2 million to settle ongoing concerns that it was overusing its share of the Republican River in eastern Colorado and harming Kansas in the process.

Colorado has spent millions of dollars in litigation with Kansas over the river. Under this latest settlement, Colorado also agreed to spend an additional $2 million in its portion of the Republican River Basin. Money could go toward incentives to reduce well pumping or other conservation efforts, according to Republican River Water Conservation District Manager Deb Daniel.

RIO GRANDE RIVER BASIN

An effort to reconnect the river channel on the upper Colorado River that was severed by the Windy Gap Dam decades ago has become entangled in a U.S. District Court lawsuit in Denver and may be delayed or canceled as a result. The lawsuit, filed in October of 2017 by the environmental group Save The Colorado, seeks to stop expansion of the Windy Gap system. The channel restoration was planned to compensate the West Slope for the environmental impacts of the expansion, which includes a new reservoir on the Front Range.

GUNNISON RIVER BASIN The Colorado River District has awarded $1.7 million in grants to improve the efficiency of on-farm irrigation systems in the Lower Gunnison Basin. The program is funded by the National Resource Conservation Service. Sonja Chavez, a water resources specialist for the river district, said 14 grants were awarded from 28 applications received this summer. Chavez said the district hopes

The San Luis Valley has spent more than a decade trying to bring its aquifers back by reversing an alarming decline that began in the 2002 drought. This year it suffered a setback, however. After gaining 350,000 acre-feet in storage, this summer’s drought triggered another fall, with the giant underground aquifer losing 248,000 acre-feet of water, according to Cleave Simpson, manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. Water users in the basin have taxed themselves to fund land fallowing programs and now may have to do more to meet a state deadline of 2030 to bring the aquifer back to a stable condition, at which point it would have roughly 700,000 acre-feet in storage.

SAN JUAN/DOLORES RIVER BASIN This summer’s 416 Fire near Durango brought home again the danger to watersheds when wildfire breaks out and scars mountainsides above rivers and reservoirs.

The Mountain Studies Institute has been monitoring water quality in the Animas River throughout the summer as heavy post-fire rain events triggered flooding and landslides. “We can conclusively say the impact to aquatic life is much worse than we saw after the Gold King Mine disaster,” said Scott Roberts, a researcher at the institute. “The sediment loads are choking the system, displacing habitat, and clogging fish gills.”

Roberts said aquatic life typically can begin recovering within one to five years after wildfires, but he said the area devastated by the nearby Missionary Ridge Fire in 2002 continues to generate severe debris flows in the Animas after major rain storms.

SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN Denver Water, Aurora, the Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation District and the Greenway Foundation are in talks with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to resolve a lawsuit over how best to keep lead out of drinking water. The CDPHE in March ordered Denver Water to begin adding phosphorus to its system after lead was detected at some Denver Water customers’ taps. The levels do not constitute a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, but they do require that the utility take action. Denver and other plaintiffs sued to overturn CDPHE’s order in April, citing the negative impact of phosphorus on streams.

Denver wants to use a pH balancing protocol combined with an expanded effort to replace lead supply lines in the metro area to resolve the issue.

YAMPA/WHITE RIVER BASIN In early September, after weeks of monitoring an increasingly dry Yampa River, Division Engineer Erin Light curtailed water use on the mainstem for the first time in history.

The move meant users on the river had their diversions sharply reduced or stopped because a senior water right holder on the stream was not getting his legal allotment of the water. Light said the historic call is a learning experience for everyone on the river, especially those who thought the Yampa would never run so low. H H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

15

Purified T The next frontier of recycled water (and beer)

BY ALLEN BEST 16 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

wo sips into my Centurion Pilsner at a beer garden in Denver, I hiccupped. Hoppy beers do that to me.

This beer was different.

The water used for the brew came not from a river, a reservoir, or even a well. Instead, the purified water was sourced from a wastewater treatment plant located along the South Platte River. This simple fact didn’t bother me at all.

To be clear, I’m not a risk taker. Never skydived. Never paddled down Class V rapids. Never swallowed goldfish on a dare.

But from what I’ve learned about purification processes for reclaimed water, drinking this limited-edition beer was eminently safe. The pilsner, blonde and translucent, like a Coors, looked and tasted like any number of beers made from water freshly obtained from creeks and rivers tumbling from Colorado’s mountain peaks. As for the strawberry-kiwi wheat beer ordered by my companion, I would have nothing of it.

“That’s not beer,” I harrumphed, “that’s a fruit bowl. Undrinkable.”

I was at Declaration Brewing Co., located in Denver’s Overland neighborhood.

The brewery and also a winery, InVINtions, located in Greenwood Village, were part of a regional effort. Water for the one-time specialty beverages produced by both came from the PureWater Colorado Demonstra-

tion Project. In the demonstration that was conducted in spring of 2018, water providers, engineering companies and water reuse advocates collaborated to showcase direct potable reuse treatment technologies. The water was treated using five different processes until it met federal and state drinking water standards, suitable for human consumption.

Water always has been recycled. In her 2018 book “Replenish,” Sandra Postel points out that our morning coffee might contain molecules of deep fossil groundwater that the dinosaurs drank. Decades ago Colorado began deliberately recycling water, but only for landscaping purposes.

More recent has been indirect potable reuse, where treated wastewater flows through an environmental buffer, such as a river, before being extracted for further treatment to make it suitable for drinking and other domestic uses.

Now, Colorado and several other water-stressed states are moving cautiously but deliberately toward direct potable reuse. “Widespread development of potable reuse will be an important facet of closing the future water supply-demand gap,” said the Colorado Water Plan of 2015.

Potable reuse most certainly won’t be a cure-all for Colorado’s water shortages. It’s just one potential tool in a kit, applicable for specialized settings. Engineers insist the technology exists to ensure water safe

Matthew Staver

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

17

for human consumption. The larger question is whether the public will accept direct potable reuse, where that environmental buffer does not exist. The answer hinges, at least in part, on adoption of state standards governing treatment processes and monitoring protocols.

DEMAND BALANCED

BY COST IN MONUMENT

T

he greatest interest in direct potable reuse comes from water providers along the urban Front Range corridor, particularly in towns between Denver and Colorado Springs still reliant upon wells. One of those places is Monument.

Monument lies 20 miles north of Colorado Springs near the crest of the Palmer Divide.

With 8,000 water-drinking consumers, it is one of eight larger jurisdictions in northern El Paso County and a dozen or more small water providers that rely totally, or mostly, on water extracted from wells in the Denver Basin aquifers. Monument’s extraction of water from the Dawson and Arapahoe aquifers cannot be sustained.

Groundwater levels have declined up to 20 feet a year as pumps have worked harder to supply a population expanding by 4 percent annually.

Wells, which range from 30 to 1,750 feet in depth, can be drilled deeper, but only so far. Aquifers with high-quality water go only so deep.

“At some point, we either have to get a new water source or reuse our water,” says Nicholas Harris, the town’s water superintendent. “Is it a concern? Absolutely,” says Steve Sheffield, Monument’s assistant public works director. “We would be negligent in our jobs if we said that supplies of water were not a concern.”

Monument sees few alternatives. Water can be purchased from distant farms, but that requires pumping long distances uphill to the town’s 7,000-foot elevation. Such purchases also marginalize rural farming areas. Trying to get water from even more distant sources, such as the Colorado River and its tributaries, if theoretically possible, looks even more expensive and problematic. Plus, it reduces flows in those rivers.

Reuse appears to be the most viable option for Monument. The city has retained consultants, at a budgeted cost of $150,000, to study releases from the municipal wastewater treatment facility. Results expected by the end of 2018 will allow Monument to better under-

← PRECEDING PAGE: A water operator with Castle Rock Water, Lanre Ajayi, holds a beaker of water purified at Castle Rock’s pilot purification facility.

18 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

Reuse in Colorado Timeline

1957 U.S. Air Force Academy completes a reuse treatment plant to irrigate 347 acres of fields, grounds, and a golf course

1960 Colorado Springs Utilities installs a non-potable reclaimed water delivery system to provide median watering along the I-25 corridor but the system was never used

1964 Aurora pioneers water reuse at its Sand Creek Facility using reclaimed water to irrigate its golf course and city park Colorado Springs Utilities provides non-potable reclaimed water to the Patty Jewett Golf Course in response to one of the worst droughts on record.

Its system has since grown to supply 21 sites, and an additional 11 sites receiving other non-potable raw water sources

stand exactly what treatments would be needed to purify water for potable reuse and what those treatments might cost.

What Monument will do with those results remains undecided. Indirect potable reuse is favored by Monument’s water officials. The treated wastewater could be pumped upstream and allowed to flow miles down Monument Creek before being recaptured and treated.

Direct potable reuse, absent the environmental buffer, would slash pumping costs but it might be a hard sell with water consumers, Harris says. He believes he could make a better case for direct potable reuse if state regulations were adopted. “We could say this is what is required and this is what we’re doing to meet those requirements.”

Adoption of state regulations would also give water providers certainty. No regulations or standards, state or federal, directly define or prohibit direct potable reuse in Colorado. Water providers could legally construct direct potable reuse systems today, then submit to state officials for approval. That, however, would leave them vulnerable to the risk of building something that might then need to be substantially modified in the future to comply with inevitable but as-yet-undefined regulations governing direct potable reuse.

Direct potable reuse is just one of several water supply options for Monument’s looming existential problem. “We’re looking to reduce our reliance on groundwater, whether that is [through] reuse, either indirect or direct potable reuse, or even a renewable surface supply,” says Harris.

Whatever Monument does, it hopes to have partners. “It boils down to cost,” says Harris.

“There are economies of scale. So, if we can get two or three or four or more entities together, the overall cost increases, but it can be split among those entities, reducing everybody’s individual costs. Plus, all of us in northern El Paso County are in the same general boat.” Towns in that region need a sustainable water supply to supplement groundwater extractions. And reuse is an economic option.

REUSE IN COLORADO

W

hat some people call de facto reuse has long occurred in Colorado and around the world. In summer, farmers in the lower South Platte River Valley depend on releases from the metro-area wastewater treatment plants. The largest plant, the Robert W. Hite Treatment Facility, processes wastewater

Purified water is dosed with a residual disinfectant and distributed

Treating Water for Direct Potable Reuse In spring 2018, direct potable reuse made an appearance in Colorado through the PureWater Colorado Demonstration Project. The project—executed through a partnership between the Calgon Carbon, Carollo Engineers, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver Water, Pall Corporation, and Xylem—highlighted a five-step water purification process. The multi-barrier treatment train and technology used for the project did not include the more common potable reuse treatment train that uses reverse osmosis.

Reverse Osmosis BRINE TO DISPOSAL

REVERSE OSMOSIS Salt and other fine impurities are removed through a high-pressure membrane process

SOURCE WATER

Reverse osmosis is a high-pressure membrane system that removes salts and purifies water through small holes. The process is both financially and energy intensive, but the greater challenge in Colorado is the disposal of the leftover byproduct: concentrated brine. Coastal communities can dispose of brine in the sea, but lacking ocean-front property in Colorado, brine has been injected into deep wells or discharged to streams—each presenting its own challenges. Brine disposal discourages widespread use of reverse osmosis in inland communities, but treatment trains like that used in the PureWater Colorado Demonstration Project provide an alternative treatment option for our landlocked state.

UV ADVANCED OXIDATION Ultraviolet light lamps and hydrogen peroxide create a chemical reaction that produces high-energy radicals that damage the DNA of any microbes or viruses, leaving them unable to replicate and destroying remaining trace chemicals

Purified water is dosed with a residual disinfectant and distributed

MICROFILTRATION Low-pressure membrane process removes microscopic particles including bacteria and protozoa UV ADVANCED OXIDATION

GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON FILTRATION Activated carbon granules remove remaining trace chemicals and organic matter MICROFILTRATION

BIOLOGICAL FILTRATION Carbon filters covered with “aerobic” bacteria consume the degraded organic matter and break down trace chemicals

SOURCE WATER

PureWater Colorado

OZONE Ozone is introduced to degrade organic matter and destroy pathogens

PARLEZ-VOUS REUSE? Don’t spend time in water treatment plants? Then you might find the terminology confusing. Reclaimed or recycled water indicates water that is used more than once, according to the American Water Works Association. De facto reuse occurs when downstream communities and other water users divert surface water, such as from rivers, that is at least partly comprised of upstream wastewater discharges. Non-potable reuse refers to treating and distributing reclaimed water that is unacceptable for drinking but safe for other purposes, such as landscaping and industrial uses.

Chas Chamberlin

Finally, there is potable reuse: water safe for drinking.

Here, there are additional distinctions: There’s indirect potable reuse. This is when wastewater is released to an environmental buffer, such as by flowing down a river or creek for several miles or replenishing a groundwater aquifer before being recaptured. Direct potable reuse has no such buffer.

It’s water moved directly from the wastewater treatment plant’s discharge directly to an advanced water treatment plant. Think pipe to pipe. H

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

19

from 1.8 million people. Located along the river near Interstate 270, the plant reclaims 130 million gallons of wastewater daily, or enough to fill nearly 200 Olympic-sized swimming pools. For nine months each year, treated discharges from the plant provide 85 percent of the flows of the South Platte River downstream from Denver.

Towns and cities also tap creeks and rivers that include diluted wastewater. Golden dips its straw into Clear Creek downstream from the treatment plants of Idaho Springs, Georgetown and Blackhawk. On the Western Slope, water for Avon and Beaver Creek comes from the Eagle River downstream from Vail’s treatment plant.

Even in this headwaters state, most people live downstream from someone else.

Deliberate non-potable reuse in Colorado has occurred since the 1960s, when Aurora and Colorado Springs began using treated wastewater, also called reclaimed water, for landscape irrigation. Today, at least 27 jurisdictions deliberately treat wastewater to levels suitable for non-potable reuse. It is used for landscape irrigation and industrial purposes—with 500 different end uses altogether. Aspen intends to join the list when it begins using treated wastewater to irrigate a municipal golf course.

Denver Water has been looking to expand state-approved uses of treated wastewater.

Working within its own borders, Denver delivers 20 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

1967 Colorado College adopts the use of non-potable reclaimed water

1971 Fort Carson begins reusing water for golf course irrigation and recycling its tank wash water

1985–1991 Denver Water operates a direct potable reuse pilot located on the site that today is home to Denver Water’s non-potable water recycling plant

↑ Nicholas Harris, water superintendent for Monument, stands at Monument Lake. The town doesn’t own any surface water rights but uses the lake for augmentation and expects it to play a role in future reuse efforts.

recycled water through a 70-mile network of purple pipes—used to identify the treated non-potable water—to more than 80 customers.

They include 34 parks, 5 golf courses, and the city’s zoo. But reclaimed water for landscaping is needed only in warm-weather months. The supply is available year round.

This demand-supply mismatch triggered Denver to push for a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) review of Denver’s proposed expanded uses of reclaimed water for non-potable purposes. CDPHE’s review launched in 2016, with new regulations expected in fall 2018. In spring of 2018, the Colorado General Assembly passed legislation allowing deliberate use of reclaimed water for growing edible crops and industrial hemp as well as for flushing toilets and urinals, as Denver had originally proposed. Legislators said no to a fourth bill that would have allowed use of reclaimed water for marijuana cultivation. Cannabis growers feared they would be mandated to use reclaimed water and argued that ample research hadn’t yet been conducted on potential health impacts.

State Rep. Jeni Arndt, a Democrat from Fort Matthew Staver

Collins and a primary sponsor of three of the four bills that passed with bipartisan support, sees the new laws as steps forward in water conservation. “What I am trying to do is very intentionally build the tools to create the framework for a water-secure future,” she says.

PRAIRIE WATERS

D

esperation has often driven efforts to recycle water. That was the case when the bone-dry drought of 2002 revealed Aurora’s vulnerability to water shortage. Getting new virgin water from the Western Slope might have taken decades. An easier and less costly solution was to drill 23 wells in the alluvial aquifer 50 to 100 feet from the South Platte River near Brighton. Treated wastewater released from the Hite plant north of downtown Denver flows 16 miles downstream in the river and through the adjoining alluvial aquifer. From the wells at Brighton, Aurora’s reusable water is pumped 34 miles and 1,100 vertical feet through a pipeline to the Peter Binney Water Purification Facility near E-470 and East Quincy Avenue. There it is subjected to several treatment processes then mixed with separately treated water imported from the mountains. This project, Prairie Waters, was completed in 2010.

Aurora has been using only 20 percent of the pipeline’s capacity, bringing raw water to the purification facility, but it expects to use more and to pump more from its wells as the population, now at 362,000, grows to 700,000 in coming decades. “We’re growing into it,” explains Aurora Water spokesman Greg Baker.

As with Monument, cost factors into Aurora’s water reuse. Deliveries from Prairie Waters cost 10 times as much as water imported from the Homestake Valley near Vail and other mountain sources, says Baker. Prairie Waters requires three pumping stations, and treatment needs further elevate costs. “There is no cheap way to reuse water,” says Baker, “but given the cost of water, [reuse] is becoming more cost effective. For everyone, it comes down to location, location, location.

The water has to be relatively easy to recapture, and for some jurisdictions it’s just not practical.”

Prairie Waters illustrates how partnerships can lower individual costs and reduce locational problems. Half of the $638 million Prairie Waters cost was for the pipeline (with room in the rightof-way for a second pipeline). To pay down the enormous infrastructure cost, Aurora in 2008 began soliciting interest from water-strapped south suburban neighbors as well as Denver. The vision coalesced in 2014 when the Water Infrastructure

and Supply Efficiency Partnership, or WISE, was approved. Ten South Metro communities began getting water deliveries through the WISE partnership in 2017.

Transbasin diversions by Denver and Aurora underpin the reuse component of WISE. The Blue River Decree, signed in 1955 but disputed long after, governs Denver Water’s imports from Dillon Reservoir, and requires Denver to maximize its transbasin imports before seeking additional water from the Western Slope. That imported water can be used and reused again and again to the legal definition of “extinction.” But much of the state’s treated water isn’t available for reuse. Under prior appropriation, after a first use, any unused water must be allowed to flow downstream to other users who then have a right to that water.

Most, but not all, transbasin diversion water can be reused, as can other imported water including the consumptive use portion of transferred agricultural water and nonrenewable and nontributary groundwater. Water from the state’s largest transbasin diversion, the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, cannot be reused, except in the de facto reuse by those downstream. In addition, most of the water imported to metro Denver through the Moffat Tunnel cannot be reused.

Even so, there’s worry in the South Platte Valley that increased water reuse will mean less water for crops. “Irrigators and municipalities kind of clash when it comes to thinking that conservation is the way to fix the problems,” says Randy Ray, executive director of the Greeley-based Central Colorado Water Conservancy District.

Joe Frank, general manager of the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District in Sterling, also notes potential for diminished flows to canals and reservoirs. But the legal standing is unchallenged. “They have a right to use it,” Frank says of the legally allowed reuse.

Also unchallenged is the right of cities mining water from confined, non-renewable aquifers— including the Denver Basin underlying Monument, Parker, and Castle Rock—to recycle it. In Castle Rock, that matters entirely.

CASTLE ROCK

C

astle Rock, a city of 62,000, was long reliant on wells drafting unsustainably on the same Denver Basin aquifers as Monument. It still is. However, since 2006, Castle Rock has been pivoting toward sustainable water supplies. Receiving WISE water starting in April 2018 was a giant step, boosting the city’s portfolio of renewable, non-groundwater supplies from 17 percent in 2017 to between 34 percent and 45

2000 Regulation 84 is first adopted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission to establish requirements, prohibitions, standards and concentration limits for the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation

2004 Denver Water’s Recycling Plant begins operating, distributing water through its network of purple pipes Regulation 84 is amended to include commercial and industrial uses of reclaimed water, with many of the new uses authorized by this regulation spurred by demand generated during the 2002 drought

2005 Regulation 84 is amended to include residential fire protection and resident-controlled irrigation uses of reclaimed water

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

21

percent in 2018, depending upon how much utility customers use, how much water is available in the creek, and how much WISE water Castle Rock purchases.

Next comes a revamped treatment plant and indirect potable reuse system expected to be ready by 2020. The town’s treated wastewater will be allowed to flow five miles down East Plum Creek before being collected near Sedalia and pumped back to Castle Rock for further purification. Castle Rock uses a water treatment technology train that seems at least half as long as the mile-long coal trains that rumble through the town: seven steps before the final step of adding chloramines for disinfection. Cost of this reuse water will run $12,000 to $13,000 per acrefoot (in 2018 dollars), compared to the city’s best estimates of $30,000 per acre-foot or more for imported water.

Castle Rock’s new plant will have an option for pipe-to-pipe direct potable reuse including treatment processes that utility officials expect the state will require once it sets regulations to protect public health where direct potable reuse is implemented. Indirect potable reuse loses some water to the sands of East Plum Creek. Direct reuse would not incur stream losses. There’s little difference most years. “The only time direct reuse will produce significantly more water is when there is a drought that causes the creek to dry up,” says Mark Marlowe, the city’s director of utilities.

What’s holding Castle Rock back from going immediately to direct potable reuse? It’s a complicated chicken-and-egg situation, similar to that described by Monument’s superintendent.

Marlowe wants more dialogue with customers first. And before doing that outreach, he wants explicit state regulations. Those regulations will implicitly testify to the adequacy of treatment, Marlowe believes.

During the last decade, Marlowe says, Castle Rock’s customers indicated they’re “generally comfortable with indirect reuse, which includes the environmental interface of East Plum Creek or Rueter-Hess,” he says, the latter a reference to the reservoir between Parker and Castle Rock.

“We have not invested significant outreach in direct potable reuse at this point, as we will likely wait for the state to be further along in regulations before we take time to do that.”

PERCEPTION AND PUREWATER

C

enturion, the beer named to reflect Denver Water’s 2018 centennial anniversary, was part of the effort to build trust among Coloradans in recycled water. So was the 22 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

2007 Regulation 84 is amended clarifying that treated wastewater used at the treatment plant for process uses is not subject to the regulation and deleting a provision related to landscape irrigation

↑ Castle Rock Reservoir No. 1, near Sedalia, can hold up to 240 acre-feet of water. By 2020, Castle Rock Water plans to divert water off of Plum Creek—primarily comprised of treated effluent from the Plum Creek Water Reclamation Authority—pump it to this reservoir for storage, then pipe the water back to the purification facility when needed, for treatment and distribution to water users.

PureWater Colorado Demonstration Project. The project at Denver Water’s recycling plant showcased methods used to deliver purified direct potable reuse water that in its quality and safety is just as good, if not better, than bottled water from a grocery store shelf.

Hundreds of people were shown the tangle of pipes and tanks, among them state legislators, water officials and journalists, including me. “I think I can detect the undertones of the Blue River,” I sniffed to my companion as I swirled a sample of the water in a plastic cup.

Five treatments were used, but salt remained in the water. All water has some salt. The more water is recycled, the higher the salt content and total dissolved solids, or TDS. TDS is the more technical term for salts, metals, minerals and other matter dissolved in water. The level of salt remaining in water after purification is not a Matthew Staver

jurisdictions blend higher-salt recycled water with other supplies, such as from wells or imports from the mountains, taste may not be an issue. After all, the International Space Station manages to pull this off without having imports from mountain streams. But taste matters to the public. “If it doesn’t taste ‘right,’ they may perceive that it’s not healthy,” says da Silva.

REUSE SAFETY, TREATMENT TECH AND HEALTH

P

health problem, but it poses a giant problem of perception. It changes the taste, what some call drinkability.

“We will have to pay as much attention to the taste, the drinkability of it, as to the public health,” says Allegra da Silva, of Brown & Caldwell, an engineering firm in Lakewood. She is also president of WateReuse Colorado, an advocacy group of water professionals. “The things that can actually harm you, you can’t taste. The things you can taste in water are not harmful.

In potable reuse, we have to provide both purity and drinkability. We can do that with the right treatment,” says da Silva.

The public may not notice this change in taste, she says, if the increase in salt is gradual. And if

fluent water fact

Traditional water supplies in the United States cost an average $3.90 per 1,000 gallons whereas reclaimed supplies now cost less, averaging $3.60 per 1,000 gallons, according to Bluefield Research.

As traditional supplies become more scarce and expensive and the cost of reuse continues to decline, reuse grows increasingly cost competitive.

erception along with technology and many other things have changed since 1998, when a National Research Council report said reclaimed water should be a “solution of last resort” for drinking water. By 2012, the same group said “use of treated wastewater … could significantly increase the nation’s total available water resources.”

What changed? A 2018 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others called “Mainstreaming Potable Water Reuse in the United States” credited the “development of a community of practitioners who understand the ingredients necessary to successfully implement potable reuse projects along with greater acceptance among the public and decision makers.”

EPA looks over the shoulder of state regulators to ensure healthy drinking water. It regulates contamination by both occurrence and magnitude. In other words, how often does something show up and at what strength? Analytical techniques have become so effective that chemicals can be detected at concentrations that pose no public health threat. Multiple, redundant and diverse treatment barriers remove the unseen and possibly dangerous impurities to levels specified by the EPA under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. “One treatment technology alone is probably not going to get us to where we need to go to meet water quality standards,” says Austa Parker, a water reuse technologist with Broomfield-based Carollo Engineers. “But when you couple them together and target various chemicals and pathogens, you create treatment trains that can cover the whole spectrum.”

Chemicals must be present at a certain level before they have a health impact, says Parker, but a more traditional concern has been pathogens. “That is our No. 1 concern in any sort of water treatment or wastewater treatment process. [Pathogens] represent a threat of infection, and we want to be completely protective of public health,” says Parker. “So we monitor. We

2010 Aurora Water’s Prairie Waters Project is completed and it begins supplying direct potable reuse water

2013 Regulation 84 is amended to include revisions to rules around commercial and industrial uses of reclaimed water and to include new uses of non-food crop agricultural irrigation uses of reclaimed water

2016–2018 WateReuse Colorado develops a direct potable reuse regulatory framework and communications and outreach plan to advance direct potable reuse

2017 WISE Partnership begins indirect potable recycled water deliveries to south metro communities

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

23

monitor for indicators of all types of viruses and protozoa and giardia—any kind of human waste or animal waste. We want to be protective. We have multiple barriers in place in direct potable reuse for that reason.”

But monitoring for indicators is different than continuously monitoring for pathogens and the absence of continuous monitors capable of detecting pathogenic organisms could be an issue for direct potable reuse. “We are able to test for almost any known contaminant, but for some, the turnaround time can be long and the tests can be expensive,” says Caroline E. Scruggs, an associate professor at the University of New Mexico and co-author of a 2017 paper published in the Journal of Water Resources Planning Management. She believes more monitoring techniques are needed.

“The monitoring is still evolving and will continue to get better,” Scruggs says.

CREATING REGULATIONS

W

hile engineers and reuse technologists work to remove contaminants and monitor for safety, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has and will continue to be the fulcrum for water reuse as it is responsible for drawing up regulations. It has started doing so on two tracks.

One is the rulemaking being conducted by the agency’s Water Quality Control Commission to express the intent of the laws adopted by the General Assembly in 2018 to expand the allowed non-potable uses of reuse water to toilets and urinals, edible crops, and industrial hemp.

As for direct potable reuse, CDPHE has been discussing it with water providers and environmental advocates since 2016. Absent a specific proposal to deploy direct potable reuse, the state has moved at what officials describe as a “measured” and “thoughtful” pace. The agency has worked with and supported the efforts of WateReuse Colorado to define what should be addressed by state regulations.

In the first phase of this collaborative work with WateReuse Colorado, a workgroup of stakeholders in Colorado and national experts outlined how to go about this process. The second phase, which began in summer 2018 and is expected to take a year, involves more substantive matters, including treatment technologies and monitoring requirements. This is all in advance of a formal rulemaking process that would yield regulations governing direct potable reuse.

Ron Falco, CDPHE’s Safe Drinking Water Program manager, says the state initially

24 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

wrestled with whether to be prescriptive in direct potable reuse regulations or flexible.

California has been moving toward prescriptive “thou-shalt” regulations. Texas has opted for a more site-specific and flexible approach.

"Through our discussions we realized that there are benefits to both approaches,” Falco says.

“A more prescriptive approach may be able to be implemented quickly, but the site-specific approach may be best for utilities that are not in a big hurry." This, he says, shows the benefit of moving forward at the measured pace, and Colorado now hopes to incorporate aspects of both approaches into its regulatory framework. No funding has yet been secured for this rulemaking process. If funding is available soon, a formal rulemaking process could begin in 2020. Again, while the absence of regulation doesn’t prohibit direct potable reuse in Colorado, utilities want the certainty those regulations would provide.

Still unclear is just how important water reuse, whether for human consumption or other purposes, will be in Colorado. The state water plan identified it as an important tool in meeting future water demands. State water officials, however, concede that they really don’t know how much water is legally available for reuse, let alone how much water is available after practical considerations such as actual river flows and cost constraints are considered.

But Colorado is essentially out of new water to develop, and people keep moving here—especially to water-short places. Wells in Castle Rock, Monument and other communities that draw on the Denver Basin aquifers continue to be less productive. If direct potable reuse is not the answer to every problem, it looks to be a tool in some places. “Water should be judged not by its history, but by its quality,” said Dr. Lucas Van Vuuren, a pioneer in water reclamation in South Africa. Come to think of it, isn’t that how we judge our beers? H ALLEN BEST has set literally set foot on three of Colorado's four corners and has been within a mile of the fourth. He has also tried to wiggle his toes in all of Colorado's rivers and creeks. In this latter ambition, he still falls far short. He can be found at mountaintownnews.net.

TAKE THE NEXT STEP Get involved with reuse initiatives in the state by checking out WateReuse Colorado at watereuse.org/sections/watereuse-colorado.

2018 PureWater Colorado direct potable reuse demonstration project operates in spring of 2018 The Colorado General Assembly passes HB 1093 allowing reclaimed domestic wastewater to be used for food crops The Colorado General Assembly passes HB 1069 allowing reclaimed domestic wastewater to be used for toilet flushing The Colorado General Assembly passes SB 038 allowing reclaimed domestic wastewater to be used for industrial hemp cultivation Proposed amendments to Regulation 84 are pending approval by the Water Quality Control Commission to include additional non-potable uses of reclaimed water in localized reuse systems

↑ Reverse osmosis membranes at the Orange County Water District’s Groundwater Replenishment System, the world’s largest indirect potable reuse system.

The National Rise of Reuse

BY ALLEN BEST

D

rought was pinching the North Texas city of Wichita Falls badly enough that by May 2014 it needed 40 inches of precipitation to catch up. Soon after, a direct potable reuse system began sending treated wastewater through an additional five-stage treatment process approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The water was then blended with treated water from two fast-declining reservoirs for delivery to kitchen faucets

Courtesy Orange County Water District

and shower stalls in the city of 104,000 people.

T-shirt vendors had fun: “Wee Recycle,” said the lettering on one. City and state officials heard no complaints, although sales of bottled water at Walmart stores increased 9 percent before rains returned.

As originally planned, Wichita Falls then modified the direct potable system after 11 months of operation with an environmental buffer, creating indirect potable reuse.

Indirect potable and non-potable reuse have been increasing rapidly in the United States. A 2015 report by Bluefield Research estimated that reuse of wastewater by municipalities would increase 61 percent by 2025. One-third of California’s wastewater could be reused by 2020, according to another 2014 report by the WateReuse Research Foundation, now called the Water Research Foundation.

In other places, reuse is just a fact of life and a reflection of

geography. A third of Houston’s water, for example, comes from a reservoir on the Trinity River—half of whose water over the course of a year consists of wastewater originating upstream around Dallas-Fort Worth.

Direct potable reuse, permanent and not temporary, is still a frontier. Just a few locations are fully embracing direct potable reuse as of fall 2018, yet the technology has been around for decades—first used in Africa. In Namibia, the City of

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

25

Windhoek implemented potable reuse without an environmental buffer in 1969. It now supplies about 50 percent of the city’s potable water demand. In South Africa, Beaufort West commissioned a direct potable system in 2011.

The West Texas City of Big Spring is credited with the first permanent direct potable reuse system in the United States. It began operating in 2013 and continues to produce two million gallons of water daily from treated wastewater to blend with surface water.

El Paso may join Big Spring within a few years. “It’s the next logical step for El Paso Water, since we have been doing indirect reuse for more than 30 years,” says Christina Montoya, communications and marketing manager for El Paso Water Utilities. Design work began in 2018 but is not expected to be complete until 2019 or 2020. “A lot of it is contingent on funding,” says Montoya. It’s also dependent upon public acceptance. But on that, El Paso has been working hard. A 2013 survey found that 84 percent of El Paso utility customers favored direct potable reuse.

Montoya credits multi-pronged outreach that was motivated by efforts in California.

California has been on the cutting edge of water reuse since the 1960s. In Orange County, south of Los Angeles, Water Factory 21 was established in 1976 as the first project to inject recycled wastewater into a seaside aquifer as a barrier to saltwater intrusion.

In 2018, the aquifer recharge system was upgraded and expanded to become the world’s largest advanced water treatment system for potable reuse.

During the 1990s, though, California potable water reuse efforts stumbled badly. Most

26 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

↑ At the first direct potable reuse plant in the country, the Big Spring Raw Water Production Facility in Texas, Troy Walker (left) with Hazen and Sawyer evaluates the performance of the facility, while walking with John Womack (right) with the Colorado River Municipal Water District.

infamous was San Diego. There, the utility planned to fill a reservoir with a mix of treated wastewater and freshwater—the effluent was slated to comprise less than 20 percent of the reservoir. The plan was victimized by public relations missteps and bad timing.

California is now moving methodically toward adoption of regulations governing direct potable reuse, probably by 2023 says Jennifer West, managing director of WateReuse California. West says she believes the public has become much more comfortable with recycled water in general. “We have really evolved in terms of our environmental ethic and how we think about water.

[The public] understands that it’s not appropriate to use the water once and dump it out into the ocean. I think people are more comfortable with technology.”

Reuse is not just a southwestern thing, though. Just west of Washington D.C., in Virginia’s Fairfax County, the Occoquan Reservoir had inferior water quality by the mid-1960s. The solution was water treatment that produced indirect potable reuse. In Georgia, another major

indirect potable reuse project was launched north of Atlanta in 2001.

Now, a stakeholder process has convened in Florida to begin creating regulations for direct potable reuse. Completion of that process, if followed by a direct potable reuse project, will “reverberate across the East Coast and send an important signal that direct potable reuse is a safe and effective method of providing drinking water supplies to key population centers grappling with increasing demand and other pressures,” says Patricia Sinicropi, executive director of the national WateReuse Association.

Many Florida communities draw on groundwater that is being diminished by salt-water intrusion as a result of sea level rise. That’s also a problem in Virginia at the Hampton Roads Sanitation District. Sea-level rise there has been compounded by land subsidence caused by overdrafting of groundwater. Reuse is a solution to avoid over-drafting and hence subsidence.

In southern New Mexico, the small town of Cloudcroft is at 8,668 feet in elevation, where rising oceans pose no immediate threat but water scarcity

challenges are persistent. That scarcity motivated village officials to authorize a direct potable reuse plant. A four-inch pipe will run two miles from the wastewater treatment plant to a new drinking water treatment plant, now under construction, that uses reverse osmosis plus five other steps before the water is considered purified. Scott Powell, Cloudcroft’s water plant operator, estimates the direct potable reuse system will be operating by 2020.

Colorado was a pioneer in potable reuse efforts, with key work done by Denver Water in the 1980s. Now, says Sinicropi, Colorado ranks among the top six states in its advanced reuse efforts.

Sinicropi says she believes reuse, including direct potable reuse, will become more common in many places because of simple economics. Federal standards have become more exacting over the decades, requiring more rigorous—and expensive—treatment processes for wastewater. “Ratepayers,” she says, “are not going to put up with paying very high rates to treat wastewater to very high standards only to throw it away.” H

Courtesy Hazen and Sawyer and the Colorado River Municipal Water District

Saved from the Drain The concept of “One Water” gains traction in Colorado with regulatory updates and innovative design

BY KELLY BASTONE

Adobe Stock

I

n most households and businesses, every drop of clean, incoming water has just one job to do. That task might be to wash clothes, fill a drinking glass, bathe a human or flush a toilet—but once its job is done, water has historically shared the same fate: It’s swirled down the drain to a wastewater treatment plant and released back into nature. Then the cycle of collecting water begins again.

Yet water is scarcer than ever, thanks to climate change and growing human populations. So across Colorado and nationwide, communities are developing systems for recycling their wastewater. While municipal and larger regional water reuse systems are increasingly common in Colorado, not everyone is located near them.

Even within municipalities where water is reused through a large centralized system, some big water users want to take the next step toward sustainability—by conducting their own localized water treatment and recycling efforts, on site.

Rural homes have long used septic systems, the most common form of on-site wastewater management. But since the 1980s, particularly in the eastern United States, a growing number of homes, neighborhoods, housing developments, office and school campuses, and communities have also installed localized water treatment systems that let residents use their own recycled wastewater for irrigation, toilet-flushing, and other non-potable uses. New York’s 92-acre Battery Park City redevelopment uses wastewater and rainwater recycling systems in six of its buildings. There, localized reuse demonstrates sustainable urban development—a goal driven by the city’s ambitions—with reuse improving water quality by reducing the amount of discharged wastewater and the quantity of water supply needed. The water is then reused for flushing toilets, cooling, laundry, and garden irrigation.

And at Gillette Stadium, home of the New England Patriots in Foxborough, Mass., a localized system was developed because

H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

27

the town couldn’t otherwise supply the water needed for the stadium, nor could it readily address wastewater discharge requirements. The solution: Water used by fans at the stadium is captured, cleaned through a membrane bioreactor treatment plant, and reused for toilets, cooling, and other on-site purposes.

Colorado, while new to on-site reuse, is in the process of developing regulations to protect public health, making it easier and safer to implement localized systems in the state. If passed, these new regulations will bring a new level of purpose to the word localized. “Historically, these [localized systems in other states] were treated as wastewater systems and were permitted under whatever small system rules existed,” says Ed Clerico, engineer and CEO emeritus with Natural Systems Utilities, where he has worked on more than 200 localized systems across the

Such efforts are part of the One Water movement, which promotes an integrated approach to water management. Instead of conducting separate (and siloed) efforts to manage stormwater, wastewater, and drinking water, One Water projects use more holistic systems that treat water differently depending on its intended use.

Recycling wastewater—or giving water more than one job to do—plays a key role in such systems.

While One Water can be practiced on any scale, Colorado’s draft regulatory language geographically defines localized systems as “domestic wastewater treatment works that receive water from a single building, multiple buildings within a single area bounded by specific streets, or a designated district within a city or county.”

Localized systems often become economically feasible with mid-sized

“Once you see the benefits of this approach, it becomes obvious that using non-potable water for many purposes is pragmatic.”

—Ed Clerico, Natural Systems Utilities country. “Now you’re admitting it’s really a water supply system as much as it is a wastewater system.” Colorado’s current rulemaking—modifying Regulation 84, which will be voted on by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission in October—marks the first time in the United States that there will be a statewide non-potable water regulation tied to localized systems, Clerico says.

Overall demand for new water supplies in Colorado is only likely to increase in the future. The state’s population, now 5.3 million, is expected to nearly double by 2050, and by then, Colorado could come up as much as 163 billion gallons short of its annual water needs, according to Colorado’s Water Plan. Indeed, the specter of water scarcity is driving the call for localized water systems in Colorado and spurring the desire to maximize each drop of water. ← PRECEDING PAGE: New York’s Battery Park City uses wastewater and rainwater recycling systems, making for more sustainable urban development.

28 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

projects, or systems processing less than 500,000 gallons of water per day and more than 10,000-15,000 gallons per day, says Clerico. But the economic feasibility of these projects depends on many factors including the cost of the water supply and wastewater services that you’re offsetting, and, in the case of Gillette Stadium, whether existing centralized infrastructure is available.

Both are working factors in the plans for Elbert County’s Independence Community. If approved, each of the 920 homes on the 1,011-acre development will have two water connections: one potable, one non. Wastewater will flow to an on-site recovery facility that will return treated water back to the homes for lawn irrigation.

The Independence Community isn’t situated on a naturally renewable water source—furthermore, Elbert County limits the amount that developments can draw from the Denver Basin Aquifer.

Using a localized water treatment system

is making the development viable where it wouldn’t have been otherwise.

There isn’t another “local” water source, and importing water from a distant source doesn’t make economic sense. “Piping and pumping can be more expensive than the treatment itself, so that’s not going to happen,” explains David Takeda, a veteran water engineer who owns Denver-based MSK Consulting, which is helping design the Independence Community. “When you have a more localized facility,” Takeda continues, “your ability to use that water locally becomes more possible, because it’s actually close to you.”

Such systems are admittedly more complex, says Takeda. They require separate pipes and storage facilities for potable and non-potable water. That imposes greater risks and administrative challenges. “It’s a more complicated facility to run, and requires operators that have training in fail-safe procedures.”

The proposed modifications to Regulation 84 include automated data collection and system monitoring to keep localized systems cost effective and safe. If approved, Regulation 84 will no longer apply just to centralized reuse systems but will include localized systems treating water for landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, fire protection, toilet flushing, and other industrial and commercial uses—it does not apply to potable water uses.

“Direct potable reuse through localized reuse systems has not happened within our market area,” Clerico says. “It’s not something we promote because at this time we can get enough benefit from non-potable systems.” Even so, the use of localized reuse to purify water to drinking quality is feasible, just not yet economically viable, and water isn’t yet scarce enough that it’s necessary, Clerico says.

But some are already prepping for that future, where they can keep even more of their water on site. Denver’s Sun Valley EcoDistrict Trust, just south of Sports Authority Field at Mile High Stadium, has such a vision, but is starting with plans for localized non-potable reuse. “We’re committed to realizing net zero water when it’s legal,” says Isabelle Wolfe, project manager for the redevelopment project. “But the question becomes, how much infrastructure do we install for that future system?”

Net Zero Water For many, localized water reuse is done as a water supply and discharge necessity, but others are implementing localized systems to become more sustainable and lead in the One Water movement. For those focused on sustainability, net zero water may be the ultimate goal, but even where it isn’t, elements of net zero construction are the same as those used in many localized systems. Net zero water buildings or campuses aim to minimize total water consumption, maximize the use of alternative water Bathrooms

sources, and minimize wastewater discharge. They also ideally return water to its original source, according to the Federal Energy Management Program. However, a more mainstream net zero water scenario involves a building or campus offsetting some of its water withdrawals with alternative, off-site sources, similar to a carbon offset, in which case it would still be connected to a potable water supply and to an off-site wastewater treatment system. The ideal net zero water building is illustrated below.

Rooftop Rainwater Collection

Kitchens

18

18

Potable water reuse Non-potable water reuse Gray water discharge Black water discharge Groundwater recharge X

Thousands of gallons/year

12

Storm Drain

Green (permeable) Sprinklers Infrastructure

44 33

Treatment

Potable Water Tank

Septic System

44

Treatment

45

7

Non-potable Water Tank

SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER

Sun Valley hasn’t yet settled on a design for its localized system, and even at 2506 West Colfax Avenue, which will be the neighborhood’s first, flagship building, architects are still considering a variety of infrastructure options. All require an unfortunate amount of duplication, says Yong Cho, an architect at the Studio Completiva firm that was chosen for the 2506 project.

“We’re designing and building to a future potential, but we still have to install systems that are currently legal,” he explains.

That means plugging into the city’s municipal water system, even when the Chas Chamberlin

building may eventually function “off the grid,” as some structures do with self-supplied energy. “In order to receive our certificate of occupancy and get the building permitted, we are required to tie into the city’s water supply,” says Cho. Under the modified Regulation 84, localized systems must have a backup potable water connection that could supply potable water to all fixtures that were using the non-potable, locally treated supply, in case the reclaimed water becomes unsafe or there isn’t enough of it to supply water throughout the system.

“But years from now,” Cho continues, “if the laws change, we could theoretically unplug [2506] from the bigger municipal system.” While state regulations might always require a backup municipal supply of water, Cho envisions cutting ties with city water by using tanks and filtration for rainwater storage and incorporating localized systems to treat wastewater.

Throughout the process, Denver Water has been a terrific partner in innovation, says Gabe Bergeron, another Studio Completiva architect. The utility freely shared the data it collected to prepare for H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

29

the $195 million redevelopment of its own 34.6-acre administrative campus, which incorporates and demonstrates cutting-edge water reuse systems. “They’ve come up with a really interesting tool that architects can use in their design process,” says Bergeron, who is using Denver Water’s tool to study different infrastructure options for his 170,000 square-foot facility combining commercial space with a restaurant, cultural center, and events platform.

On Denver Water’s new campus, which it expects to complete by 2020, the water provider plans to combine rainwater capture with localized treatment of wastewater to provide for toilet flushing and landscape irrigation. Denver Water

ment of the National Western Center, Denver could soon become a mecca for learning about localized reuse.

The facility at the National Western Center will combine a water laboratory with sustainability demonstration projects, educational outreach, and a business incubator. And it will allow stakeholders such as Denver Water and Colorado State University to collaborate on next-generation water systems. “As a university, we have the opportunity to research the stateof-the-art in green infrastructure and to advance the conversation about emerging technologies,” says Jocelyn Hittle, CSU’s director of Denver programming.

As for the upfront dollar investment required to establish localized water sys-

↑ The site for the Independence Community is in Elbert County. Once built, the development will rely on a localized reuse system to maximize its water resources.

was the main proponent that worked to modify Regulation 84, in part because of its campus redevelopment project, says Damian Higham, a recycled water specialist at Denver Water. “We also want to be leaders in this space in terms of clearing the path for customers,” Higham says.

The utility’s campus will feature a learning center where Denver Water can provide resources for localized systems across the country. Between Denver Water’s campus and a new Water Resources Center that’s planned for the redevelop30 • W A T E R E D U C A T I O N C O L O R A D O

tems? It’s surmountable, says Tim Craft of Craft Companies, the Independence Community developer. “Although the initial expenditure on infrastructure is significantly higher than a non-reuse system, the ongoing service and rate costs to the residents is no higher than traditionally served communities,” he says of Independence.

Moreover, the system will provide attractive amenities that wouldn’t otherwise exist like irrigation storage ponds that will enhance the landscape. Most importantly, says Craft, “The Independence water sys-

tem dramatically reduces the per-family consumptive use of [groundwater], thus extending the aquifer life.”

The impact of a system depends on how water is used, Clerico says. If water in a facility is used mostly for non-potable uses, then more water can be reused—so if most of a localized system’s water goes toward toilet flushing, cooling, irrigation, laundry, or other non-potable uses, the localized system will have a greater overall impact in offsetting water use. In some commercial installations, as much as 90 percent of the water can be reused, Clerico says. In residential settings in New York City for example, where recycled water is used for toilet flushing, cooling and irrigation, 45–55 percent of the water is reused.

Regardless, these systems are logical.

“You recognize that using good quality potable water for non-potable purposes doesn’t make as much sense when you have the option,” Clerico says. “Once you see the benefits of this approach, it becomes obvious that using non-potable water for many purposes is pragmatic.

I don’t know what would not make the future of water infrastructure head in this direction. It makes too much sense.”

It’s that big-picture long view that truly supports localized water treatment and other innovative systems, says Cho. “Water is going to be the choke point for further growth in this entire region, so I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask developers, to ask cities for higher-performing buildings,” he says. While there’s a cost to building more sustainably, Cho says, there’s a greater cost and risk associated with ignoring water scarcity. H A freelance writer living in Steamboat Springs, KELLY BASTONE enjoys fly-fishing on the Yampa River and on waters across the Rockies.

She covers conservation and the outdoors for publications such as Outside, AFAR, 5280: The Denver Magazine, Backpacker, Field & Stream and others.

TAKE THE NEXT STEP Learn more about Regulation 84 and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s reclaimed water program at colorado.gov/pacific/ cdphe/wq-reclaimed-water-reuse-permits.

Courtesy Craft Companies

MEMBER’S CORNER A C O M M U N I T Y O F P E O P L E W H O C A R E A B O U T WAT E R

IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Our members make waves!

T

MISSION: IMPACT Water Education Colorado is the leading organization for informing and engaging Coloradans on water.

his issue we’re celebrating Julia Gallucci, loyal member of our Water Educator Network since the program’s inception in 2014. Since joining, Julia says, “Now I have a much more expansive network all across the state, not just the Front Range.”

After spending seven years doing primarily water ed programs for Colorado Springs Utilities, Julia moved into a management role overseeing both the water conservation and water education programs for the utility, which serves 460,000 people. She’s passionate about what she does and it shows: “We need more education and outreach to effect change. It’s really the first step for caring for our water. You can’t love what you don’t know.”

Julia frequently attends Water Educator Network trainings and credits those events with the opportunity to make new connections while improving professionally. “The service this network provides is

to help us connect across Colorado and to keep us all engaged in what others are doing and in new ways of thinking.”

We love how Julia is sharing her know-how through our Water Educator Network!

ENGAGE

VOLUNTEER

GIVE

Dive in to our diverse programming.

Find more information on our website.

A few ideas to pique your interest:

We rely on our volunteers!

Email us at info@wateredco.org to express your interest:

Your gift advances an engaged Colorado, leading to informed decisions and sustainable solutions. Three ways to give:

you an educator or outreach 1 Are professional? Join our Water Educator

your expertise and we’ll plug you 1 Share in—as a blog contributor, a speaker, or

us on Colorado Gives 1 Support Day, coming up on December

2

a contact list to provide local 2 Join support when we bring one of our

Network for trainings, networking and collaborations.

3

Make your voice heard! Visit our blog and social media pages and share your thoughts or experiences by commenting.

Mingle with fellow members at an upcoming member appreciation event.

Stay tuned!

Through leadership training, educational resources, and programming, we are working toward a vibrant, sustainable and water-aware Colorado.

101

a peer reviewer for publications.

programs to your area.

a WEco ambassador in your 3 Become community—we’ll provide the materials.

Number of Colorado educators participating as members of WEco's Water Educator Network since June 2017

12. Find us at coloradogives.org/ watereducationcolorado

an upcoming program 2 Sponsor or event—contact alicia@wateredco.org

someone a membership—contact 3 Gift jennie@wateredco.org

Not a member yet? Join the WEco community at www.watereducationcolorado.org H E A DWAT E R S FA L L 2 0 1 8

•

31

1750 Humboldt St., Suite 200 Denver, CO 80218

NONPROFIT ORG U.S. POSTAGE PAID DENVER, CO PERMIT NO 178

WATEREDUCATIONCOLOR ADO.ORG Publication of Water Education Colorado's Headwaters magazine is made possible by the generous support of sponsors and advertisers.

We would like to extend our appreciation and thanks to these sponsors for contributing financially to this issue.

AURORA WATER I N N O VAT I V E Potable Water Reuse - Prairie Waters Continued Farming Program - Rocky Ford Award Winning Conservation Program

AWA R D W I N N I N G U.S. Water Prize (2017) U.S. Water Alliance Excellence in Water Treatment Partnership for Safe Water Binney Water Purification Facility (2016) Griswold Water Purification Facility (2011) Wemlinger Water Purification Facility (2008) Platinum Award for Exceptional Utility Performance (2015) Association of Municipal Water Agencies Excellence in Management Platinum Award National Association of Clean Water Agencies Winner - Water Taste Test (2011 & 2009) Rocky Mountain Section AWWA