Page 1

-Editor’s Office and Advertiser Information:

Florida Water Resources Journal 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive Clermont, FL 34711 Phone: 352-241-6006 • Fax: 352-241-6007 Email: Editorial, Display and Classified Advertising,

Business Office: P.O. Box 745, Windermere, FL 34786-0745 Web: General Manager: Editor: Graphic Design Manager: Mailing Coordinator:

Michael Delaney Rick Harmon Patrick Delaney Buena Vista Publishing

Published by BUENA VISTA PUBLISHING for Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc. President: Richard Anderson (FSAWWA) Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Vice President: Greg Chomic (FWEA) Heyward Incorporated Treasurer: Rim Bishop (FWPCOA) Seacoast Utility Authority Secretary: Holly Hanson (At Large) ILEX Services Inc., Orlando

Moving? The Post Office will not forward your magazine. Do not count on getting the Journal unless you notify us directly of address changes by the 15th of the month preceding the month of issue. Please do not telephone address changes. Email changes to, fax to 352-241-6007, or mail to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711

News and Features 4



Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Water Conservation Programs Using a Water Conservation Tracking Tool—

10 32

Bill Christiansen

37 38 40 46 51

WEF HQ Newsletter—Everett L. Gill and T. Houston Flippin

41 47


FSAWWA Membership Rewards Americans Want Public Officials to Invest in Water Systems, are Willing to Pay More for Safe Water Service News Beat


Technical Articles 6

The Next Generation of Data-Driven Demand Management: Long-Range Planning for Revenue Stability—Gregory


Where Wastewater Treatment Ends and Drinking Water Begins: Evaluating the Viability of Potable Reuse in Florida—


Capacity Benefit Calculator Models Cost Savings from Capital Deferment—Tonya

Training Questions


Developing Potable Reuse for El Paso, Texas: The Most Direct Approach—

Simmons and Max A. Castaneda

FSAWWA: Donna Metherall – 407-957-8443 or FWPCOA: Shirley Reaves – 321-383-9690

Websites Florida Water Resources Journal: FWPCOA: FSAWWA: FWEA: and Florida Water Resources Conference: Throughout this issue trademark names are used. Rather than place a trademark symbol in every occurrence of a trademarked name, we state we are using the names only in an editorial fashion, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. None of the material in this publication necessarily reflects the opinions of the sponsoring organizations. All correspondence received is the property of the Florida Water Resources Journal and is subject to editing. Names are withheld in published letters only for extraordinary reasons. Authors agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Florida Water Resources Journal Inc. (FWRJ), its officers, affiliates, directors, advisors, members, representatives, and agents from any and all losses, expenses, third-party claims, liability, damages and costs (including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees) arising from authors’ infringement of any intellectual property, copyright or trademark, or other right of any person, as applicable under the laws of the State of Florida.

New Products Service Directories Classifieds Display Advertiser Index

Charles W. Drake, Gary J. Revoir II, and Dave MacNevin

FSAWWA: Casey Cumiskey – 407-957-8447 or FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318 FWPCOA: Darin Bishop – 561-840-0340

DEP Operator Certification: Ron McCulley – 850-245-7500 FSAWWA: Peggy Guingona – 407-957-8448 Florida Water Resources Conference: 888-328-8448 FWPCOA Operators Helping Operators: John Lang – 772-559-0722, e-mail – FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318

54 56 59 62

M. Baird and Jeff Lipton

Membership Questions

For Other Information

Certification Boulevard—Roy Pelletier FWRJ Committee Profile—FSAWWA Contaminants Committee Reader Profile—Jody Barksdale FWEA Focus—Brian Wheeler Spotlight on Safety—Doug Prentiss Sr. C Factor—Scott Anaheim FSAWWA Speaking Out—Kim Kunihiro

Christopher Hill, Gilbert Trejo, George Maseeh, and Aide Zamarron


Potable Reuse: The Regulatory Context for Florida and the U.S.—Katherine (Kati) Y. Bell and Allegra da Silva

Education and Training 11 19 25 26 31 39 54 55

Florida Water Resources Conference CEU Challenge FSAWWA Fall Conference Call for Papers FSAWWA ACE16 Luncheon FWPCOA Training Calendar TREEO Center Training FSAWWA Roy Likins Scholarship FWPCOA 2016 Short School

Volume 67

ON THE COVER: The City of Clermont’s East Side Water Reclamation Facility can currently produce an average of 2.2 mil gal of reclaimed water each day. Reclaimed water is collected domestic wastewater treated to very high standards and then redistributed for use as irrigation water. Purple irrigation pipe has been installed in many of the newer subdivisions to provide them with reclaimed water in the future. (photo: Bob Reed, City of Clermont)

April 2016

Number 4

Florida Water Resources Journal, USPS 069-770, ISSN 0896-1794, is published monthly by Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc., 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711, on behalf of the Florida Water & Pollution Control Operator’s Association, Inc.; Florida Section, American Water Works Association; and the Florida Water Environment Association. Members of all three associations receive the publication as a service of their association; $6 of membership dues support the Journal. Subscriptions are otherwise available within the U.S. for $24 per year. Periodicals postage paid at Clermont, FL and additional offices.

POSTMASTER: send address changes to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Water Conservation Programs Using a Water Conservation Tracking Tool Bill Christiansen Selecting which water efficiency and conservation programs to implement can be a daunting task, and there are many things to consider when doing so. What works in one service area may not work in another. The Alliance for Water Efficiency’s Water Conservation Tracking Tool is an Excel-based model that provides a framework to evaluate the costs and benefits of water efficiency and conservation programs. It is a resource that the Alliance for Water Efficiency provides for free to its members. The tracking tool guides the user through a linear evaluation process using six data input and seven data output worksheets. Input Worksheets 1. Common Assumptions 2. Specify Demands 3. Enter Utility Avoided Costs 4. Define Activities 5. Enter Annual Activity 6. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Module Inputs

Output worksheets 1. Activity Savings Profiles 2. Water Savings Summary 3. Utility Revenues and Rates 4. Utility Costs and Benefits 5. Water Loss Comparison 6. Customer Costs and Benefits 7. GHG Reduction Benefits Data inputs characterize the service area with things like population and water demand forecasts, utility avoided-cost data, and conservation program cost and savings estimates. Outputs include water savings, revenue impacts, benefit–cost analyses from the utility and customer perspectives, and energy savings. A library of predefined conservation and efficiency measures are included, but the user has the freedom to design custom programs. Service area water savings resulting from national and state plumbing codes can be estimated if the user’s forecast does not already include those impacts. The tracking tool generates savings estimates from the natural replacement

of toilets, showerheads, clothes washers, and dishwashers. The tracking tool produces information that can be used to guide planning decisions, such as the costs and benefits of conservation programs, but why are costs and benefits important? Before making an investment in conservation and efficiency programs a utility can, and should, weigh the benefits against the costs. It’s important to ensure that an investment in conservation and efficiency will return a benefit that exceeds the costs, and leave the ratepayers better off. For example, investments made to reduce water consumption can have a multitude of benefits that will lower utility costs and lessen the need to increase rates in the future. Example Water Conservation and Efficiency Program Costs S Incentives, such as rebates S Staff time S Marketing materials S Other overhead S Possible customer costs Example Water Conservation and Efficiency Program Benefits Utility Side S Reduced short run avoided costs S Avoided, delayed, and/or downsized capacity expansion S Reduced energy consumption S Reduced GHG emissions Customer Side S Lower utility bills in the short term (water, sewer, electric, and gas) S Lower rate increases over the long term Planning and evaluating water conservation and efficiency programs can help ensure that optimal strategies are implemented. The tracking tool provides a comprehensive methodology to help in this process. More information and a link to request a copy of the tracking tool can be found at Bill Christiansen is program manager at the Alliance for Water Efficiency in Chicago. S


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal


The Next Generation of Data-Driven Demand Management: Long-Range Planning for Revenue Stability Gregory M. Baird and Jeff Lipton The U.S. Water Industry The water industry in the United States is complex and diverse. Each organization and management structure is relatively unique, ranging from municipalities of single cities or counties, to private utilities, to water districts encompassing entire interstate regions. Nationwide there are nearly 54,000 community water systems1. The industry doesn’t employ any standard communication approaches with end users, as each program is directed by varying officials and managers. As one of the most capital intensive2 ($6.84 of investment to earn one dollar of revenue)3 sectors of cities (with water-related services twice as capital intensive as electricity and three times as gas),4 and with historically low water prices and associated revenues, venture capital and private equity have been reluctant to deploy capital to the water industry.5 The industry is also facing a near-term future of growing demand. From 2015 to 2019, the U.S. is projected to have a population growth rate of 2.4 percent, with just under half of the states with higher growth rates reaching up to 7.5 percent.6 Much of this growth is occurring in arid urban regions where the cost for new water supplies is rapidly climbing, as traditional supply sources have already been tapped. For water utilities, that means more customers, more water demand, and more infrastructure development needs.


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

In addition to new infrastructure, the country is facing a different crisis: replacing existing infrastructure. In 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projected a daunting $335 billion gap to replace and update America’s entire aging water infrastructure in the next 15 years—and that’s just for drinking water7; the estimate for underground water pipe replacement over the next 20 years (including sewer and storm systems) is much, much larger. A recent U.S. Conference of Mayor’s estimate placed a combined need for all assets, including growth, at up to $4.8 trillion8. With over 240,000 water main breaks in 2013 and an engineering grade of D from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)9 the U.S. wet infrastructure is at a critical crossroads, requiring this hidden issue to become a public discussion at all levels.

Water Executives Facing New Realities Amidst this backdrop of decreasing supplies, growing demand, and the need for massive infrastructure investment, the U.S. water industry also finds itself at the dawn of a new revolution of data-driven water management practices, definitions, and applications. This transformation builds on the evolution of water resource supply and protection planning, while facing the current realities of asset failure due to deferred investments, population shifts, unfunded environmental mandates, utility knowl-

Gregory M. Baird is president of Water Finance Research Foundation in Salt Lake City, and Jeff Lipton is director of marketing at WaterSmart Software in San Francisco.

edge loss and skill shortages, water supply variability, increased public scrutiny on utility spending, changing financial markets, and continued cost increases. Misalignment of water supply and demand is one of the greatest environmental concerns from coast to coast, from the informed citizen to the finance managers to the elected officials with delegated oversight. The drivers of this distress include climate change; population growth; regulations; demand variability complicated by changing weather patterns and water-saving efforts; wastewater reuse; and exchanges, ownership, and transfers. Water utility managers are expected to know not only the per-capita demand of a growing and changing population, but also how to protect existing customers from water shortages due to natural or manmade emergencies, like contamination, drought, earthquakes, infrastructure loss, fires, algae blooms, infestations, and toxic spills. Engineers are tasked with the evaluation of infrastructure needs, including replacement and repair schedules. They must assess asset and capacity needs, and, through master planning efforts, strive to achieve sustainability goals and build more resilient water systems. Finance professionals are expected to understand the costs of these complex water issues and how they will impact rates and revenues, while simultaneously addressing the affordability concerns of the customer base. Even wastewater utilities, which have historically been unconcerned with water supply issues, are now forced to deal with the costly effects of lower flows from water demand management efforts, the complexities of reuse planning, and regulatory water quality requirements, particularly in the wake of the lead-in-water disaster in Flint, Mich.

It’s therefore unsurprising that utility finance professionals do not like the notion of conservation because the term has become synonymous with revenue loss, potential decreases in credit ratings, and higher capital costs. Revenue erosion often leads to budget cuts that impair the ability to invest in preventive maintenance programs to extend asset life. Reduction in maintenance budgets leads to premature asset failure that drives up capital costs against an ever-increasing list of deferred capital projects, upgrades, infrastructure repairs, and replacements. This downward fiscal cycle results in the inability to control or forecast revenue, and greater uncertainty concerning water usage. In this context, conservation distorts the price elasticity of demand and creates pressure to rebalance the fixed and volumetric components of water rates to help reduce revenue variability. This view of improved water use efficiency, however, is inherently flawed. In actuality, better control over water demand improves forecasting capabilities and moderates variability. This creates greater financial control and improves both short- and long-term prospects for more efficient operations, greater customer engagement, and reduced future capital requirements. Controlled water demand reduction creates growth capacity in assets by extending operating lifetimes. Controlled water demand management also translates into trenchless rehabilitation of underground infrastructure when there is decreased throughput. This enables the utility to replace assets at lower cost, which is then passed on to customers in the form of more gradual rate increases. This holistic approach also accounts for the full life cycle of assets and infrastructure funding.

Focusing on Water Demand

data of all water chain inputs, outputs, and stakeholders’ water use actions. The long-term result is envisioned to include a dynamic and holistic data-driven picture that supports improved asset allocation and decision making. Such capabilities are expected “to help save energy, improve dynamic pricing ability, monitor water quality, extend infrastructure longevity, and reduce capital expenditures by managing peak demand."11

The Benefits of Water Demand Management When considering updating or replacing current water treatment plant infrastructure, demand reduction is a high-value alternative to procuring new water supply resources. In addition to helping balance mismatches in supply and demand, short-term benefits of demand reduction include: S Lower operations and maintenance costs S Lower energy expenses S Lower treatment costs S Deferred or downsized capital projects S Less rate shock S Higher credit scores S Reduced-rate loans for infrastructure projects S Greater system reliability Short-term demand reduction is usually associated with drought, natural disasters, and economic crises, where real results are needed as quickly as possible; however, improved water use efficiency as a supply resource moves beyond these conditions to offer substantial longterm benefits as well. Water use reductions over a 20-year time horizon can help optimize demand management policies, while creating new virtual water supplies. These approaches have been shown to

have significantly slowed down rate hikes in some utilities12 and have yielded substantial avoided operational and capital costs. Additionally, investments in water use efficiency have improved demand forecasting and increased revenue control.13 Because of these and many other benefits, utilities across the nation (and the world) are investing in demand management, with a general trend toward assigning these responsibilities to water conservation managers and teams. Simultaneously, there is an increase in the number of organizations calling for improved water efficiency as a cost-effective source of supply, such as the Alliance for Water Efficiency, Waterwise, and the California Urban Water Conservation Council. Even when demand reduction is not a specific agency need, utility managers are increasingly honing in on demand management best practices as an integral component of their resource management plans.

Infrastructure Cost Savings: A Colorado Case Study Improved demand management helps reduce operational and capital costs and allows utilities to more easily fund current and future projects without an exaggerated rate shock, while concurrently mitigating affordability issues. According to a recent study in Colorado14, utilities were able to significantly downsize rate increases through demand reduction practices. The study analyzed water use behavior and utility policies since 1980, projecting out utility costs to the present day had demand reductions never been introduced. The results were startling. According to the City of Westminster’s findings, an additional 7,295 acre-ft would have been needed to meet rising demand. As new Continued on page 8

Where do utilities turn for more water when wells and rivers have dried up due to dangerously low aquifer levels and record low precipitation? Historically, when utilities needed more water, dams and reservoirs were constructed and new wells were dug deeper. These approaches are no longer viable in many parts of the country where water providers are facing historically low water levels in rivers and aquifers, as well as decreased surface runoff.10 Recycled and desalinated water are increasingly being pursued, but these projects take years or decades to develop, are incredibly expensive, and only address a modest portion of supply needs. New forecasting models incorporate controlled demand management and capture the Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


Continued from page 7 water sources in the Colorado Front Range are priced at an astonishing $30,000 per acre-ft, the city calculated savings in capital investments to be nearly $219 million. Demand reductions particularly affected peak-season water production, saving the city approximately $130 million in additional treatment costs. Wastewater treatment savings of roughly $20 million were also realized. Overall, through consistent demand management programs, the City of Westminster was able to avoid more than $591 million in costs for new capital investments in water source supply and infrastructure. The study also found that the utility saved, on average, $1.2 million in yearly operating costs. The study also analyzed these costs and their repercussions on water and wastewater rates, as well as tap fees. Combined water and sewer bills would be 91 percent higher than they are currently, jumping from $655 to $1251 annually, had 1980 water usage levels continued without demand management. Similar results were found for tap fees, where rates would have increased by 99 percent had conservation never been introduced. The report states that, “Each water system is unique, so the results from Westminster may not be applicable to everyone. Utilities could perform a similar analysis to see the real value of conservation; however, the $590 million cost associated with the additional 7,295 acre-ft of demand reveals the significant hardship associated with expanding water resources supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure in today’s environment.” Not only is it a hardship for the utility, but also for the customer to keep up with rates that are increasing at an alarming rate. As a recent article states, “Water and wastewater rates have increased faster than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the past 15 years.15 Managing the public response to rate increases has taken on growing significance in recent years as utilities grapple with the double-edged sword of rising infrastructure costs and decreasing demands16 .” Although rates will still increase, they will do so significantly more slowly when demand management programs are in place. Utilities are increasingly adopting rate structures that place more weight on fixed costs, rather than variable operating costs. Building demand-reduction programs into the monthly fixed costs of utility water and wastewater rate structures allows utilities to fully capitalize on all avoided water costs, as well stabilize revenues by emphasizing predictable fixed costs.


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The Cost of Reducing Water Demand Versus New Water Sources

tial savings, avoided costs, and appropriate measures to benefit all stakeholders.

The best practices section of California’s updated 2014 water plan discusses a way to maximize investments in data collection through utility- and customer-side analytics technologies:

Improving Revenue Control

"In addition to using conservation rate structures to incentivize water conservation, some water suppliers are using a new behavioral approach to affect demand management. Based on insights from psychological research, behavioral water efficiency programs inform consumers of prevailing social norms, such as the average water use of neighbors, to drive conformity to a more efficient standard. This comparison creates a social framework in which water conservation is seen as highly valued by residents of a community.” The effectiveness of behavioral water efficiency programs has been tested in several communities, including in an East Bay Municipal Utility District pilot project run by WaterSmart Software, a technology startup. In this pilot, residents received water reports with information about their water consumption, the consumption of similar households, and personalized recommendations on ways to save. The yearlong pilot project involved 10,000 homes and a randomized control group. Households that received water reports reduced their water use from 4.6 to 6.6 percent, were more likely to participate in utility audit and rebate programs, and reported higher levels of customer satisfaction. The unit cost of saved water was between $250 and $590 per acre-ft, with a midpoint cost of $380 per acre-ft.17 As outlined by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) in its water resource manual, industry best practices for water use efficiency have included water surveys, residential plumbing retrofits, system water audits, leak detection and repair, metering with commodity rates, native plant landscaping, high-efficiency washing machines, low-flush toilets, and school education programs. The costs for these conservation or water efficiency programs range from $465 to $980 per acre-ft and are only utilized by a small percentage of customers. Because demand reduction has a cost and a yield, like any potential water resource, a thorough cost–benefit analysis must be performed before implementing programs and AWWA offers a 10-step development process to do so. Integrating a demand management program as part of a larger water management plan can provide the best big-picture outlook on poten-

Water supply planners will not be able to make prudent and cost-effective estimates and plans unless the customer water demand factors become more accurate and consistent. Price elasticity of demand is now distorted by conservation messaging, which leads to more revenue uncertainty. Revenue projections and rate studies use billing information that is essentially meter consumption data combined with established rates. Improved data reliability and sophisticated interpretation is critical to improving forecasts and capturing significant cost savings. This can be done in part by avoiding higher-than-necessary peaking factors and pipe sizes embedded in engineering assumptions. Infrastructure replacement planning activities that incorporate an integrated investment planning process with more accurate demand projections inevitably leads to lower long-term system costs. An integrated approach grounded in data analytics and customer engagement connects the short-term revenue gap from demand management programs to longerterm, cost saving investment strategies. This interconnected financial planning process establishes how rate increases required to cover revenue loss from conservation activities are offset by the long-term cost savings for infrastructure repair and replacement programs.

A New Future The application of data analytics in demand management, integrated with financial and infrastructure planning, embodies an emerging vision for water utility executives. From this new perspective, utility managers can engage all stakeholders by unifying various positions and providing for a more data-rich communications environment. This data translates into insight and increasingly transparent board and council meetings, more informed rate approval processes, and empowered customers. A more robust data environment means increasingly credible consumption and financial forecasts, greater stability of financial resources, and less costly access to capital. Utilities will be able to realize direct avoided costs, while creating data-driven justifications for new projects that align with actual consumption needs, informed through controlled demand management. Datarich tools for demand reduction and control offer an economically viable and effective way to reach out to individual households. This approach ultimately helps the utility of the future build a

partnership with customers that yields greater consumption management through information technologies, data insights, and behavioral science that communicates the true value of water.

References 1 2 Baird, G.M., 2010. A Game Plan for Aging Water Infrastructure. Journal AWWA. 102:4:74 3 Mumm, J., Real Water Industry Financial Benchmarks, 2015. 4 Wolff, Gary, and Hallstein, Eric. Beyond Privatization: Restructuring Water Systems to Improve Performance. 5 The U.S. Water Sector on the Verge of Transformation: Global Cleantech Center white paper. eantech_Water_Whitepaper/$FILE/CleantechWater-Whitepaper.pdf 6 states_by_population_growth_rate 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, presented March 2009. dex.html 8 9 p/drinking-water/overview 10 Ground Water: A Critical Component of the Nation’s Water Resources. 11 The U.S. Water Sector on the Verge of Transformation: Global Cleantech Center white paper.$FILE/Cl eantech-Water-Whitepaper.pdf 12 WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8671 13 .aspx?productid=39312060 14 WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8671 15 Beecher, J. (2013). Trends in Consumer Prices for Utilities through 2012. IPU Research Note. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. 16 Goetz, M. 2013. Invisible Peril: Managing Rate Issues Through Public Involvement. Journal AWWA, August 2013, Vol 105, No. 8, pp. 34-37 17 cwpu2013/Final/Vol3_Ch03_UrbanWUE.pdf S Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


Certification Boulevard

Test Your Knowledge of Miscellaneous Wastewater Topics

Roy Pelletier 1. What does hydrogen sulfide (H2S) smell like at low concentrations? a. No smell b. Chlorine c. Rotten eggs d. Sulfuric acid 2. What does the unit parts per mil (ppm) mean? a. 1 lb per mil lbs b. 1 gal per mil gal c. 8.34 lbs per mil gal d. 1 milligram per liter e. All of the above. 3. Why doesn’t scum sink to the bottom of a clarifier? a. Because its specific gravity is greater than water. b. It is mainly inorganic material. c. Because its specific gravity is less than water. d. Scum does sink to the floor of a clarifier. 4. What adjustment should be made if solids are rising in a secondary clarifier accompanied by small gas bubbles with very little odor? a. Increase aeration dissolved oxygen (DO) b. Decrease the return activated sludge (RAS) rate c. Decrease the waste activated sludge (WAS) rate d. Decrease aeration DO 5. Which activated sludge growth phase is considered to have the highest food-tomass or food-to-microorganism (F/M) ratio, the lowest solids retention time (SRT), the highest sludge yield, and the best oxygen utilization efficiency? a. High-rate aeration b. Extended aeration c. Conventional aeration d. Log growth


6. What happens to the alkalinity in wastewater during the denitrification process? a. It increases b. It decreases c. It does not change d. It stabilizes at 200 mg/l 7. What is the equivalent in gal per minute (gpm) of a pipe that has 1 mil gal per day (mgd) flowing through it? a. 694 gpm b. 1,440 gpm c. 133,690 gpm d. 7.48 gpm 8. Given the following data, what is the specific oxygen utilization rate (SOUR) in an aerobic digester? • OUR test starting DO is 6.9 mg/L • OUR test ending DO is 4.2 mg/L • OUR test time is 10 minutes • Digested sludge total solids (TS) concentration is 1.7 percent a. 2.1 mg/hour/gm TS b. 0.95 mg/hour/gm TS c. 1.64 mg/hour/gm TS d. 9.5 mg/hour/gm TS 9. What two laboratory analyses are necessary to calculate the F/M ratio? a. Aeration mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) and influent carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) b. Aeration mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) and OUR c. Aeration MLVSS and effluent CBOD5 d. Aeration MLSS and influent CBOD5 10. What is most likely to occur in an aerobic digester when the air is turned off for certain periods each day? a. Nitrates are increased, the pH decreases, and the volatile solids reduction worsens. b. Nitrates are decreased, the pH increases, and volatile solids reduction improves. c. Air rates do not have an effect on nitrates, pH, or volatile solids reduction in an aerobic digester. d. Nitrates are increased and alkalinity is decreased.

April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Answers on page 46


Check the Archives Are you new to the water and wastewater field? Want to boost your knowledge about topics youʼll face each day as a water/wastewater professional? All past editions of Certification Boulevard through 2000 are available on the Florida Water Environment Associationʼs website at Click the “Site Map” button on the home page, then scroll down to the Certification Boulevard Archives, located below the Operations Research Committee.

SE ND US YOUR QUE ST IO N S Readers are welcome to submit questions or exercises on water or wastewater treatment plant operations for publication in Certification Boulevard. Send your question (with the answer) or your exercise (with the solution) by email to:, or by mail to: Roy Pelletier Wastewater Project Consultant City of Orlando Public Works Department Environmental Services Wastewater Division 5100 L.B. McLeod Road Orlando, FL 32811 407-716-2971


Operators: Take the CEU Challenge! Members of the Florida Water & Pollution Control Association (FWPCOA) may earn continuing education units through the CEU Challenge! Answer the questions published on this page, based on the technical articles in this month’s issue. Circle the letter of each correct answer. There is only one correct answer to each question! Answer 80 percent of the questions on any article correctly to earn 0.1 CEU for your license. Retests are available. This month’s editorial theme is Conservation and Reuse. Look above each set of questions to see if it is for water operators (DW), distribution system operators (DS), or wastewater operators (WW). Mail the completed page (or a photocopy) to: Florida Environmental Professionals Training, P.O. Box 33119, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420-3119. Enclose $15 for each set of questions you choose to answer (make checks payable to FWPCOA). You MUST be an FWPCOA member before you can submit your answers!

Earn CEUs by answering questions from previous Journal issues! Contact FWPCOA at or at 561-840-0340. Articles from past issues can be viewed on the Journal website,

___________________________________ SUBSCRIBER NAME (please print)

Article 1 _________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

Article 2 _________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

If paying by credit card,fax to (561) 625-4858 providing the following information:

___________________________________ (Credit Card Number)

____________________________________ (Expiration Date)

Developing Potable Reuse for El Paso, Texas: The Most Direct Approach

Potable Reuse: The Regulatory Context for Florida and the U.S.

Christopher Hill, Gilbert Trejo, George Maseeh, and Aide Zamarron

Katherine (Kati) Bell and Allegra da Silva

(Article 1: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW/WW)

(Article 2: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW/WW)

1. Approximately ______ mil gal per day (mgd) of Bustamante effluent will be available as advanced purified water treatment plant (APWTP) source water during irrigation season. a. 39.0 b. 29.2 c. 10.0 d. 7.8

1. According to the authors, direct potable reuse is a. b. c. d.

not currently allowed in Florida. currently allowed in Florida. not currently allowed in Texas. widely practiced in Florida.

2. The regulation governing reuse in Florida is

2. The rationale for establishing corrosion control criteria for the advanced purified water plant is that corrosion control assists with a. Lead and Copper Rule compliance. b. disinfection. c. odor control. d. avoiding source blending issues. 3. Which of the following candidate treatment train processes is at least 25 percent effective in removing all targeted constituents? a. Chlorination b. Ultraviolet and advanced oxidation processes (UV AOP) c. Filtration d. Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis (NF/RO) 4. A side stream from the Bustamante clarifiers will be treated with _______________ to remove nitrate. a. activated carbon b. biofiltration c. chlorination d. denitrification filters

a. Chapter 62-602, Florida Administrative Code. b. Chapter 62-610, Florida Administrative Code. c. Chapter 62-699, Florida Administrative Code. d. the Florida Forever Act. 3. United States utilities that have already implemented direct potable reuse have done so according to the _______________ model. a. ozone-biological activated carbon (BAC) b. ultrafiltration (UF) chlorine c. full advanced treatment d. intermediate advanced treatment 4. Since 2007, Florida reuse flows and ratios have a. b. c. d.

5. El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) recognized which of the following factors in its decision to pursue direct potable reuse as opposed to indirect potable reuse? a. Local geological conditions b. High-quality wastewater plant effluent c. Low-quality surface water sources d. Compatibility of drinking water and wastewater quality

increased. decreased. leveled off. not been recorded.

5. Less expensive alternative treatment processes may be suitable when_____________ reduction is not necessary. a. b. c. d.

fecal coliform suspended solids total dissolved solids nitrate

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016



Where Wastewater Treatment Ends and Drinking Water Begins: Evaluating the Viability of Potable Reuse in Florida Charles W. Drake, Gary J. Revoir II, and Dave MacNevin Florida’s Challenges As Florida’s population continues to grow, along with demand for additional water supply and concerns regarding surface water nutrient changes, the state will face an increasing need for innovative water supply source and management solutions, which will, in some cases, include potable reuse. Over the last 50 years, municipal water treatment has advanced in response to an increased understanding of the importance of water quality to public health, and water quantity to meet increasing challenges placed on the state’s resources by a population that has more than tripled, from 5.7 million in 1964 to more than

19 million in 2014. In that year, Floridians used more than 2,300 mil gal per day (mgd) of potable water. In fact, most of the state’s population lives inside a “water resource caution area.” In 2013, Floridians generated over 1,603 mgd of sewerage flow to wastewater treatment facilities. Florida leads the nation in reuse of wastewater, capturing over 44 percent of the flow (719 mgd) for beneficial reuse. This means that most of the state’s wastewater is still lost as a resource, presenting the opportunity for potable reuse to take advantage of the wastewater that is not beneficially reused. Increasing concerns about nutrient discharges and saltwater intrusion have placed an em-

Charles W. Drake, P.G., C.P.G., and Gary J. Revoir II, P.E., are vice presidents with Tetra Tech Inc. in Orlando, and Dave MacNevin, P.E. Ph.D., is a project engineer with Tetra Tech Inc. in Tampa.

phasis on recovering more benefit from the untapped 56 percent of wastewater flow. In the past ten years, at least seven communities have pilot-tested potable reuse technology. Many of these communities were driven by the Ocean Outfall Rule, which will come into effect within the next 10 years; other communities were driven by concerns about limited alternative water supplies, like brackish reverse osmosis (RO), minimum flows and levels (MFL), or other regulatory issues. The new challenges Florida is facing are leading to a historically unprecedented transition that will change the way water is used. This article discusses the positive impact of potable reuse on Florida’s water future, considering seven recent potable reuse pilots, cost comparisons of alternative water supply (AWS) treatment methods, and a concluding discussion on the prospects of direct potable reuse (DPR), which is a technically and financially viable option that will help to enhance the state’s approach to integrated water management. While other less costly water management alternatives (e.g., rapid infiltration basins, nonpotable salt water intrusion barriers, etc.) may exist in some circumstances, the financial viability of potable reuse is expected to improve further, with future innovations and increased regulatory drivers to eliminate surface water discharges, driving its adoption across the state.

Florida Potable Reuse Pilot Studies

Figure 1. Seven Recent Florida Potable Reuse Pilots


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Summary of Pilot Studies and Treatment Results Within the past 10 years, several Florida communities have undertaken pilot studies of potable reuse, including Sunrise, Plantation,

Miami-Dade County, Davie, Pembroke Pines, Hollywood, and Clearwater. All of these studies were examples of indirect potable reuse (IPR), where purified water would be returned to the surficial aquifer or a deeper brackish aquifer. Six out of seven of these pilot studies were conducted in southeast Florida and driven by the pending Ocean Outfall Rule, which calls for reductions in nutrient discharges by 2018 and elimination of ocean outfall discharges by 2025 (except for peak flows). Collectively, the results of these pilot studies demonstrate that potable reuse is a technically viable water supply enhancement option for Florida. Figure 1 provides a timeline of the potable reuse pilots, beginning with Sunrise in 2007 and continuing through the most recent pilot study, Clearwater, in 2014; the treatment train utilized for each treatment process is also shown. It should be noted that all of the pilot studies, except Hollywood, utilized the full advanced treatment (FAT) train, consisting of microfiltration/ultrafiltration (MF/UF), RO, and ultraviolet advanced oxidation (UV AOP). Hollywood tested multiple non-FAT-based treatment trains, as indicated by the ozone and UV AOP trains shown in Figure 1. Unlike the other treatment trains, Hollywood included the planned recharge into a brackish aquifer with >3,000 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS). Notably, all seven treatment trains demonstrated the ability to consistently produce water that exceeds the Flroida Department of Environemntal Protection (FDEP) primary and secondary drinking water standards. Treatment requirements for groundwater recharge (IDR) are summarized in F.A.C. 62-610.563. As of early 2016, the City of Clearwater is taking the next step in its groundwater recharge program by designing the first full-scale FAT potable reuse process in Florida (3 mgd). Nutrients are part of the reason the FAT train was considered for the other southeast Florida utilities. The RO was necessary to achieve a total phosphorus concentraton of <10 parts per billion (ppb), which can only be achieved effectively through RO. Nitrogen (ammonia) removal can be a challenge for potable reuse treatment trains since ammonium (NH4+) is difficult to remove by RO, and ammonia (NH3) passes freely through RO. Consequently, Miami-Dade and Hollywood incorporated ion exchange into their treatment trains to reduce ammonia concentrations. Microconstituent Occurrence and Removal Microconstituent removal is an area of interest and concern for potable reuse. As analytical methods have improved in recent

decades, it is now possible to detect the presence of compounds at parts per billion (µg/L) and parts per trillion (ng/L) levels that may not be of significance to human health or the environment. A total of 231 microconstituents were sampled collectively across the seven Florida potable reuse pilot studies. It’s important to note that the particular microconstituents sampled varied from pilot to pilot, and no single pilot study sampled all 231 microconstituents. Review of reported results for the reclaimed water entering the potable reuse treatment processes showed that a total of 50 microconstituent compounds were identified across the seven pilot studies. A summary of these results can be useful for utilities interested in knowing what microconstituents have been detected most frequently in the influent at Florida potable reuse pilots. The compounds, all of which were detected at the influent of two or more pilot studies, included the following: N-nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA) at (five) locations, caffeine (four), carbamazepine (four), sulfamethoxazole (four), gemfibrozil (three), fluoxetine (three), N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) at (three), tricolosan (three), atrazine (two), dilantin (two), and acetaminophen (two). The following compounds were detected at the influent of a single pilot study: tris (1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCPP), meprobamate, ibuprofen, 1,7-dimethylxanthine, phenol, carisoprodol, 4-methylphenol, cholesterol, iohexal, cotinine, naproxen, progesterone, diethanolamine (DEA), atenolol, 2,6-di-tert-butylphenol,

hexachlorocyclopentadiene, dehydronifedipine, indole, diazepam, lopressor, dichlorobenzene 1,4, methylparaben, azinphosmethyl, acesulfame-k, triclocarban, primidone, sucralose, 1,4-dioxane, sulfamethoxazole, trimethoprim, tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), triphenylphosphate, testosterone, estrone, 4-androstene-3,17-dione, diuron, esterone, and tris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (TBEP). Looking beyond the influent to the potable reuse treatment train, a summary of the detections of microconstituents at various points in each standard treatment train used in Florida potable reuse pilots is shown in Figure 2. While every reclaimed water has a different profile of microconstituents, this summary is useful for Florida utilities interested in identifying compounds that are more likely to show up at various points in the potable reuse treatment train. It is important to note that the presence of a compound in the figure only indicates that it was measured above the detection limit at one or two pilot studies. For actual concentrations of the microconstituents refer to the individual pilot study reports, which are listed in the references. In Figure 1, it should be noted that six out of the seven pilot studies are represented by the top FAT train, whereas two non-FAT treatment trains from the Hollywood pilot study are shown separately. The NDMA is the most commonly detected microconstituent (disinfection byproduct) at the end of each treatContinued on page 22

Figure 2. Trace Compounds Detected at Various Points in Potable Reuse Treatment Trains Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


Continued from page 21 ment train. In California, NDMA is subject to a 10 ng/L notification level. The standard method to reduce NDMA is through UV photolysis. Atenolol was observed in one of the FAT treatment trains when peroxide was found to be temporarily underfed at the UV AOP (Mercer et al, 2015). Chlorate was also found in one of the FAT treatment trains and may be a byproduct of sodium hypochlorite addition. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s also worth noting that the compounds that pass through the RO treatment process, including Bisphenol A (BPA), tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP), triclosan, and trimethoprim, are different than the compounds observed in the non-FAT process before granular activted carbon (atrazine, carbamazepine, gemfibrozil, naproxen, and sulfamethoxazole). Note that these constituents were then removed below detection limit by UV AOP or biologically activated carbon (BAC). While not shown in Figure 2, it should be noted that total nitrogen and trihalomethanes (THMs) are two substances that can often pass through potable reuse treatment processes due to their low molecular weight and low/no molecular charge. Utilities should keep these constituents in mind when planning potable reuse, especially DPR, and take appropriate

measures to mitigate prevent formation of these compounds or increase removal as appropriate (Mercer et al, 2015). Mitigating the Potential for Arsenic Release Through Post-Treatment Arsenic release emerged as a major concern in Florida aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) operations, especially after the arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) was reduced to 10 Âľg/L. Like ASR, IPR consists of introducing a treated water into groundwater, and therefore has similar potential to induce arsenic release if certain post-treatment of the purified water is not provided. Post-treatment was only demonstrated at two of the seven pilot studies: Pembroke Pines and Clearwater. Pembroke Pines conducted extensive sidestream/bench scale testing of remineralization for the purified FAT water (Bloetscher et al, 2013). Clearwater conducted extensive pilotscale testing and rock-core leaching tests to identify the impacts of remineralization and dissolved oxygen removal on mobilization of arsenic and other trace metals (Mercer et al, 2015). Post-treatment is important for IPR to minimize impacts in aquifer recharge projects and protect the injected purified water from leaching of naturally occurring trace metals,

Figure 3. Elemental Analysis From a Scanning Electron Micrograph of a Rock Sample From the Floridan Aquifer, Indicating the Need for Post-Treatment. (Adapted from Image Courtesy: Indewater, Florida Geological Survey)


April 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

such as arsenic and molybdenum. Figure 3 illustrates the composition of a rock sample taken from the Floridan aquifer in Clearwater, which is primarily composed of a calciumbased (limestone/dolomite) mineral with interspersed iron sulfide (pyrite) particles. Arsenic is concentrated within the pyrite minerals and in the limestone matrix. Therefore, in selecting post-treatment in Florida for IPR (groundwater recharge), it is important to understand the concentration of arsenopyrite, and if present, to provide calcium carbonate stabilization to remove oxidants in order to keep iron sulfide stable by preventing oxidation to iron sulfate. In the case of the Clearwater pilot, calcium carbonate stabilization was provided through addition of carbon dioxide and a hydrated lime slurry. Oxidant removal was accomplished through membrane degasification, which removed dissolved oxygen down to ppb levels and through sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) adition, which quenched monochloramine instantly, and peroxide over several minutes (Mercer et al, 2015).

Cost of Potable Reuse Among Other Water Supply Options The ultimate factor driving the adoption of potable reuse in Florida will be its cost relative to other alternative water supplies, and cost avoidance of other integrated water management projects in the context of the utility regulatory environment. Multiple recent reports have indicated that potable reuse can be a financially viable water supply/management option. Potable reuse will ultimately thrive wherever the incremental life cycle costs of implementing potable reuse are lower than any other feasible option; that is, when potable reuse represents the next cheapest source of water supply for a utility/or next cheapest approach to integrated water management. During the recent drought years across the United States, several utilities in Texas reached this point, where potable reuse was a more cost-effective option than importing water through pipelines. A similar situation exists in much of Southern California, where no more water is available to import and seawater desalination is slow to permit and costly to implement. The first IPR processes were implemented in California as seawater intrusion barriers used to protect existing groundwater supplies that were being overdrawn. Failing to implement IPR (with saltwater intrusion barriers), while maintaining overdrafts of water, would have meant the eventual loss of a valued groundwater resource.

Florida is in excellent standing compared to these other states in that there is not yet a severe crisis of water shortages. Therefore, it has been able to take an aggressive, planned approach to the implementation of potable reuse, among many other integrated water management tools. This thoughtful planning approach is exemplified by the recent Senate Bill 536, “Report on Expansion of Beneficial Use of Reclaimed Water, Stormwater, and Excess Surface Water” (FDEP 2015), and the statutorily mandated water supply planning by each of the state’s water management districts. Traditionally in Florida, brackish groundwater treated with RO has been the alternative water supply of choice, and there are concerns in some areas that even the brackish groundwater supplies are being tapped near sustainable limits, manifested by increases in brackish water TDS over time. As of 2010, brackish water RO made up approximately 7 percent (165 mgd) of the state’s total public potable supply, which is 2,300 mgd (USGS, 2014). In a situation where traditional groundwater supplies are fully utilized, and brackish RO is either fully utilized, or unavailable, Florida utilities can consider the following: purchasing water from their neighbors, surface water treatment (if available), potable reuse, or seawater desalination (considering the costs). In addition, as exemplified by the Ocean Outfall Rule and Numeric Nutrient Criteria, the discharge of treated wastewater to the environment has come under increasing scrutiny, which, in the case of several southeast Florida utilities, means a requirement to beneficially reuse a large portion of the wastewater that would have been released to tide. A number of recent reports have shown that potable reuse can be a financially viable and cost-competitive water supply alternative. Despite the potential for differing assumptions behind the different cost estimates, there is a notable consistency in costs among sources. A review of water supply options in California (Tchobanoglous, 2014) indicated that both IPR and DPR would generally be cheaper than seawater desalination, and in some cases, be cost-competitive with brackish groundwater desalination or imported water. The WateReuse Association’s recent “Framework for Direct Potable Reuse” (Figure 4) indicated that seawater desalination costs in California far exceeded the cost of potable reuse and brackish groundwater supplies (Tchobanoglous et al, 2015). Looking at estimated costs within Florida, a recent report from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD,

Figure 4. Range of Life Cycle Cost of Water Supply Alternatives in California (Source: Tchobanoglous et al, 2015)

Figure 5. Life Cycle Cost ($/kgal) of Water Supply Alternatives Within the St. Johns River Water Management District (Source: SJRWMD, 2014)

2014) evaluated costs for direct potable aquifer recharge ($3.11-$3.69/kgal) IPR and direct reuse ($3.85-$3.91) DPR (Figure 5) within the range of costs (~$2.25-$6.00/kgal) for IPR/DPR (Tchobanoglous, 2014). All three studies indicated seawater desalination as the most costly water supply option. Saltwater intrusion barriers, such as the 2-mgd Southern Hillsborough Aquifer

Recharge Program (SHARP), are a lower-cost aquifer recharge option. The lower cost is due to the limited treatment requirement for principal treatment and disinfection, as long as the target aquifer is between 1,000 mg/L and 3,000 mg/L and the target aquifer is not to be used as a drinking water source (F.A.C. 62610.563[2]). Continued on page 24

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


Continued from page 23 Looking at the estimated cost of various levels of treatment at the Hollywood project (VanEyk et al, 2014), projected life cycle costs range from $2.15/kgal for an alternative treatment train (“Alternative 2b,” two-stage IX, ozone, BAC, and UV disinfection) to $3.84/kgal for a FAT treatment train. It should be noted that the alternative non-FAT treatment scheme, as piloted at Hollywood, would require a waiver from Broward County for TDS, chemical oxygen demand (COD), chloride, sodium, and phosphates; however, there did not appear to be any allowance in the Hollywood costs for post-treatment to mitigate arsenic release. Nevertheless, these data illustrate a consistency with the other cost estimate sources. Notably, since many of the southeast Florida pilot studies have taken place, more utilities, such as Miami-Dade, that were considering discharge to the surficial aquifer, are now rethinking that approach and planning to recharge deeper brackish aquifers because of reduced costs. By switching from a Biscayne Aquifer (fresh) recharge ($10.40/gpd capital cost) project to a Floridan aquifer (brackish) recharge project ($2.78/gpd capital cost), Miami Dade County anticipates a significant reduction in the capital cost to construct its reuse management option. With the Floridan aquifer recharge option, Miami-Dade anticipates that a waiver on total nitrogen (TN) limits to the Floridan aquifer will be required. While these costs do not take into account the potential nutrient removal benefit of potable reuse, if the value of a two-for-one water supply/nutrient removal treatment were considered, potable reuse may be a lower life cycle cost option than other water supply alternatives. Besides being cost-competitive, potable reuse offers several potential benefits to Florida utilities: it can protect environmental resources by significantly reducing surface water discharges (IPR via groundwater recharge) and even discharges to groundwater (DPR), it is attractive as a “drought-proof ” water supply that is not subject to seasonal limitations, and a utility may also choose potable reuse to obtain control over its own water supply and reduce purchases of imported water.

The Challenge of Effective Potable Reuse Operations Identifying and Sharing Operational Lessons Learned is Key An important but often under-discussed


aspect of successful potable reuse processes is operations. Much attention has been given to potable reuse treatment technology and removal of contaminants; however, an equally important concern is how to maintain effective treatment while managing inevitable process upsets, especially with DPR. Potable reuse processes can be unfamiliar to many operators and therefore pose new challenges to maintaining stable operations. Potable reuse operations often focus on “critical control points,” which are process targets that can be measured to provide assurance that the integrity of the purification processes is being maintained. The WateReuse Research Foundation is pursuing multiple projects to address this issue, including “Development of Operations and Maintenance Plan and Training and Certification Framework for DPR Systems” (WRRF-13-13). There are several potential operational challenges that can be encountered while running a potable reuse process, including UF membrane cleaning, UF membrane fiber breaks, variable ammonia/nitrogen loads, control of THMs, control of TN, RO membrane fouling, protecting RO membranes from chlorine damage, monitoring and maintaining UV lamps and peroxide, chemical dosing and kinetics of chlorine and peroxide quenching, dissolved oxygen removal and arsenic release, and dosing of calcium stabilization chemicals (Mercer et al, 2015). Sharing of best practices and operational lessons learned will be crucial as more Florida utilities begin implementation of potable reuse. Operator Certification and Training Another uncertainty introduced by potable reuse processes is how to structure operator licensing for potable reuse treatment processes. The FDEP’s current operator licensing system includes classifications for water operators and wastewater operators; however, the future classification and credentials of a potable reuse treatment plant operator is less well-defined. Training materials and courses will need to be developed to provide operators with the education needed to operate the new processes involved in potable reuse; the DPR operations specialty certifications could be appended to existing certifications, requiring a blend of training and experience hours (WRRF-13-13). One potential approach could be to create an all-inclusive water treatment plant operator license that would include treating any type of Florida water to potable standards. Other statutory and regulatory changes will need to be discussed and enacted.

April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Direct Potable Reuse Florida, Texas, and California To date, none of the potable reuse pilot systems in Florida have been tested for DPR and all pilots have been operated under the assumption of IPR. While Florida currently has regulations for IPR through groundwater recharge and discharge to surface waters, there is currently no Florida regulation to guide the implementation of DPR. Historically, regulators have proceeded with extreme caution due to the unknown long-term health effects of low levels of organics and heavy metals. In addition, because of the source of the water, there are concerns about the potential effects of unknown or unidentified compounds. Historical drought conditions and population growth in Texas and California have led regulators to take more action to move the implementation of DPR forward. Florida should consider the example of other states and the importance of process integrity monitoring when considering DPR. Faced with the prospect of dry reservoirs in some communities, Texas has approved several communities for DPR on a case-by-case basis, without implementing a single rule applicable to all. Faced with a recent drought situation, the City of Wichita Falls, Texas, implemented emergency DPR, transferring purified water to its existing drinking water treatment plants for further treatment and final distribution. With reservoir levels restored, the city returned to IPR via its local reservoir. At present, only Texas and North Carolina have regulations specifically addressing DPR. In contrast, California has taken a more measured approach, most notably through the California Direct Potable Reuse Initiative sponsored by the WateReuse Research Foundation and supported by multiple donors. The initiative is sponsoring several research projects to develop monitoring tools to help monitor the integrity of each barrier in the purification process. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) was mandated to complete its assessment of DPR and provide a report to the California Legislature by the end of 2016, recommending how the state should or should not proceed with DPR. To date, the WateReuse Research Foundation has sponsored over 19 research projects looking at some of the key barriers to implementing DPR and identifying solutions. What this means for Florida utilities is that there is a rapidly increasing body of knowledge on DPR methods that will provide sound science to support decision making, and potentially, implementa-

tion of DPR as an alternative water supply in Florida. Moving Forward With Direct Potable Reuse: Demonstration Testing of Process Integrity Monitoring Because DPR does not provide a monthsor years-long travel time like IPR does in a target aquifer or surface waterbody, process integrity monitoring will be critical to achieving high reliability in operations of the process. Effective process integrity monitoring tools can help utilities identify and respond to potential problems more quickly, minimizing what is known as the response retention time. Compared to IPR, DPR may have potentially lower costs due to the elimination of recharge wells and associated post-treatment; however the potential cost savings could be offset by the additional monitoring requirements for DPR. Before any Florida utility proceeds with a DPR program, it would be advisable for that utility to construct a demonstration facility to collect important data for use in establishing regulations for the plant and identifying best practices for continuous on-line integrity

monitoring. Before developing uniform regulations for DPR, it is likely that the state will permit the first few DPR projects on a caseby-case basis, referencing accepted standards of practice.

Conclusion As Floridaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population continues to grow, along with demand for additional water supply and concerns regarding nutrient charges, the state will face an increasing need for innovative water management solutions, which will, in some cases, include potable reuse, which is a technically viable process for Florida that can be fiscally viable given individual utility circumstances. The technical viability of potable reuse in Florida has been demonstrated by seven recent potable reuse pilot studies. The financial viability of potable reuse is well attested by multiple sources, indicating that potable reuse is usually cost-competitive with brackish groundwater desalination and is almost always less expensive than seawater desalination. If the added nutrient removal benefit of potable

reuse is valued, the fiscal viability of potable reuse may be even greater in some situations. Special consideration for post-treatment is required in the case of groundwater recharge (IPR) to mitigate arsenic release. While most potable reuse projects in Florida have focused on IPR, introduction of DPR will require careful demonstration studies showing how process integrity monitoring can effectively verify reliability of the treatment barriers. The broad implementations of potable reuse face hurdles in fiscal viability, potable reuse operations, and concentrate disposal/management. Although potable reuse is not always the right solution, improvements in technology, accumulation of operating experience, and innovative approaches may help potable reuse better overcome each of these hurdles. While Florida has not yet faced the critical water shortages experienced in California and Texas, as population growth puts an increasing demand on its water resources, potable reuse will be an important and viable tool that Florida utilities can use as a part of their integrated water management approach. Continued on page 26

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ April 2016


Continued from page 25

References • AECOM, 2011. “Town of Davie: Advanced Wastewater Treatment for Aquifer Recharge and Indirect Potable Reuse Pilot Study: DesignBuild Water and Wastewater System Expansion Final Report.” Sept. 2011. (Davie - Data Source). • Bloetscher, F.; Stambaugh, D.; Hart, J.; Cooper, J.; Kennedy, K.; Burack, L.; Ruffini, A.; Cicala, A.; Cimenello, S. “Evaluation Membrane Options for Aquifer Recharge in Southeast Florida.” IDA Journal, Fourth Quarter 2011. (Pembroke Pines - Data Source). • Bloetscher, F.; Stambaugh, D.; Hart, J.; Cooper, J.; Kennedy, K.; Sher, L.; Ruffini, A.; Cicala, A.; Cimenello, S. “Use of Lime, Limestone, and Kiln Dust to Stabilize Reverse Osmosis Treated Water.” Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, March 3, 2013, pp. 277-290. • FDEP, 2015. “Report on Expansion of Beneficial Use of Reclaimed Water, Stormwater, and Excess Surface Water (Senate Bill 536).” Office of Water Policy, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 8/05/15 Draft. • Hazen and Sawyer, 2008. “City of Plantation:


Final Report: Advanced Wastewater Treatment Pilot Project.” April 2008. (Plantation – Data Source). Hazen and Sawyer, 2014. “City of Hollywood: Effluent Recharge Treatment Pilot Study: Final Report.” Appendix I. March 2014. (Hollywood – Data Source). Mercer, T.; Bennett, J.; Fahey, R.; Moore, E.; MacNevin, D.; and Kinslow. J., 2015. “Groundwater Replenishment Performance and Operations: Lessons Learned During Clearwater’s One-Year Pilot.” Florida Water Resources Journal, March 2015. Accessed 3/1/2015. MWH. 2008. “City of Sunrise: Southwest Wastewater Treatment Facility Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) and Reuse Pilot Testing Program: Final Report,” May 2008. (Sunrise – Data Source). MWH. 2009. “Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Rehydration Pilot Project: Water Quality Evaluation.” Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department. Tech Memo # 1, May 2009. (Miami Dade – Data Source). SJRWMD, 2014. “Potable Reuse Investigation of the St. Johns River Water Management District: The Costs for Potable Reuse Alternatives.” St.

April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Johns River Water Mangement District. Accessed 10/8/15. Tchobanoglous, G. 2014. “Direct Potable Reuse: Current Projects and Activities.” University of Miami Net Zero Water Design Workshop, 5/29/14. Tchobanoglous, G.; Cotruvo, J.; Crook, J.; McDonald, E.; Olivieri, A.; Salveson, A.; Trussel, R.S., 2015. “Framework for Direct Potable Reuse.” WateReuse Assocation. Accessed 9/14/15. Tetra Tech. 2014. “City of Clearwater: Groundwater Replenishment Program – Pilot Treatment System: Testing Phase Summary Report.” 9/16/14. City of Clearwater, Fla. (Clearwater – Data Source). USGS, 2014. “Water Withdrawals, Use, and Trends in Florida, 2010.” Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5088. Accessed 12/2/14. VanEyk, T.; Vadiveloo, E.; Cooke, P.; Page, J.; Stanford, B. 2014. “Alternative Technologies for Indirect Potable Reuse in Florida.” Paper, Florida Section AWWA. Annual Conference, 2014. 11/30/14. S



Capacity Benefit Calculator Models Cost Savings from Capital Deferment Tonya Simmons and Max A. Castaneda Background In 2012, Simmons Environmental Consulting (SEC) assisted the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) with the development of the Florida Automated Water Conservation Estimation Tool (FAWCET), which estimates water conservation potential across the District. It also estimates daily net benefits of implementing water conservation best management practices (BMPs) from the customer and utility perspectives by estimating daily avoidable costs that are based on water savings to be achieved by implementing BMPs. Further, FAWCET uses property appraiser data (age and size of home, lot size, etc.) to identify BMPs that are most appropriate at the parcel level. Two crucial questions for the water conservation analyst are: “Which BMPs should I implement?” and “For each BMP, how many implementations should I do?” The first question is answered by ranking BMPs based on their daily net benefits; the second question is answered by FAWCET’s optimization feature, which generates a table of BMPs and the number of implementations recommended for each BMP. Generally, this table is generated by first exhausting the number of available implementations for the highestranked (based on daily net benefit) BMP, then the next highest-ranked BMP, and so

forth, until the user-defined objective function is met. A common example of an objective function would be to maximize water savings within a monetary budget. It is important to understand that FAWCET evaluates net benefits of BMPs irrespective of an implementation schedule because all costs and savings are calculated by FAWCET as daily unit costs (costs and savings per day). From the first day that a BMP is implemented, water savings begin to accrue over the life of the BMP. In other words, a BMP that will save 100 gal per day (gpd) will save 100 gpd on day one of its implementation and continue saving 100 gpd throughout its life cycle (assuming savings do not decay). After FAWCET has selected the optimal mix of BMPs for a particular parcel or service area, the next question the conservation analyst should ask is “When should I implement these BMPs?” This is a question that cannot be answered by FAWCET and one that cannot be answered without yearly projections of utility demands with and without conservation, the former of which depends on a yearly BMP implementation schedule. Further, without yearly projections of supply, demand, and BMP implementation, water conservation cannot be properly evaluated as an alternative to developing new capacity. Economic benefits of conservation are expressed in terms of costs that are avoidable

Figure 1. Model Inputs of the Capacity Benefit Calculator


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Tonya Simmons, P.E., is a senior water resources engineer with Greenman-Pedersen Inc. in Tampa and is the former president of Simmons Environmental Consulting. Max A. Castaneda, MPAff, is an independent water resources consultant in Jacksonville and was formerly a water conservation expert with St. Johns River Water Management District.

through BMP implementation. These benefits include cost savings attributed to reduced (by conservation) operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and cost savings attributed to deferring (or eliminating) the capital cost of future (new or expanded) capacity. Cost savings attributed to deferring (or eliminating) the capital cost of future (new or expanded) capacity is called the capacity benefit of conservation. In 2014, the District hired SEC to develop a stand-alone demonstration model, called a Capacity Benefit Calculator, to demonstrate how FAWCET results could be used by conservation planners and analysts to calculate the capacity benefit of conservation. Intrinsic to this effort was the demonstration of the need to develop and use yearly projections of demand, supply, and BMP implementation to properly evaluate conservation as a supply alternative.

This article describes model inputs and calculations included in the calculator and the impact that BMP implementation timing asserts on the economic performance of conservation. Although not presented here (and not included in the model), avoidable O&M costs (another conservation benefit) are similarly sensitive to the timing of BMP implementation.

Inputs to the Capacity Benefit Calculator Figure 1 includes a screenshot of model inputs, which include the following sets of variables: Economic Planning S Period of Analysis (years) – This is the period over which the economic analysis will occur. Typically, in Florida water management, 20 years is used. S Discount Rate (percentage) – The Federal Water Resources Discount Rate published yearly in the Federal Register is an appropriate planning-level discount rate to use. Water Supply and Demand Projections S Demand at Year 0 (mil gal per day [mgd]) – This is the utility’s water demand at

planning year 0 (one year prior to analysis start date). S Demand at End of Period (mgd) – If the period of analysis is 20 years, this input would be the utility’s demand at year 20. S Current Capacity (mgd) – This is the total current capacity of the water utility (supply, treatment, and storage). Many utilities have various plants or storage facilities serving distinct zones in their overall service areas; in this case, demand and BMP implementation should be evaluated at the zone level and current capacity should reflect the capacity of the individual zones. S Capital Cost of Next Increment of Supply – This is the capital cost of building the next increment of supply, expressed in year-1 constant dollars, which is the cost to build new or expand the existing water supply (withdrawal, treatment, and storage facilities). Conservation Best Management Practices Yearly Implementation Schedule S BMP Description – The analyst would enter each BMP here; FAWCET is an excellent tool to use to identify the best BMPs to implement for a utility service area. S Water Savings Rate (WSR) – The amount

of water saved by one implementation (i.e., retrofitting one fixture), expressed in gpd per implementation. S NIt – This is the number of BMP implementations at each year, t. The user enters a number of implementations for each BMP, and for each year. If FAWCET is used to select BMPs, the analyst should consider using the FAWCET-recommended total number of implementations for each BMP. The task for the analyst is then to apply the total number of implementations across the planning horizon in a manner that suits the utility’s conservation budget or other planning goals.

Model Calculations and Outputs Calculations and resulting outputs from the calculator are described as follows: Conservation Best Management Practices Yearly Implementation Schedule Using the number of BMPs implemented each year (NIt), the model calculates the cumulative number of implementations per year (Cuml. NIt), as shown in Figure 1. Continued on page 30

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


Continued from page 29 Best Management Practices Yearly Cumulative Water Savings The calculator computes yearly BMP cumulative water savings (Cumulative WSt) at the BMP level for each year of the planning horizon (period of analysis) as follows: Cumulative WSt = Cumulative NIt×WSR×((365 days/year)÷(1,000 gal/Kgal)) Where: • Cumulative WS t = Cumulative water savings at year t, expressed in Kgal • Cumulative NI t = Cumulative number of planned implementations in year t • WSR = Water savings rate expressed as gpd per implementation Note that in the preceding equation, yearly savings attributed to a BMP accumulate over time. It is precisely this cumulative effect that necessitates evaluating BMPs and programs temporally (implementations per year over the period of analysis). Yearly cumulative water savings are shown in Figure 2. Water Demand Projections and Capacity Deferment The calculator uses analysis start-year and end-year demands to calculate a constant demand growth rate (displayed in the model directly under the user-entered demands, as shown in Figure 1). The model uses the growth rate to calculate a linear yearly demand schedule with and without conservation (Figure 2). This is an oversimplified approach to projecting demands, but is provided for ease of use. It is recommended instead that the analyst manually enter yearly demand projections in the row “Demand without Conservation” (Figure 2). The model calculates yearly demand with conservation by subtracting program yearly cumulative water savings from “Demand without Conservation” (Figure 2). Based on demand projections with and without conservation, the calculator models projected capacity deferment potential and answers the following question: “Can New Capacity be Deferred?” (Figure 2). The capacity deferment potential for each year is defined as: S Not needed = Demand without conservation is less than the current capacity. S Yes = Demand without conservation exceeds current capacity, but demand with conservation is less than current capacity,


meaning that the utility would not need the new capacity in that year. S No = Demand with conservation exceeds current capacity. Capacity Benefit The objective of the model is to calculate the capacity benefit of conservation. The capacity benefit is the final value calculated by the model (bottom of Figure 2) and is calculated as follows: Capacity Benefit = PV of New Capacity without Conserv.-PV of New Capacity with Conserv. PVNew Capacity = Csupply ÷ (1+d)n Where: • PV New Capacity = Present value (PV) cost of next increment of supply (new capacity), expressed in analysis start-year constant dollars • CNew Capacity = Capital cost of the next increment of supply (new capacity), expressed in analysis start-year (constant) dollars • d = Real discount rate • n = Number of years new capacity is discounted The capital cost of the next increment of supply (CNew Capacity) and discount rate is the same, irrespective of the BMP implementation schedule. With respect to the capacity benefit, the only difference between the PV with conservation and the PV without conservation is “n,” or the number of years the new capacity is discounted. New capacity can be deferred when conservation reduces demand ahead of the year that the new capacity would be needed if conservation were not implemented (or its effect was not sufficient to defer new capacity). Yearly demand with conservation is based on yearly cumulative water savings, which are based on the yearly BMP implementation schedule. As such, the capacity benefit cannot be calculated without a yearly BMP implementation schedule.

Using the Calculator to Demonstrate the Importance of Yearly Projections in Conservation Planning The impact of yearly implementation schedules was demonstrated by exploring two conservation plan scenarios using the calculator. For both scenarios, every model input, including the total number of implementations for each BMP, were held constant

April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

and are the same as the inputs shown in Figure 1. The only difference between the two scenarios was the timing of BMP implementation (the BMP implementation schedule). In scenario 1, BMP implementation began at planning year 2, and was rather ‘front loaded’ across the planning horizon, meaning the BMPs were planned for implementation in the first 12 years and then discontinued after year 12. For this scenario, the next increment of supply was deferred three years, namely years 7, 8, and 9. This implementation schedule resulted in a capacity benefit of approximately $1.9 million. In scenario 2, the total number of BMPs implemented in the period of analysis was the same as for scenario 1; however, the total number of BMPs was equally distributed over the 20-year planning horizon. For this scenario, similar to scenario 1, the next increment of supply was deferred at year 7; however, supply was deferred for year 7 only. This resulted in a capacity benefit of approximately $664,000.

Summary Florida water conservation planning tools, such as FAWCET, do a fine job of answering the following question: “Which BMPs should I implement?” Some tools, including FAWCET, answer this question for the analyst by ranking BMPs by their unit costs ($/Kgal saved) or, as in the case of FAWCET, by daily net savings. However, FAWCET, and most other Florida-based tools, do not answer this question: “When should I implement the BMPs?” The Capacity Benefit Calculator helps the water conservation analyst model the impact that planned BMP-implementation timing may have on both demand projections and the timing of new capacity. Although not explicitly discussed, the calculator can also be used to evaluate the ability of conservation to reduce the size of the next increment of supply. As previously mentioned, the calculator was developed for demonstration purposes; further developing the calculator into a holistic net-benefit calculator is recommended. This would include providing calculations of yearly avoidable O&M costs of current and future supplies as a function of yearly cumulative water savings. It is also recommended to use linear programming to automatically generate an optimized implementation schedule that maximizes the net benefit using budget constraints. S

FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDAR SCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY! April 4-6..........Backflow Repair* ..........................................St. Petersburg ....$275/305 11-15..........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ........Osteen ..............$350/380 18-21..........*Backflow Tester............................................Bonita Springs ..$375/405 18-21 ........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ........St. Petersburg ....$350/380 29..........***Backflow Tester recert ............................Osteen ..............$85/115

May 2-5..........Backflow Tester ............................................Osteen ..............$375/405 16-19..........*Backflow Tester............................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405 16-20..........Utility Maintenance Level III ........................Osteen ..............$225/255 27..........***Backflow Tester recert ............................Osteen ..............$85/115

June 6-10..........Wastewater Collection C, B ........................Osteen ..............$225/255 20-22..........Backflow Repair ............................................Osteen ..............$275/305 27-30..........Backflow Tester*............................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405 24..........Backflow Tester recert*** ............................Osteen ............$85/115 27- July 1 ......Water Distribution level 1............................Osteen ..............$225/255 27- July 1 ......Wastewater Collection A ............................Osteen ..............$225/255 27- July 1 ......Stormwater A ................................................Osteen ..............$225/255

July 11-15..........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ........Deltona ............$350/380 18-20..........Backflow Repair* ..........................................St. Petersburg ....$275/305 25-28..........Backflow Tester ............................................Osteen ..............$375/405 29..........Backflow Tester recert*** ............................Osteen ..............$85/115 Course registration forms are available at For additional information on these courses or other training programs offered by the FWPCOA, please contact the FW&PCOA Training Office at (321) 383-9690 or

* Backflow recertification is also available the last day of Backflow Tester or Backflow Repair Classes with the exception of Deltona ** Evening classes *** any retest given also

You are required to have your own calculator at state short schools and most other courses. Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ April 2016


FWRJ COMMITTEE PROFILE This column highlights a committee, division, council, or other volunteer group of FSAWWA, FWEA, and FWPCOA.

Contaminants Committee (formerly known as the Biological Contaminants Committee) Affiliation: Florida Section AWWA Current chair: Michelle Viale-Bick, microbiologist, Tampa Bay Water Year group was formed: Nov. 29, 2005. The Contaminants Committee is part of the Water Quality and Resources Division, which is under the Technical and Education Council. Scope of work: The mission of the Contaminants Committee is to promote forums and activities related to the water contaminant component of water quality, whether biological or chemical, and facilitate the transfer of information and knowledge to the local water industry. The committee aims to enhance communication of knowledge and ideas among microbiologists, chemists, epidemiologists, engineers, and other water professionals to improve water quality. Recent accomplishments: The “Water Bugs” is a lunchtime learning webinar. The topic in January was “Relative Abundance and Diversity of Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Pathogens in Reclaimed Versus Potable Water Distribution Systems" and was presented by Emily Garner, a Ph.D. student at Virginia Tech. We hosted a workshop at the FSAWWA conference last fall, “Innovative Monitoring and treatment technology for Improving Water Quality,” and at the 2015 Florida Water Resources Conference, “Pathogen Removal/Inactivation and Risk Assessment in

Water and Wastewater Treatment Processes.” The February “Water Bugs” webinar topics included: S “The Algenol Advantage” (which covered the use of algae to produce biofuels) S “Life in a Biofilm: Amazing Yet Illusive” S “Environmental and Public Health Implications of Water Reuse: Antibiotics, Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, and Antibiotic Resistant Genes” S “The Centers for Disease Control Water and Health Study: Do Water Main Breaks and Repair Events Pose a Health Risk?” Current projects: The latest lunchtime learning webinar, presented in March, had the following topic and presenter: S “Abundance of Ammonia Oxidizing Archaea in Water Treatment Plants and Distribution Systems with Different Disinfection Processes,” Dhritikshama Roy, North Dakota State University. Future work: We are planning a future webinar on lead contamination in water and an overview on the Flint, Mich., water crisis in the coming months, and we’re always developing other topics and speakers for future webinars and workshops that would be informative to water and utility professionals. We are also working on adding a committee webpage to the FSAWWA website in the near future, so people interested in our work can stay informed. In the meantime, anyone interested in joining the committee or being added to the webinar mailing list can contact me by email at or by phone at 813-613-4471.

FloridaSection 32

April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Group members: The committee has 27 active members. S Vice-chair: Bina Nayak, Ph.D., water research project manager, Pinellas County Utilities S Secretary: Melanie Lasch, special projects manager, Veolia Water North America S Pamela London-Exner, lab manager, Veolia Water North America S Amy Gilliam, Sr. Staff Scientist, Orange County Utilities (past chair) S Andrew Randall, University of Central Florida S Anthony Andrade, Southwest Florida Water Management District S Bob Vincent, Florida Department of Health S Candy Mulhern, Pasco County S Chance Lauderdale, Carollo Engineers S Daniel Meeroff, Florida Atlantic University S Dean Bodager, Florida Department of Health S Donna Mooren, Pinellas County S George Lukasik S Jennifer Hunter, Pinellas County S John Gordy, City of Tampa S Jose Lopez, South Florida Water Management District S Kelli Levy, Pinellas County S Marsha Pryor, Pinellas County (retired) S Max Teplitski, University of Florida S Meifang Zhou, South Florida Water Management District S Nwadiuto Esiobu, Florida Atlantic University S Paula Lowe, City of Tampa S Robert Barque, Orange County S Tammy Spain, Draper Laboratory and National Preparedness and Response Science Board Member at U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services S Thomas Gillogly, Carollo Engineers S Troy Scott S Valerie J. Harwood, University of South Florida S

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ April 2016


Insight to Refinery Secondary Clarifier Operation The relationship between sludge settling and sludge volume index agencies Methodolgy

Everett L. Gill and T. Houston Flippin perators of refinery wastewater treatment facilities routinely measure sludge volume index (SVI), allowing them to detect deteriorating sludge settling quality. This test, however, does not allow the operator to accurately analyze secondary clarifier performance, including clarifier capacity and the required return activated sludge (RAS) flow. A settling flux analysis is required to predict clarifier operation, yet the constants required to generate the settling flux curve are difficult to develop. For state-point analyses, settling flux curves must be representative of the biomass in the system or use a previously developed relationship between SVI and empirical sludge settling parameters, such as those developed by Daigger and Roper (1985), Daigger (1995), and Wahlberg and Keinath (1988/1995). These relationships were developed using municipal facilities with varied industrial contributions. Due to the inherent differences in the biomass at both facilities, revised parameters were created for use in the previously developed correlations between SVI and settling parameters for refinery biomass.


Zone settling velocities (ZSV) were obtained from settling column tests and used to generate empirical sludge settling constants Vo and K (Vesilind, 1974) at four separate refineries. The facilities that contain two sets of data were analyzed during periods with different biomass settling characteristics (SVI values). The columns were large (4 to 5 ft deep and at least 3 in. in diameter), mechanically stirred, and water-jacketed using a submersible pump located in the effluent lauder to maintain a steady effluent temperature during the tests. An example of a settling apparatus is presented in Figure 1. The initial solids concentration, Xi, was varied by dilution with secondary effluent or concentrated by the addition of RAS or settling. Settling tests were performed at different mixed liquor concentrations (Xi) to develop the empirical parameters Vo and K of the Vesilind (1974) equation. Vs = Vo · e-K·Xi


Where: Vs = zone settling velocity (m/hr), Xi = initial solids concentration (g/L), and Vo (m/hr) and K (L/g) = sludge specific parameters. The settling flux, Gs, is defined as the product of the settling velocity and solids concentration. Gs = Vo · Xi · e-KXi


Where: Gs = settling flux (kg/m2•hr), Xi = initial solids concentration (g/L), and Vo (m/hr) and K (L/g) = sludge specific parameters. The SVI for each test condition was obtained using a 1-L unstirred settling apparatus. All SVI values fell within the range used by Wahlberg and Keinath (47.9≤SVI≤235) for an SVI performed in a 1-L graduated cylinder not stirred (SVIGN). Table 1 summarizes the data. The empirical model for predicting setting flux that was developed by Wahlberg and Keinath for the 1-L SVIGN is demonstrated in Equation 3. Gs = Xi ·ϒ · e^[- δ•SVI - (α+ β · SVI) · Xi] Where: Gs = solids flux (kg/m2•d). Figure 1. Settling Apparatus


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Average model parameters α, β, δ, and ϒ generated for the SVIGN and their standard deviation was reported as follows: α = 0.351 ± 0.071 L/g β = 0.00058 ± 0.00053 L/mL δ = 0.00602 ± 0.00115 g/mL ϒ = 18.2 ± 3.2 m/h

Table 1. Summary of refinery Vesilind and SVI data

Substituting these model parameters into Equation 3 yields the following: Gs = Xi · 18.2 · e^[- 0.00602 · SVI - (0.351 + 0.00058 · SVI) · Xi]


Using Equation 2, a settling flux curve was generated for each data set in Table 2 by plotting Gs as a function of Xi, Vo, and K. A second flux curve was generated using Equation 3. The model parameters α, β, δ, and ϒ were generated for each of the seven settling runs by adjusting the four parameters to obtain a minimum of squared differences between the two models using the Wahlberg and Keinath parameters as the starting parameters. Substituting the revised model parameters in Equation 3 yields the following equation presented by Wahlberg and Keinath: Gs = Xi · 11.2 · e^[- 0.000009•SVI-(0.306 + 0.00057•SVI) · Xi]

Table 2. Wahlberg and Keinath refinery model parameter estimates


Daigger developed a best-fit relationship for a combined data set using the following equation suggested by Wahlberg (1988). ln Vs = ln Vo – (k1 + k2 · SVI) · Xi


This equation can also be represented as a settling flux, Gs, by the multiplying the setting velocity and solids concentration. Gs = Xi · Vo · e^[-( k1 + k2 · SVI) · Xi]


Average model parameters ln Vo, k1, and k2 generated for the SVI and their standard deviation was reported by Daigger: ln Vo = 1.871 ± 0.546 m/h k1 = 0.1646 ± 0.0070 L/g k2 = 0.001586 ± 0.000546 L/mL

Table 3. Daigger refinery model parameter estimates

Substituting these model parameters into Equation 6 yields the following: ln Vs = 1.871 – (0.1646 + 0.001586·SVI) · Xi


Equation 2 was used to generate a settling flux curve for each data set by plotting Gs as a function of Xi, Vo, and K. A second flux curve was generated using Equation 7. The model parameters Vo, k1, and k2 were generated for the seven refinery runs by adjusting the three parameters to obtain a minimum of squared differences between the two models using Daigger’s original parameters as the starting parameters. Table 3 demonstrates the calculated model parameters for each of the settling test. Substituting the revised model parameters in Equation 7 yields the following: ln Vs = 2.40 – (0.1860 + 0.00183·SVI)·Xi


A settling flux curve was generated using the original model parameters and the revised model parameters generated with the refinery biomass. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the flux curve generated for an SVI of 100 Continued on page 36 Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


Continued from page 35 mL/g for the original and revised Wahlberg and Keinath and Daigger parameters, respectively. Both curves indicate the refinery biomass has greater settling properties compared to the settling properties the previous models indicated. Figure 4 presents the individual derived Wahlberg and Keinath model parameters plotted at an SVI of 100 mL/g (Table 2), as well as the combined revised Wahlberg and Keinath parameters for the same SVI (Equation 5). As demonstrated, there is a significant variation in the settling flux curves generated for each refinery compared to the combined parameters.

Summary And Conclusions

Figure 2. Settling flux curves using original and revised Wahlberg and Keinath model parameters

Seven separate model runs using biomass from refinery wastewater treatment facilities were used to evaluate the existing relationships for generating settling flux curves from SVI data. This comparison developed revised model parameters for refinery biomass, as expressed in Equation 5: Gs = Xi · 11.2 · e^[- 0.000009•SVI-(0.306 + 0.00057•SVI) · Xi] This revised correlation can be used for better insight on clarifier capacity and operation at a refinery activated sludge treatment facility than could be discerned with prior published correlations. However, the variation in the refinery model predicted settling flux data, and actual data is significant and warrants careful consideration when using a correlation.


Figure 3. Settling flux curves using original and revised Daigger model parameters

• Daigger, G.T., “Development of refined operating diagrams using updated settling characteristics database,” Water Environment Research, 6, pp. 95–100, 1995. • Daigger, G.T. and Roper, R.E., “The relationship between SVI and activated sludge settling characteristics,” Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 57(8), pp. 859–866, 1985. • Vesilind, P.A. Treatment and Disposal of Wastewater Sludges, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1974. • Wahlberg, E.J., and Keinath, T.M., “Development of settling flux curves using SVI,” Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 60, pp. 2095–2100, 1988. • Wahlberg, E.J., and Keinath, T.M., “Development of settling flux curves using SVI: An addendum,” Water Environment Research, 67, pp. 872– 874, 1995. Note: The information provided in this article is designed to be educational. It is not intended to provide any type of professional advice including, without limitation, legal, accounting, or engineering. Your use of the information provided here is voluntary and should be based on your own evaluation and analysis of its accuracy, appropriateness for your use, and any potential risks of using the information. The Water Environment Federation (WEF), author and publisher of this article, assumes no liability of any kind with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents and specifically disclaims any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness of use for a particular purpose. Any references included are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute endorsement of any sources.

Figure 4. Settling flux curves using refinery-specific derived Wahlberg model parameters and revised combined model parameters


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Everett L. Gill is a supervising engineer at the Sunrise office, and T. Houston Flippin is a chief engineer at the Nashville office of Brown and Caldwell, headquartered in Walnut Creek, Calif. Both are member of the WEF Industrial Wastewater Committee. S

FWRJ READER PROFILE water treatment and biosolids technology practice.

Jody Barksdale Gresham Smith and Partners, Tampa Work title and years of service. I have been a senior vice president at Gresham Smith and Partners (GS&P) for three years and have spent my entire 28-year career as an engineer in Florida. What does your job entail? I am currently wearing several hats, which I enjoy. I spend my time marketing in Florida and throughout the Southeast. I also enjoy working with teams of bright engineers and designers to manage and design a variety of projects. Under my direction, our experienced team in Tampa supports several projects for GS&P in Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Tennessee. I am also a leader in GS&P’s Technical Leadership Program and head up the waste-

chair for the FWEA Biosolids Committee. I also belong to the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA).

Education/training you’ve taken. I graduated from the University of Florida with a bachelor of science degree in environmental engineering and I received a master of science degree in environmental engineering from the University of Central Florida. I am a licensed professional engineer in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, as well as an Envision Sustainability Professional (ENV SP) to help promote sustainable infrastructure planning, design, and construction. What do you like best about your job? I enjoy the technical challenges and figuring out better ways of doing things. I also like sharing knowledge with younger engineers and watching them grow in their careers. What organizations do you belong to? I’m a member of WEF, and I serve on its Residuals and Biosolids Committee, Bioenergy Subcommittee, and Sustainable Residuals Use Subcommittee. I am the current

How have the organizations helped your career? It’s been great getting involved with FWEA, participating on the committees and also the annual FWEA Leadership Workshop. By being involved, I’ve made lifelong professional friends who all have the goal of not only doing business, but enhancing Florida’s quality of life. What do you like best about the industry? I enjoy the professionalism and intelligent people in our industry. I also like the fact that engineers add value to everyone’s life, every day. What do you do when you’re not working? I enjoy spending time with my 14-year-old twins and family, traveling, and getting out on the golf course when I can. I’m an avid reader and have decided that my second career will involve craft-beer tasting. S

Jody making a presentation at the FWEA Leadership Workshop.

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016



FWEA Utility Council Legislation, Part 2 Brian Wheeler President, FWEA Utility Council

n my 2016 legislative preview article in the January issue of the Journal, the proposed major water policy legislation was highlighted. As projected, the water bill (CS/CS/SB 552) was passed through the legislature before the second week of the session was completed. It was sent to Gov. Scott on January 14 and he signed the 134-page legislation into law on January 21.



April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

This legislation covers a wide range of water and water environment issues and will impact every utility across the state in some manner. This major legislative accomplishment is evidence that the legislature can work together and compromise to accomplish major policy issues when the members have common interests. As with any significant legislation of this size and scope, there are things to like and things to dislike, but that is the nature of creating legislation. Some of the highlights of the legislation include springs protection (Sections 5 and 22-29), the Central Florida Water Initiative (Section 7), modifications to the regional water supply planning process, and a potential process for future legislative appropriations for water projects (Sections 3, 17, 19-21, and 36). The legislation provides about 20 directives to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the state’s five water management districts to take various actions over the next several years, including developing a number of new regulations. I don’t have space here to adequately summarize the specifics of the legislation and analyze some of its impacts, but a more detailed breakdown of the legislation is available on the Utility Council website at Though the 2016 legislative session is not yet completed, the Utility Council is already working on a legislative initiative for the 2017 session. One of the influential legislators has expressed an interest in sponsoring significant legislation to promote the increased use of reclaimed water as a follow-up to the water bill. Representatives of the council have met with the legislator to begin dialogue on the development of the legislation. Reclaimed water policy is an area in which the Utility Council has been active for the past seven years. The council-led Reclaimed Work Group developed a consensus report in 2012 that has led to a number of regulatory changes that benefit the development of reclaimed water systems by utilities. A new work group has been formed by the Utility Council to work with the legislator and other stakeholders in developing a “reclaimed water bill” for 2017. Some of the topics to be taken up in the discussions on developing legislation will be mandatory reuse zones, reclaimed water feasibility guidance, irrigation well permitting in mandatory reuse zones, and stormwater supplementation, to name just a few. These are just two of the crucial issues in which your Utility Council is involved. The council presently consists of 51 utility members across Florida who represent over half the population of the state, which is in excess of 8 million. Over the past ten years, the Utility Council has increased in visibility and gained respect with the legislature and FDEP. We have partnered with FDEP in providing input and feedback on the development of regulations and have worked with the legislature to shape legislation. On many relevant issues we partner with our brother Utility Council affiliated with FSAWWA. Come join us at our annual breakfast meeting at the Florida Water Resources Conference at the Gaylord Palms in Kissimmee on April 27. I hope to see you there! S

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ April 2016



FWEA and WEF Safety Committee Update Doug Prentiss Sr.

FWEA A teleconference was held on February 10 with the following members in attendance: S Judd Mooso, Destin Water Users Inc., cochair S Scott Holowasko, Gainesville Regional Utilities, cochair S Doug Prentiss, retired, committee member S Ronald Cavalieri, AECOM, committee member S Mike Sweeney, Toho Water S Jamie Hope and Mike Gibbs were unable to attend

S Safety Committee Group/Project Page hp?pid=3581361 a Create a FWEA website inbox for safety questions a Promote and advertise inbox to FWEA members a Create a notification method when questions are posted a Update the web list of safety committee members and their contact information Judd provided an update on the status of the 2016 FWEA safety awards and we are on task. We will continue with the digital submissions and will be using Dropbox for the dissemination and review of the applications. The members all agreed that the approach used last year needs to be continued. S Award notification - beginning of April Next meeting - Tuesday, April 26, 10 a.m. S Teleconferences: August, November, February S Annual Committee Meeting at FWRC (April)

Committee Activities Florida Water Resources Conference (April 24-27) S FWEA Safety Committee Meeting - Tuesday, April 26, 10-11:30 a.m. Discussion will include 2017 workshop planning. S FWEA Awards Luncheon Safety Awards Presentation - Tuesday, April 26, Noon1:30 p.m. Other Discussion Items The committee discussed Operations Challenge support and review of the changes in the safety and laboratory event. Judd provided the latest on the development of methods for FWEA members to ask safety questions. S Safety Committee Page


WEF Lisa Mc Fadden from WEF recently sent out the notification for proposed changes to the current risk management program (RMP) to those of us on the WEF Safety Committee. For those of you using elemental chlorine in either gas or liquid form, these changes may impact your RMP and I encourage you to ensure that someone in your organization follows this proposal. Proposed Rule Changes to the Risk Management Program The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the accidental release prevention requirements of RMPs under the Clean Air Act, Section

April 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

112(r)(7). The EPA Executive Order 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security (EO 13650), directs the federal government to carry out a number of tasks that aim to prevent chemical accidents, such as the explosion in West, Texas, on April 17, 2013, and their devastating effects. The EPA has been working aggressively to enhance the safety of chemical facilities throughout the nation. These efforts include: S Supporting the state and local infrastructure for emergency planning S Facilitating a dialogue between the community and chemical facilities S Considering possible revisions to existing chemical safety and security regulations The EPA has developed proposed amendments to the current RMP regulation to reduce the likelihood of accidental releases of RMP-regulated substances at chemical facilities, and improve emergency response activities when those releases occur. The proposed amendments are intended to: S Improve accident prevention program elements in the existing RMP requirements to further enhance chemical safety at RMP facilities by adding requirements to complete an assessment of potential safer technologies and alternatives in the process hazard assessment and third-party audits, and analyze root causes to help identify process safety improvements for accident prevention. S Enhance the emergency planning and preparedness requirements to ensure coordination between facilities and local communities on emergency response planning and emergency response capabilities that are available to mitigate the effect of a chemical accident. S Ensure local emergency planning committees (LEPCs), local emergency response officials, and the public can access information in a user-friendly format to help them understand the risks at RMP facilities and better prepare for emergencies. See the prepublication version of the proposed rule at

rmp/proposed-changes-risk-managementprogram-rmp-rule After reviewing the material provided by Lisa, it’s clear that the proposed revisions include several changes to the accident prevention program requirements, which will impact water and wastewater plants. Compliance audits are required under the existing rule, but are allowed to be selfaudits (i.e., performed by the owner or operator of the regulated facility). This provision is intended to reduce the risk of future accidents by requiring an objective auditing process to determine whether the owner or operator of the facility is effectively complying with the accident prevention procedures and practices required under 40 CFR part 68. Another proposed revision to the prevention program would add an element to the process hazard analysis (PHA), which is updated every five years. Specifically, owners or operators of facilities with program 3 would be required to conduct a safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA) as part of their PHA, and to evaluate the feasi-

bility of any inherently safer technology (IST) that is identified. The current PHA requirements include consideration of active, passive, and procedural measures to control hazards. The proposed modernization effort continues to support the analysis of those measures and adds consideration of IST alternatives. The proposed provisions intend to reduce the risk of serious accidental releases by requiring facilities in these sectors to conduct a careful examination of potentially safer technology and designs that they could implement in lieu of, or in addition to, their current process. More information is available on the web by doing a simple search for “proposed rule changes for the risk management plan,” or by signing up with WEF or the FWEA Safety Committee.

ing the same class in Destin in May. I mentioned last month in my column that the May chlorine technician class in Destin was the only one scheduled in the state, but since then, Gainesville Regional Utilities has also agreed to host a three-day class. There is space in both classes and both will provide CEUs. Contact Judd (, Scott (holowas, or myself (dougpren if you have any technician-level workers who need this training. S Doug Prentiss Sr. is a member of the FWEA Safety Committee.

Training As a reminder, Scott Holowasko is hosting a three-day chlorine technician class in Gainesville in April and Judd Mooso is host-

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016



Developing Potable Reuse for El Paso, Texas: The Most Direct Approach Christopher Hill, Gilbert Trejo, George Maseeh, and Aide Zamarron rought conditions are constraining surface water supplies at the El Paso (Texas) Water Utilities (EPWU), requiring increased groundwater production (coupled with conservation) to meet customer demands. In 2012, EPWU initiated an assessment of potable reuse options to further diversify its water supply portfolio and bolster drought support efforts with a locally controlled and reliable supply. The initial feasibility study resulted in a recommendation to pursue direct potable reuse (DPR). Greater El Paso has endured drought conditions for more than a decade. The drought has caused regional reductions in surface water availability, and the major regulating reservoirs along the reach of the Rio Grande River serving El Paso, Elephant Butte, and Caballo reservoirs in New Mexico have seen reductions in storage to levels at or below 10 percent of combined capacity. These conditions have caused delayed deliveries of water to El Paso, resulting in shutdown of the EPWU surface water treatment


plants during months that the plants have traditionally been able to operate. For example, the Jonathan Rogers Water Treatment Plant (JRWTP) produces up to 60 mil gal per day (mgd) of treated surface water, but only operates when Rio Grande water is available, which during prevailing drought conditions has been only a few months each year. As a result, EPWU has relied on increased groundwater production and conservation to meet customer demands. Groundwater supplies are pumped from the Mesilla Bolson and the Hueco Bolson, which underlie portions of New Mexico; Texas; and Chihuahua, Mexico. Brackish groundwater is treated at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant to provide 27.5 mgd of fresh water to augment EPWU and the potable water supply at Fort Bliss. Figure 1 shows the 2014 potable supply forecast and peak demand forecast. For the majority of the year, EPWU utilizes groundwater to meet its water supply needs; however, for a two-month period between June and July, when

Figure 1. 2014 Potable Supply Forecast and Peak Demand Forecast


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Christopher Hill is vice president with ARCADIS U.S. Inc. in Tampa; Gilbert Trejo is chief technical officer, and Aide Zamarron is water production manager, with El Paso (Texas)Water Utilities; and George Maseeh is senior vice president with ARCADIS U.S. Inc. in Tucson, Ariz.

flows in the Rio Grande are sufficiently high, surface water may be used to meet water supply needs. Under normal, nondrought conditions, up to 60 mgd of surface water may be available from the Rio Grande, but under the drought conditions experienced in 2014, less than half (approximately 20 mgd) was allotted to EPWU. To help make up the potential gap in supply, EPWU recently constructed additional wells to help meet peak summer demands, and the groundwater production capacity is now 160 mgd; however, EPWU continues to rely on operation of its surface water treatment plants to meet summer demands. The EPWU recognized that utilization of wastewater effluent as an additional source water supply throughout the year would further diversify its water resource portfolio and bolster its drought support efforts with a locally controlled and reliable supply. This approach would also support the utility’s strategies for conjunctive use of surface water and local groundwater supplies, while helping to defer more expensive, long-range plans, like groundwater importation. A 2012 feasibility study evaluated the potential for indirect potable reuse (IPR) in the vicinity of EPWU’s Bustamante Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), the JRWTP, and the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park, also adjacent to the plants. Figure 2 shows an aerial image of the site. The IPR concept was to treat Bustamante WWTP, which produces approximately 27.5 mgd of treated effluent that is discharged to the Riverside Canal and is owned and operated by El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 (District). The IPR concept was also to divert a portion of the effluent from the Bustamante WWTP and treat it for use as an additional supply to JRWTP, augmenting available supply

from the Rio Grande. However, EPWU discovered significant challenges due to local hydrogeologic limitations and recognized the advantages of instead pursuing DPR, leveraging the unusual proximity of the wastewater treatment plant and the water treatment plant, the existing water distribution infrastructure at the site, and advanced treatment technologies that are increasingly enabling progress in DPR applications in the water industry. The EPWU is in the process of developing and implementing a 10-mgd advanced purified water treatment plant (APWTP) to realize the advantages of DPR in its water reliability efforts. The treatment concept has been designed to ensure protection of public health and has been tailored to the unique setting and challenges of this inland and arid Southwest community. The APWTP concept includes diverting a portion of the Bustamante WWTP effluent for additional treatment, which will undergo a purification process at the APWTP prior to entering the drinking water distribution system.

Water Balance and Demands The flow rate and volume available from the Bustamante WWTP for the APWTP source water was evaluated based on a review of WWTP influent flow data and projections, EPWU’s contractual obligations to the District, and other projected demands for reclaimed water from the WWTP. The Bustamante WWTP has a permitted design capacity of 39 mgd (average dry weather flow) and currently discharges an average of 29.2 mgd. During the District’s eight-month irrigation season (February 15 through October 15 of each year), EPWU is contractually obligated to discharge approximately 17.9 mgd to the Riverside Canal. Taking this obligated discharge into account, along with water planned for discharge to the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park and to customers of EPWU’s reclaimed water (purple pipe) system, approximately 7.8 mgd remain available to use as source water to the APWTP during irrigation season. During the nonirrigation season, there is no discharge requirement, and the APWTP will be designed to produce up to 10 mgd during these months. Figure 3 provides an overview of the APWTP concept.

Water Quality and Goals Historical water quality data were reviewed to assess current treatment performance at the Bustamante WWTP, additional treatment needed at Bustamante WWTP to provide target feed water quality to the APWTP, and preliminary treatment requirements for the APWTP.

Figure 2. Aerial Image of the Site

Figure 3. Advanced Purified Water Treatment Plant Concept

While EPWU conducts extensive analyses of Bustamante WWTP raw and effluent quality, additional sampling was needed for parameters that are not routinely monitored for regulatory purposes and are of importance to this project. The data provided important information for an evaluation of treatment and residuals handling alternatives and development of conceptual design criteria. The data also facilitated regulatory discussions with the Texas Commission on Environment Quality (TCEQ) regarding treatment requirements for the APWTP and residuals handling options.

Specific water quality goals for the APWTP were developed to address regulatory requirements, to meet EPWU’s goal to provide highquality water that is aesthetically acceptable to its customers, and to provide a margin of conservatism to assure compliance with specific water quality standards. Table 1 presents water quality parameters, rationale, and numeric goals for finished water that were developed based on federal and state drinking water standards, quality of existing drinking water supplies, and practices of other IPR/DPR facilities. Continued on page 44

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


Continued from page 43

Additional Regulatory Considerations No one set of regulations governs requirements for potable water reuse applications in Texas (or nationwide). As such, TCEQ has reviewed each of the state’s potable reuse projects (i.e., Big Spring, Wichita Falls, and Brownwood) on a case-by-case basis. Key regulatory consid-

erations to implement the APWTP project include: S A review of the industrial pretreatment program S Application for a reclaimed water permit under Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 210 for diversion of effluent from the Bustamante WWTP to the APWTP S TCEQ Water Supply Division requirements for approval of a new APWTP, including:

Table1. Proposed Finished Water Quality Goals for the El Paso Advanced Purified Water Treatment Plant

‒ Pilot testing to meet requirements under 30 TAC §290.42(g) ‒ Source water characterization ‒ Plan review for 30 percent design and final review ‒ Concentration-time (CT) study to establish requirements for chemical disinfection ‒ Residuals discharge permitting The schedule for implementing the APWTP will need to consider permitting time frames, with milestones to submit required permit applications. Continued discussions with TCEQ in subsequent phases of the project will be essential to facilitate timely information exchange on key permitting considerations.

Process Evaluation and Recommended Treatment Train Based on the current water quality, water quality goals, and regulatory requirements, treatment at the Bustamante WWTP and at the APWTP needs to include the following: S Nitrification/denitrification S Reduction of total dissolved solids (TDS) S Multiple barriers for pathogen removal/inactivation S Removal of disinfection byproduct (DBP) precursors S Removal of microconstituents, including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and other trace chemicals, that could be introduced through upstream industrial and municipal discharges. Candidate treatment alternatives for potable reuse of effluent from the Bustamante WWTP were developed to meet the water quality goals and probable regulatory and permitting requirements. An alternatives evaluation for the individual unit processes was conducted to identify the candidate treatment train for conceptual design. Based on the results of that evaluation, the recommended treatment train is shown in Figure 4. A sidestream from the Bustamante WWTP secondary clarifiers will be treated with denitrification filters for nitrate removal. Additional treatment at Bustamante WWTP includes improvements to achieve full nitrification and prevent ammonia breakthrough. Unit processes at the APWTP include microfiltration/ultrafiltration (MF/UF), nanofiltration and reverse osmosis (NF/RO), ultraviolet and advanced oxidation processes (UV AOP), granular activated carbon (GAC) for hydrogen peroxide quenching, permeate stabilization, and chlorine disinfection. Potential ozone and/or coagulant addition locations and dosages will also be con-


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

sidered during pilot testing for potential application during full scale. The recommended approach for discharge of the MF/UF backwash and NF/RO concentrate is to discharge to the Riverside Canal under a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit. Other residuals handling options could be considered in the future if regulatory constraints or District specifications hindering disposal to the Riverside Canal are identified during subsequent phases of the project. Figure 5 shows the treatment-effectiveness table for the candidate treatment train to graphically illustrate the treatment components and the relative effectiveness of each component at removing classes of contaminants. The graphical illustrations also show the potential multiple barriers for each class of contaminant. The primary removal mechanism is indicated with a green dot, while a potential removal mechanism is indicated with a yellow dot. Partial removal is indicated with quarter, half, and three-quarter-full circles, depending on removal effectiveness; an empty circle indicates no removal. Water quality parameters considered include particulates, total organic carbon (TOC), nitrogen compounds, mineral content (hardness and TDS), microconstituents, pathogens, and viruses.

Figure 4. Candidate Treatment Train

Figure 5. Treatment Effectiveness Summary for the Candidate Treatment Train

Summary and Conclusions Implementation of the APWTP will be a key step in EPWUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efforts to continue diversifying its water resource portfolio for long-term water sustainability and drought support by providing high-quality potable water from a local, reliable water resource. The APWTP will treat clarified secondary effluent from the Bustamante WWTP for use in the potable water distribution system by employing a state-of-theart water purification approach that includes multiple barriers for pathogens, diverse treatment for chemical microconstituents, on-line monitoring approaches to assure process performance, and robust compliance with all drinking water standards. The APWTP will operate year round, but its production will be subject to available volumes of source water after fulfillment of discharge obligations to the Riverside Canal and demands for reclaimed water from the Bustamante WWTP. During the nonirrigation season, the APWTP will have the capability to produce approximately 10 mgd of finished water for the potable water distribution system. Projected production will be at a reduced level estimated at approximately 5.6 mgd during the irrigation season. The project includes a treatment approach employing denitrification filters for clarified

secondary effluent at the Bustamante WWTP and conveyance of the denitrified effluent to the proposed APWTP, which will employ a process train of MF/UF membranes, NF/RO membranes, UV AOP, and GAC contactors for excess hydrogen peroxide quenching, permeate stabilization, and chlorine disinfection. On-line monitoring for critical parameters with control set points will also be incorporated. Storage will be included and sized to provide response time for diversion of potentially off-specification water. Ancillary systems include residuals handling, plant service water, miscellaneous chemicals, compressed air system(s), and various supporting systems provided with the membrane process equipment packages. Some modifications to the existing treatment at the Bustamante WWTP will be required to optimize the treatability of source water at the APWTP. These modifications include relocation of chlorine feed from the secondary clarifier effluent wiers to downstream of the clarifiers,

modifications to improve consistency of complete nitrification, additional automation and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) controls, and upgrading the existing electrical service to the treatment plants (JRWTP, Bustamante WWTP, and the future APWTP share a single electrical feeder to the combined property). A conceptual schedule for project execution includes the following major activities: pilot testing and preliminary engineering, detailed design, equipment procurement and onsite construction, start-up, and commissioning. The pilot testing and preliminary engineering began in March 2015 and are anticipated to end the first quarter of 2016. Detailed design is anticipated to commence at that point and require 12 months to complete. Construction duration is expected to be approximately two years and conclude with a three- to six-month period of sequenced start-up, performance testing, and commissioning. S

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ April 2016



It’s March–Time for the Spring Short School Scott Anaheim President, FWPCOA

he FWPCOA will have completed the spring short school in Ft. Pierce by the time this column comes out, so I want to thank all of the folks who made the short school a success. Each year in March we converge on the Indian River State College campus to hold the first of our two annual state short schools, and they always do a wonderful job of accommodating us. The success of the short school not only relies on the volunteers that give us their time and energy, but also to the students that come prepared for the training. I cannot lie—I was one of those guys that never cracked the book before coming to a short school, and then would have to try and cram a week’s worth of information into my brain in one night and hope I passed the exam. We can all do a better job of getting ready for the classes, whether its management purchasing the required books in advance so their employees can take the time to review the material, or the employees actually breaking the plastic


cover off of the book before stepping in the classroom. This is my first year as president, so I will be planning to sit in on some of the classes, and I will watch and learn from some of the great instructors that we have, like Ray Bordner and Dave Patchuki. It’s amazing how so many of the folks in our organization are willing to give up their time (personal time for the retirees and vacation time for active employees) throughout the state. I will also be interacting with the students to talk shop and see what we can do to help improve on the success of our short schools, and determine if there are courses that we may look at adding or creating for regions to offer as training. Speaking of training, there is no better time than now for utilities to review what type of training their employees need. Over the past year there have been a few utilities that have made it in the national news with water quality issues, namely the Flint, Mich., tap water contamination crisis and the black water in Crystal, Texas; both of these have customers questioning the water quality in their own water purveyors’ systems. Adding training, such as customer relations, can help field operation employees better handle inquiries by customers, and are just as important as the more technical courses that are needed to stay on top of the ever-changing processes of our profession.

Keeping up with new technology and processes couldn’t be more important than it is today. The days of the simple control treatment units that just required dissolved oxygen tests, settleometers, chlorine residuals, and pH tests, are long gone. Today, treatment plants are computercontrolled, with relays and programmable logic controllers that will have Tom King pulling out the rest of his hair when working on them. Everyone agrees that with reduced training budgets, shifts, and workforce, finding the time to send employees to an out-of-town course isn’t always feasible, so online training may be the best solution. The online method gives employees and utilities the convenience to work around those weird schedules and eliminates travel costs that prevent some employees from receiving proper training. Tim McVeigh has done an excellent job with our FWPCOA Online Institute courses, so please take the time to check them out, and remember: your employees are only as good as the training that is available to them. Whether it’s sending them to a state or region short school or using our Online Institute, give them the help they need with the proper training. We will have our fall short school later this year and each of the 13 regions have scholarships (Pat Robinson Award) available. If you have an employee that you feel is deserving, get with the region to nominate them for the award. S

Certification Boulevard Answer Key From page 10

exist: 1) aeration DO is too high, 2) nitrate concentration is high in the MLSS entering the clarifier, or 3) RAS rate is too low. So, from the list of solutions offered, decreasing the aeration DO is the only one that will help to reduce denitrification in the clarifier blanket and help minimize rising solids due to denitrification.

1. C) Rotten eggs At low concentrations, H2S will smell like rotten eggs, which is the smell you may detect in a sprinkler system using water from a canal. However, when the concentration of H2S is high it deadens the olfactory senses, and you won’t smell anything—maybe ever again!

5. A) High-rate aeration A high-rate aeration process typically has a short hydraulic detention time (maybe less than 4 to 6 hours), which allows most of the available CBOD5 to be easily consumed and create a high sludge yield (more lbs of new cells per lb of CBOD5 converted); this creates a high F/M ratio and a low SRT. Due to oxygen being used more directly to create new cells (and not tied up in endogenous reactions), oxygen utilization is typically at its best efficiency, and better as the sludge gets younger.

2. E) All of the above. One part of anything in relationship to one mil parts of the same thing is 1 ppm, like one gal of water to 1 mil gal of water. For another example, 1 in. in about 15.78 mi is equal to 1 ppm. Also, in water, one milligram per liter (mg/l) is the same as one parts per mil (ppm). The conversion is long and drawn out, but it’s the same!

3. C) Because its specific gravity is less than water.

6. A) It increases Alkalinity is replenished in the MLSS during the denitrification process at a rate of about 3.6 lbs of alkalinity (measured as CaCO3) for every pound of nitrate used as a source of oxygen. This is about onehalf the rate that alkalinity is consumed during the nitrification process.

Any substance that has a specific gravity less than water (which is 1.0) will float to the surface of a tank. Scum, or fats, oil, and grease (FOG) material will float to the surface of a clarifier due to its low specific gravity.

4. D) Decrease aeration DO Rising solids with small gas bubbles are typically the result of denitrification in the clarifier sludge blanket. This can happen when any of the following conditions


7. A) 694 gpm

April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

1 mil gal per day ÷ 1,440 minutes per day = 694 gal per minute

8. B) 0.95 mg/hour/gm TS • SOUR, mg/hour/gm TS = OUR, mg/L/hour TS, gm/L • (6.9 mg/l – 4.2 mg/L) ÷10 minutes x 60 minutes/hour = 16.2 mg/L/hour OUR • gm/L TS = mg/L total suspended solids (TSS) 1,000 1.7 percent TS x 10,000 = 17,000 mg/L TSS 16.2 mg/L/hour ÷ (17,000 ÷ 1,000) = 0.95 mg/hour/gm TS

9. A) Aeration MLVSS and influent CBOD5 The F/M ratio compares the food value as applied to the volatile bug population. The food value is indicated with the CBOD5 content in the influent wastewater, and the volatile bug content is identified by testing the aeration system mixed lsiquor for its volatile fraction MLVSS.

10. B) Nitrates are decreased, the pH increases, and volatile solids reduction improves. Shutting off the air will create anoxic conditions in the digester. This reaction will consume nitrates as a source of oxygen, thereby adding alkalinity back into the digested sludge and increasing the pH. Also, due to the anoxic conditions, additional volatile solids will be reduced.

Americans Want Public Officials to Invest in Water Systems, are Willing to Pay More for Safe Water Service The Value of Water Coalition recently released the results of a new national poll on public attitudes and concerns about water. The Water Environment Federation (WEF), along with thirty other public and private water agencies, business and community leaders, and national organizations, is a member of this national coalition that has come together to advance positive solutions to America's pressing water challenges. Conducted in January 2016, the survey found that Americans are deeply concerned with the state of water infrastructure and are willing to support efforts to invest and modernize these systems to ensure and maintain reliable water and wastewater services. “It’s clear that a dialogue is needed on appropriate policy steps to guarantee a sustainable and strong local, state, and federal partnership to

address America’s enormous water infrastructure challenges,” said Eileen O’Neill, WEF executive director. “Everyone uses water, so its management is really a shared responsibility. We are greatly encouraged by the poll results, which show an increased public recognition of how essential it is to have clean water and safe, reliable infrastructure, and the importance of everyone doing their part.” Respondents were initially evenly split (47 to 47 percent) in their willingness to personally spend more on their water bills for increased investment in water systems. Once poll respondents received additional information about water issues, there was a 13 percent increase to 60 percent of Americans in favor of paying more to invest in water infrastructure. The Flint, Mich., water contamination crisis was also a consideration, as 95 percent of respondents said it was important or very im-

portant for public officials to invest in water systems so that other communities wouldn’t face a similar situation. “This is a critical time and an important opportunity to have a conversation across the country about the importance of investing in our water systems. Being able to drink water straight from the tap and knowing that wastewater is safely and responsibly treated are top concerns for Americans,” said Radhika Fox, director of the Value of Water Coalition and CEO of the U.S. Water Alliance. “As a nation, we must prioritize investment in our water systems to maintain high-quality water service today and for future generations,” The Value of Water Coalition educates and inspires people about how water is essential, invaluable, and needs investment. To learn more, visit S

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016



Potable Reuse: The Regulatory Context for Florida and the U.S. Katherine (Kati) Y. Bell and Allegra da Silva or most Floridians, the main source of drinking water is underground aquifers, and that source is, of course, limited. Water withdrawals for drinking, agricultural, or industrial uses compete with the need to maintain water levels to protect lakes, rivers, estuaries, and wetlands. Using too much groundwater for consumptive uses can result in negative impacts, such as drying out wetlands, reducing spring flows, lowering lake levels, and degrading groundwater quality from saltwater intrusion. The challenge of maintaining a balance in the water withdrawals for consumptive use and minimum flows are driving increased interest in expansion of the use of reclaimed water. As a result, Senate Bill (SB) 536 Study, SB 536, which passed in the 2014 legislative session, requires the following: "Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), in coordination with stakeholders, shall conduct a comprehensive study and submit a report on the expansion of


use of reclaimed water, stormwater, and excess surface water in this state." The capacity of reclaimed water is certainly available to meet this objective; however, a review of the state inventory of reuse over the last three decades shows that reuse flows and ratios have leveled off since about 2007, as shown in Figure 1. While there are a number of reasons that this has occurred, one of the reasons may include the limitations associated with the capacities of existing purple pipe systems and the seasonal fluctuations in demand for nonpotable uses of reclaimed water.

Regulatory Considerations To increase the use rates of reclaimed water in the state, potable reuse may be one of the most important means of meeting FDEP goals of increasing use of reclaimed water in the state. It is important to note that relevant sections of Chapter 62-610, including “Part V - Groundwa-

Figure 1. Reuse Rates in Florida (Reproduced from the 2013 Reuse Inventory; FDEP, 2014, accessed 3/20/15).


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Katherine (Kati) Y. Bell, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE, is water reuse global practice leader with MWH in Nashville, and Allegra da Silva, Ph.D., P.E. is an advanced water reuse engineer with MWH in Denver.

ter Recharge and Indirect Potable Reuse,” provides the requirements for both groundwater recharge that results in potable water use, as well as indirect potable reuse (IPR), which covers surface water augmentation using reclaimed water for drinking water and other uses. Although direct potable reuse (DPR)—that is, potable reuse without an environmental buffer—is not currently an accepted practice in Florida, it is worth evaluating the national trends in considering this practice. Currently, DPR is being implemented in Texas in response to a long-term drought and is being considered as an alternative for long-term planning in California, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Georgia, and other states. With the implementation of the Big Spring and Wichita Falls DPR projects in Texas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated a project to provide documentation of the state of the industry with respect to potable reuse in the United States. The state of the potable reuse industry document will ultimately serve as a supplement to the 2012 EPA “Guidelines for Water Reuse.” The EPA approaches water reuse by facilitating knowledge transfer, and therefore, the intended purpose of the supplement is not to promote potable reuse, but rather to outline current approaches and methods used in the U.S. There are numerous useful research reports on potable reuse; however the conclusions have not been summarized prior to this document, which strives to compile the necessary technical and policy information in a single location in order to furnish an understanding of the subject matter, and to assist planners and decision makers on key strategies to employ when considering potable reuse in their community. The target audience for this supplement is equivalent to that for the 2012 guidelines—policy makers,

legislators, water planners, and water reuse practitioners, including utility staff, engineers, consultants, and the general public. Being developed under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), the document is intended to have relevance across the spectrum of geographies in the U.S., with specific experiences being drawn from case studies on existing DPR approaches in the country. The document will include discussions on potable reuse drivers, regulation of potable reuse in the U.S., relevant treatment technologies, complete treatment trains, source control, environmental and engineered buffers, process operations, risk analysis and multibarrier protection, life cycle costs and alternatives analysis, public acceptance tools, potable reuse case studies, and research and knowledge gaps. The EPA will provide review of the contributions from external experts, to ensure that the document development is consistent with the current federal regulatory framework so that it is technically robust and broadly acceptable to EPA, other members of the regulatory community, and end users. Thus, while the U.S. currently has no specific federal regulations governing potable reuse, outside of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act that provide a framework under which de facto reuse is practiced, there are states, including Florida, that have IPR rules, and many states are reconsidering the need for DPR guidance. To address this regulatory gap, the WateReuse Research Foundation and the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) funded development of a “Report of an NWRI Expert Panel for Developing a Direct Potable Reuse Framework,” which is aimed at supporting decision makers in understanding the role DPR projects can play in providing a new raw water source for drinking water. Additionally, the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Water Environment Federation (WEF), and National Research Council (NRC) have recently revised their water reuse policy statements to include recognition of IPR/DPR to supplement the nation’s water supply (NRC,

2012). The AWWA has also recently released a new reclaimed water management standard, and although this document recognizes DPR, the standard does not include management of DPR projects.

Treatment Requirements and Cost Implications As national trends indicate a growing interest in sustainable water supply solutions, there will be a need to leverage advances in the science and engineering of water treatment, such that broader application of potable reuse practices can be applied. Utilities in the U.S. that are already implementing DPR rely on a full advanced treatment (FAT) model, similar to the treatment train that has been the standard for planned IPR in California. The FAT model leverages advanced treatment technologies that are linked together, including microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection, and advanced oxidation (AOP) to form a multibarrier treatment process. While this model has been proven for producing source water quality suitable for both IPR and DPR, it has a high capital cost and is energy intensive, particularly where RO concentrate disposal is complicated and expensive. When total dissolved solids reduction is not necessary from the source water, there may be alternative treatment processes, such as ozone-biological activate carbon (BAC), following advanced wastewater treatment that can achieve high quality for drinking water supplies. Thus, it is important to utilize research at fullscale planned IPR facilities to advance the understanding of alternative treatment processes that may have cost advantages to the traditionally accepted treatment model. To protect public health and provide safety in any DPR scenario, monitoring and process validation approaches must strive to manage risks by early identification of failures with appropriate responses. Ongoing research is being conducted with criteria that are protective of public health for DPR treatment technologies.

Researchers are also studying proposed locations within a treatment scheme where contaminant criteria and aesthetic criteria should ultimately be met, along with final contaminant criteria that must be achieved before blending with another water source. Conceptual criteria for these purposes are that water is: 1) free of pathogens, and 2) free of toxic chemicals. In traditional drinking water treatment systems, multiple treatment barriers have historically formed the cornerstone for safe drinking water, and water agencies rely upon advanced treatment processes to remove “all” contaminants; however, this is partially presumptive and could lead to overtreatment of water. As previously described, the FAT model is currently the most common process train used to improve water quality of recycled water potable reuse. Thus, the industry is looking for more cost-efficient means of implementing potable reuse, particularly where total dissolved solids do not require implementation of RO membranes. When a combination of filtration, ozonation, and BAC is implemented, following advanced wastewater treatment that provides nutrient removal, it is likely that this objective could be achieved. The ozone-BAC model would have substantially reduced costs compared to the FAT model; additionally, there is no resulting RO concentrate. A recent feasibility evaluation that was conducted for a 10-mil-galper-day (mgd) facility, not needing dissolved solids removal to meet secondary drinking water standards, showed that there is a significant cost savings in both capital and operating costs for use of ozone-BAC, compared to the traditional FAT model (Table 1). Considering that many inland facilities would need to address concentrate by means other than disposal through ocean outfalls, additional costs associated with disposal could result in FAT process capital costs that are five to seven times greater than for ozone-BAC. If ozone-BAC can be proven to produce source water quality that is equivalent to alternative Continued on page 50

Table 1. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Summary for FAT and Ozone-BAC to Produce Source Water Using Effluent From an Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


Continued from page 49 water supplies, it could provide the scientific comparison necessary to: 1) inform regulatory processes, and 2) provide an alternative treatment train to the FAT process, enabling implementation of DPR at inland locations struggling with water supply issues. This information is critical for utilities that are seeking to identify new, cost-effective means of providing alternative water supplies as part of a portfolio of water resources to protect against changing climate and drought conditions.

Summary With national trends that indicate a growing interest in providing sustainable water supply solutions through broader application of potable reuse, there is important information needed from both a regulatory and a cost perspective. There are already utilities in the U.S. that have implemented DPR, and many others that are evaluating how this practice fits into a diversified water supply portfolio. And, while much of the technical information that is needed to support development of a potable reuse guidance document is already developed, the challenge is that much of the necessary information to support DPR is not in a format that is readily accessible to local regulatory authorities. In response to the technical gap in federal regulations or guidelines for DPR, as previously noted, national industry groups are collaborating to develop a framework that could be used to approach guidelines for DPR. Supplemental information on potable reuse practices from EPA will help inform these efforts and provide a means of supporting local regulatory authorities that are responsible for development of rules or guidelines that are protective of human health. Finally, alternative treatment options that are less capital- and energy-intensive than the current model are critical to putting potable reuse within reach of utilities that are in great need of new water supplies.

References â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 2014. Water Reuse Program, 2013 Reuse Inventory, ventory/2013_reuse-report.pdf, accessed March 21, 2015. â&#x20AC;˘ National Research Council (NRC), 2012. Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. S


April 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal


April is Water Conservation Month! Kim Kunihiro Chair, FSAWWA

looked at my personal and professional spring calendars and they are packed with activities and events. First and foremost is that April is Water Conservation Month! Last month, on March 29, the Water Use Efficiency Division (WUED) of FSAWWA’s Technical and Education Council headed to Tallahassee to officially declare April as Water Conservation Month in Florida. In 2015, 112 utilities joined the WUED in issuing April conservation month proclamations. Please talk to the utility that serves you and get them to join us for this year’s event. Conservation is still relevant as many other states continue to suffer from drought, and even though Florida is blessed with lots of rain, we need to conserve for future growth—and because it makes good environmental and economic sense. I challenge you as you do your spring cleaning in your homes and planting in your yards to consider water conservation in your plant and turf selections. In addition, look at your in-home water use and follow the recommendations of the WUED and the AWWA conservation community, which are available at under the WUED webpage, to reduce water consumption inside and outside the home. Replace those old shower heads and toilets with water saving devices, and there are many other proven technologies to choose from, including those labeled as WaterSense® at At the beginning of April, the FSAWWA officers will be heading to Tennessee to meet with officers of the other AWWA sections in our region: Puerto Rico, Kentucky/Tennessee, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama/Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia. We


will learn from each other about membership development and enhancement, training materials, and opportunities, and also from AWWA officers, including Jacqueline Torbert, one of the newly named AWWA vice presidents, who is a past chair of our section. This annual meeting invigorates the team and gives us great ideas for enhancing FSAWWA for all its membership. In the middle of April, we head to Washington, D.C., to meet with our representatives and senators to advocate for water issues nationwide at the AWWA DC Fly-in.

At the end of the month is the Florida Water Resources Conference in Orlando, which will be held April 24-27. There are many great technical sessions planned and several events focused on operators and young professionals. Please join us to network and participate in the conference to enhance your career and meet great people in the industry. Finally, please mark your calendars for Drinking Water Week, May 1-7. There will be special drinking water events planned throughout the state. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


News Beat The City of Clearwater has finished the design, construction, and permitting for its new $30 million brackish, reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment facility (WTF). The new facility is the first large-scale RO municipal system in Florida to use ozone to treat hydrogen sulfide in RO permeate. Prior to completion of the new facility, the city used water from the Florida aquifer and purchased water in bulk from a regional supplier to meet its customer needs. In an effort to manager the cost of water, protect the environment, and conserve water resources, the city implemented an integrated water management strategy. One of the priorities for the city was to expand its existing potable water system, including an upgrade of the existing WTF to the brackish water RO facility. The new facility was funded in part by the Southwest Florida Water Management District in Tampa. The facility exceeds federal and state standards and will serve 100,000 customers.


Kris Samples, P.E., a project manager with Reiss Engineering in Tampa, was awarded the 2015 Florida Section of the American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) Chair Award of Excellence for Distinguished Service. The FSAWWA Public Affairs Council presented the award at the December 2015 FSAWWA annual business lunch and awards ceremony in Orlando. The award recognizes Samples’ leadership as the FSAWWA Region V Model Water Tower Competition chair. He started the competition in Fort Myers, and gave presentations to both the Lee County Math and Engineering Departments and the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Board. In response to Samples’ efforts, several Lee County schools incorporated the water tower competition into their classroom curriculum, and are continuing to build the competition and foster its growth. Samples is currently looking to support the competition at the state level to assist with developing a statewide competition among all participating FSAWWA regions. He has more than six years of experience with water and wastewater utility projects, with an emphasis on expertise in water distribution and wastewater collection systems. He also previously served as chair of the Southwest


Florida Chapter of the Environment Association.

Florida Water


The Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association (WWEMA) and Boenning & Scattergood Inc. have released the “2015 4Q WWEMA/Boenning Leading Index,” formulated to provide insight into near-term market and funding conditions related to municipal water and wastewater projects. The index showed a slight decline in the fourth quarter from the previous two quarters, barely clinging to a positive outlook entering 2016. According to the report’s author, Ryan Connors, Boenning & Scattergood managing director, this indicates the outlook for water and wastewater project spending remains positive for the next 12 months, but is more tenuous than previously thought. “If I were to point to one theme,” Connors said, “it is that although the municipal sector is less cyclical than some verticals such as oil, gas, and agriculture, it is not immune to the effects of the broader economy.” On the positive side, a review of the market and the key factors that make up the Index indicate that water utilities are continuing to expand their payrolls and ramp up their operations and maintenance spending.The index and its accompanying report are based on five data-driven factors: municipal bond issuance, water and wastewater utility employment figures, water infrastructure equity performance, residential building permits, and ductile iron pipe pricing. The full report includes charts relating to these factors, depicting data and trends dating back three to five years, as well as additional background and analysis. It is available exclusively to WWEMA members. For information on WWEMA and membership, visit


John Horvath, P.E., has been appointed as the utilities department manager for Jones Edmunds and Associates Inc. at its Gainesville office. A University of Florida graduate with a master’s degree in civil engineering, Horvath has been with Jones Edmunds for 27 years. During this time, he has served as project manager, quality control engineer, project engineer, and lead design engineer on a variety of multidisciplined projects. Currently, he serves as the project manager for several

April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

utility projects for the Bay Laurel Center Community Development District (BLCCDD) at the On Top of the World Communities (OTOW) in Ocala. His areas of expertise include the planning, analysis, permitting, and design of wastewater collection, treatment, and effluent reuse and disposal systems.


Frank Miller, P.E., has joined Jones Edmunds and Associates Inc. in Winter Haven as a project manager and will support the firm’s office operations and oversee projects from initiation through completion, while developing and maintaining strong client relationships. Miller brings more than 18 years of engineering and project management experience to the firm. He most recently served as a senior engineer for the Seminole County Environmental Services Department and is a U.S. Navy veteran with six years of dedicated service. His engineering experience in water and wastewater systems planning, design, permitting, and construction includes membrane processes, pump stations, biosolids treatment facilities, chemical facilities, and integrated facility design. Miller has worked on several membrane treatment-related projects throughout Florida, including serving as a resident construction manager for Palm Beach County’s Water Treatment Plant #3. At the time of commissioning, this facility was the second largest nanofiltration plant in the country. Miller also served as the task manager and engineer of record for the City of Marco Island’s wastewater membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment system and wastewater facility master plan.


For the second consecutive year, St. Petersburg’s Water Resources Department is the recipient of a Water Fluoridation Quality Award from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The award was given at a recent city council meeting to Steven K. Leavitt, water resources director, by Dr. Johnny Johnson, a representative of Oral Health Florida and the Florida Department of Health. St. Petersburg is the only municipal water supplier in Pinellas County to receive the award for two years.. Fluoridation is the adjustment of fluoride

Florida Water Resources Journal • December 2014


in drinking water to a level that is effective for promoting good oral health. The award recognizes those communities that achieved excellence in community water fluoridation by maintaining a consistent level of fluoridated water throughout the calendar year. The city has had its own water treatment system since the purchase of the Pinellas Water Company and adjacent deep water wells in 1940. Pinellas Water Company originally operated the treatment plant in the CosmeOdessa region of Hillsborough County, which supplied the city with potable water. Growing concerns of overpumping from the Florida Aquifer led to the establishment of Tampa Bay Water (TBW) in 1998 as a regional wholesale water supplier, which supplies member utilities with a treated mixture of groundwater, surface water, and desalinated water. To ensure that the city provides the highest quality drinking water to its residents, St. Petersburg still operates and maintains the water treatment facility in Cosme. There, the source water undergoes additional treatment including aeration, softening, filtration, disinfection and the addition of fluoride. The facility has a capacity of treating 68 mil gal of water per day. Water is transported approximately 25 mi to St. Petersburg via two water mains. Currently, St. Petersburg water customers use about 28 mil gal of potable water daily.

for delivery to south Florida’s stormwater treatment areas in a manner that cleans the water before sending it into Everglades National Park. To ease pressure on Lake Okeechobee and South Florida’s coastal estuaries, the District held back water in the Upper Kissimmee Chain of Lakes in March and will continue to do so in April. This action is consistent with the SFWMD governing board’s direction to reduce damaging freshwater releases from Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie

estuaries. The District typically lowers water levels in the lakes at this time of year for flood protection and to benefit fish and wildlife in the Kissimmee River floodplain. This year, Lake Okeechobee has virtually no capacity to accept the additional river flows because record dry season rainfall has raised the lake level unusually high and inundated water storage areas. Water can flow into Lake Okeechobee from the Kissimmee River and other watersheds up to six times faster than it can be released. S


Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department is one of 21 public drinking water systems in the United States, and the only one in Florida, that received a top utility management award from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. The utility received one of the Sustainable Water Utility Management Awards; the other awards included the Platinum Award for Utility Excellence and the Gold Award for Exceptional Utility Performance.


To help lower Lake Okeechobee and benefit the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, the South Florida Water Management District recently began emergency operations to send lake water directly into a new reservoir designed to capture excess stormwater. Recent dry conditions lowered water levels in the new A-1 Flow Equalization Basin in western Palm Beach County, creating capacity for the District to move 9.8 bil gal of water from the lake directly into the basin. A project in Gov. Rick Scott’s “Restoration Strategies Plan to Improve the Everglades,” the basin temporarily stores water

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


New Products Morgan Advanced Materials has further extended its offering to the water utilities sector with the addition of a new range of ultra-wide bandwidth, high-sensitivity, air-coupled ceramic sensors for flow metering. The sensors offer an increase of magnitude in sensitivity compared with alternatives, while maintaining and widening the bandwidth. The development is made using technology similar to that which underpins four-dimensional imaging. These enhanced properties enable metering manufacturers to greatly increase flow measurement accuracy at low- and high-flow rates, while also reducing power consumption. This allows the products to meet performance requirements. (


Crouzet Automation has introduced the new em4 nano-PLC (programmable logic controller) with remote capabilities and a proven Millennium 3 Smart Logic Controller, both designed to control, measure, monitor, and log data for a variety of water and waste treatment applications. Developed for customers specializing in machine-to-machine technology, the em4 nano-PLC provides a totally integrated so-


lution that allows device connectivity via the internet, without adding additional modules. This complete solution includes the nano-PLC, SIM card, and data exchanges, as well as remote access web (em4web) and mobile platforms (em4 app). (


Goulds Water Technology offers the 3SD nonclog dual seal with the seal sensor probe sewage pump series. The commercial-grade submersible sewage pump combines dual hard-face mechanical seals with a 300-series stainless steel, keyed shaft motor for defense against environmental conditions. The 3SD features a cast iron, two-vane, semi-open, nonclog impeller with pump-out vanes for mechanical seal protection. The pump is balanced for smooth operation and is capable of running dry without damaging the inner components. The 3SD is certified by Underwriters Laboratories and the Canadian Standards Association. (


Stonhard has introduced the newest product in the Stonchem product line, Stonchem 444. Underwriters Laboratories-approved for

April 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

potable water storage tanks of 1,000 gal or greater, the 444 is a spray-applied, 100 percentsolids, two-component hybrid elastomer lining system designed for vertical application. This highly durable, pin-hole free, immersion-grade waterproof lining is ideal for water and wastewater facilities and reservoirs. Stonchem linings are seamless systems that protect underlying substrates from a broad range of chemicals, including most petroleum-based products, salts, acids, and alkalis. (


Brentwood Industries has introduced the StormTankÂŽ Arch to provide a solution for large-footprint, subsurface stormwater management projects. The Arch offers a cost-effective means of promoting infiltration for commercial and recreational applications, in addition to maximizing developmental space. Commonly installed under parking lots, parks, and athletic fields, the Arch system is capable of storing a large volume of water while maintaining a low profile. It features structural rib-end panels and interlocking end corrugates to allow for overlapping and easy installation. ( S


Tank Engineering And Management

Consultants, Inc.

Engineering • Inspection Aboveground Storage Tank Specialists Mulberry, Florida • Since 1983





Motor & Utility Services, LLC CEC Motor & Utility Services, LLC 1751 12th Street East Palmetto, FL. 34221 Phone - 941-845-1030 Fax – 941-845-1049 • Motor & Pump Services Test Loaded up to 4000HP, 4160-Volts • Premier Distributor for Worldwide Hyundai Motors up to 35,000HP • Specialists in rebuilding motors, pumps, blowers, & drives • UL 508A Panel Shop, engineer/design/build/install/commission • Lift Station Rehabilitation Services, GC License # CGC1520078 • Predictive Maintenance Services, vibration, IR, oil sampling • Authorized Sales & Service for Aurora Vertical Hollow Shaft Motors

CLASSIFIEDS P os i ti on s Ava i l a b l e

Utilities Treatment Plant Operations Supervisor $55,452 - $78,026/yr.

Utilities System Operator II $37,152 - 52,279/yr.

Water-Reuse Distribution Supervisor $55,452 – 78,026/yr.

Utilities Engineering Inspector $52,279 - $73,561.90 Apply Online At: Open until filled.

Electronic Technician The City of Melbourne, Florida is accepting applications for an Electronic Technician at our water treatment facility. Applicants must meet the following requirements: Associate’s degree from an accredited college or university in water technology, electronics technology, computer science, information technology, or related field. A minimum of four (4) years’ experience in the direct operation, maintenance, calibration, installation and repair of electrical, electronic equipment, and SCADA systems associated with a large water treatment facility. Experience must include field service support and repair of PLC’s, HMI, SCADA, programming VFD’s, switchgear and working in an industrial environment. Desk/design work does not count toward experience. Must possess and maintain a State of Florida Journeyman Electrician License. Must possess and maintain a valid State of Florida Driver's license. Applicants who possess an out of state driver’s license must obtain the Florida license within 10 days of employment. Salary Range: $39,893.62-$67,005.12/yr, plus full benefits package. To apply please visit and fill out an online application. The position is open until filled. The City of Melbourne is a Veteran's Preference /EOE/DFWP.

Orange County, Florida is an employer of choice and is perennially recognized on the Orlando Sentinel’s list of the Top 100 Companies for Working Families. Orange County shines as a place to both live and work, with an abundance of world class golf courses, lakes, miles of trails and year-round sunshine - all with the sparkling backdrop of nightly fireworks from worldfamous tourist attractions. Make Orange County Your Home for Life. Orange County Utilities is one of the largest utility providers in Florida and has been recognized nationally and locally for outstanding operations, efficiencies, innovations, education programs and customer focus. As one of the largest departments in Orange County Government, we provide water and wastewater services to over 500,000 citizens and 62 million annual guests; operate the largest publicly owned landfill in the state; and manage in excess of a billion dollars of infrastructure assets. Our focus is on excellent quality, customer service, sustainability, and a commitment to employee development. Join us to find more than a job – find a career. We are currently looking for knowledgeable and motivated individuals to join our team, who take great pride in public service, aspire to create a lasting value within their community, and appreciate being immersed in meaningful work. We are currently recruiting actively for the following positions: Assistant Manager, Field Services $87,214– $112,133/ year Assistant Manager, Water Reclamation $73,611– $95,077/ year Environmental Management System Project Manager $69,118– $88,837/ year Engineer I, II, III $43,285– $81,557/ year Industrial Electrician I $36,733 – $48,464/ year Apply online at: Positions are open until filled.

City of Coconut Creek, FL: Utility Services Worker I (Streets/Stormwater) BESH Engineering seeks experienced environmental engineer for all aspects of water and wastewater design, including treatment plants, pump stations, and collection/transmission/distribution systems. Water and wastewater treatment plant design and permitting experience a plus, and experience with hydraulic modeling, specification writing, Autocad drafting, project bidding, construction oversight and project funding preferred. Applicant must possess State of Florida E.I. with minimum 4 years experience. Florida P.E. a plus. Salary commensurate with experience. Come join a great team! Drug Free Workplace and an Equal Opportunity Employer. Please email resume to:

Utilities & Engineering Department Salary: $14.27/hour; $29,681.60 Annually High school diploma or GED; supplemented by a minimum of one (1) year of experience in the installation, maintenance, and repair of stormwater systems or streets and highways; an equivalent combination of education, certification, training, and/or experience may be considered. Must possess a valid Florida Class E driver license. Florida Class B commercial driver license with or without N endorsement is preferred. Must obtain Florida Class B commercial driver license with N endorsement within the first year of employment. Apply online at

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


“C” Water Plant Operator The City of Lake Mary is hiring a Class "C" Water Plant Operator. $31,158 - $48,651 with exc. benefits. Please visit for the requirements, job description and to apply. EOE, V/P, DFWP

Reiss Engineering, Inc. Are you looking for an opportunity with a company that is poised for growth? Reiss Engineering stands as one of the most prominent Civil and Environmental engineering firms in the State of Florida and the Bahamas. Our main focus is water and wastewater, serving both public and private sector clients with integrity, technical excellence and a commitment to performance. At Reiss Engineering, we are committed to making success happen for our clients, our employees and our firm. Reiss Engineering offers a competitive compensation and benefits package, as well as a stimulating and fast paced work environment. Reiss Engineering is continuously searching for highly talented individuals and welcomes resumes from those with an interest in joining our team. For a list of our current openings, or to submit a resume for a potential opportunity, please visit our website at

City of Temple Terrace Technical work in the operation of a water treatment plant and auxiliary facilities on an assigned shift. Performs quality control lab tests and other analyses, monthly regulatory reports, and minor adjustments and repairs to plant equipment. Applicant must have State of Florida D.E.P. Class “A”, “B”, or “C” Drinking Water License at time of application. SALARY RANGES: $16.59 - $24.89 per hour • w/”C” Certificate $18.25 - $27.38 per hour • w/”B” Certificate (+10% above “C”) $20.08 - $30.12 per hour • w/”A” Certificate (+10% above “B”). Excellent benefits package. To apply and/or obtain more details contact City of Temple Terrace, Chief Plant Operator at (813) 506-6593 or Human Resources at (813) 506-6430 or visit EOE/DFWP.

Water Plant Operator The Coral Springs Improvement District is currently accepting applications for the position of water treatment plant operators. Applicants must have a valid Class C or higher water treatment license and experience in Reverse Osmosis/Nano Filtration treatment processes preferred however not required. Position requirements include knowledge of methods, tools, and materials used in the controlling, servicing, and minor repairs of all related R.O. water treatment facilities machinery and equipment. Must have a valid Florida drivers license, satisfactory background check and pass a pre-employment drug screening test. The minimum starting salary for this position is $42,000. Salaries to commensurate relative to level of license and years of experience in the field. The District has excellent company paid benefits including a 6% noncontributory investment money purchase pension plan, and voluntary 457 plan with match up to 5%. EOE. Applications may be obtained by visiting our website at and fax resume to 954-7536328, attention Jan Zilmer, Director of Human Resources.


April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

EVERGLADES CITY WATER/WASTEWATER OPERATOR CONTRACT EMPLOYEE Minimum Requirements: Duel license: Class C Water and Class C Wastewater 5 years experience Membrane filtration experience preferred. Send resume to:

City of Groveland Class C Wastewater Operator The City of Groveland is hiring a Class "C" Wastewater Operator. Salary Range $30,400-$46,717 DOQ. Please visit for application and job description. Send completed application to 156 S Lake Ave. Groveland, Fl 34736 attn: Human Resources. Background check and drug screen required. Open until filled EOE, V/P, DFWP

Capacity Engineer Utilities Polk County Government - Career Opportunity Polk County Government BoCC is now hiring for a Capacity Engineer at their Utilities Division. For more exciting details on this great opportunity, please email us at Please be sure to review the Minimum Requirement for this opportunity: Graduate of an ABET accredited four (4) year college or university with major course work in Civil, or Environmental, Engineering and have a minimum of four (4) years design, permitting, and system modeling experience involving water and waste water utilities. Must be a registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) and be able to obtain registration with the State of Florida within six (6) months of employment. Must also possess a Florida Driver License. Location: Winter Haven, FL 33880 Work Schedule: Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm Compensation: Commensurate with Experience & Qualifications Please feel free to email us at

Deputy Utilities Director The City of Cocoa is pleased to announce the posting of the Deputy Utilities Director. This position is responsible for assisting the Director in all areas related to the coordinated management of the City’s water and wastewater operations including the general operation of the Department. Review our position brochure ( and our City's website for full details

CITY OF WINTER GARDEN – POSITIONS AVAILABLE The City of Winter Garden is currently accepting applications for the following positions:

Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator “C” Salary Range: $45,379. - $65,800. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority’s WASTEWATER DIVISION IS GROWING, and we need a WWTP Operator with a Florida “C” license or higher. You will perform skilled/technical work involving the operation and maintenance of a wastewater treatment plant (the majority of our plants are brand new, state of the art plants). Must have a FL WWTPO License “C” or higher, and the technical knowledge and independent judgment to make treatment process adjustments and perform maintenance to plant equipment, machinery and related control apparatus in accordance with established standards and procedures. Benefit package is extremely competitive! Must complete on-line application at EEO, VPE, ADA

City of Titusville Senior Maintenance Mechanic $15.05/Hour Skilled mechanical work in the maintenance and repair of mechanical and electrical equipment and machinery at the municipal water/wastewater plants and pumping stations or on other municipal facilities. Requires high school diploma plus 3 years’ journeyman level experience in mechanical equipment repair and maintenance. EOE. 321-567-3728 Application required - e-mail to or fax to 321-383-5702

Operator Trainee The City of Melbourne, Florida is accepting applications for an Operator Trainee at our water treatment facility. Applicants must meet the following requirements: High School diploma or G.E.D. General work experience related to the operation and maintenance of water treatment equipment or any equivalent combination of acceptable training, education, and experience. Must have successfully completed and passed the approved required training courses and have passed the State of Florida Class “C” Water Treatment Exam. Must possess a State of Florida Class “B” commercial driver’s license with air brake endorsement. Applicants who do not currently possess a Class “B” CDL, with air brake endorsement, must acquire a learner’s permit within 3 months of hire and obtain the license within 6 months of hire. Applicants, who possess an out of state driver’s license, must obtain a Florida license within 10 days of employment. Must have working knowledge of nomenclature of water treatment devices. A knowledge test will be given to all applicants whose applications meet all minimum requirements. Salary Range: $32,546.80-$52,030.94/yr, plus full benefits package. To apply please visit and fill out an online application. The position is open until filled. The City of Melbourne is a Veteran's Preference /EOE/DFWP.

- Traffic Sign Technician - Water/Wastewater Plant Operator – Class C - Solid Waste Worker II - Utilities Operator II - Collection Field Tech – I & II - Distribution Field Tech – I & II Please visit our website at for complete job descriptions and to apply. Applications may be submitted online, in person or faxed to 407-877-2795.

City of Winter Garden - Senior Engineer The Sr. Engineer is involved in the planning, design, construction and inspection of streets, stormwater improvements, and water and wastewater utilities projects. Salary DOQ. The City of Winter Garden is an EOE/DFWP that encourages and promotes a diverse workforce. Please apply at Minimum Qualifications : ~ Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering ~ Florida PE license or ability to obtain license within 6 months of hire ~ 10 years of progressively responsible professional/administrative public works experience ~ Valid Florida driver's license ~ Thorough knowledge of stormwater and utility system design, construction, and maintenance; engineering design; drafting; computer aided drafting systems; and design software (i.e., Auto CAD, AdICPR, ASAD, Ponds, Hydraflow, Networx)

City of Winter Garden Construction Projects Manager The position acts as the City's project manager for all capital improvement construction projects including water, wastewater, roadways, parks, stormwater systems and other facilities; inspection of private development projects; and supervision of 3 construction inspectors. Salary DOQ. The City of Winter Garden is an EOE/DFWP that encourages and promotes a diverse workforce. Please apply at Minimum Qualifications: ~ High school diploma or GED equivalent and two years of college coursework. ~ 10 years of field experience in utilities and/or structural construction management ~ Working knowledge of general construction of above and below ground utilities. ~ Valid driver's license

Florida Water Resources Journal • April 2016


City of Oakland Park - Utilities Manager February 2014

Editorial Calendar January ......Wastewater Treatment

Grade(31):$58,677-$93,883/yr DOQ BS degree Engineering, Public Admin or related field with 5 yrs progressive exp in utility ops and maintenance with 3 of the years in as a supervisor capacity. Valid FL D/Lic Must obtain within 1 yr (FDEP)Lvl 2 Water Distrib. Lic and a Wastewater Collection B Lic. Submit official City online application to: DFWP/EOE

February ....Water Supply; Alternative Sources March ........Energy Efficiency; Environmental Stewardship April............Conservation and Reuse May ............Operations and Utilities Management; Florida Water Resources Conference June ..........Biosolids Management and Bioenergy Production July ............Stormwater Management; Emerging Technologies; FWRC Review August........Disinfection; Water Quality September..Emerging Issues; Water Resources Management

Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator A, B, or C Okaloosa County BCC is currently recruiting for a Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator A, B, or C. This individual will operate treatment facilities to control flow and processing of wastewater, sludge and effluent. Salary Range $13.45-$19.29 hourly with excellent benefits. For more information or to apply, visit DFW/VP/AA/EEO

P o s itio ns Wante d

December ..Distribution and Collection

JOSEPH BRANCATO, Jr. – Seeking a position in the cross connection industry preferably in the Palm Beach Garden area. Master Plumber; DEP & NEWWA certified backflow preventer tester and inspector. Extensive experience in testing, installation, and repair of backflow preventers from ½” to 10” both DCVA’s and RPZ’s. Referrals upon request. Contact at 6 Richardson Path, Newburyport, MA. 01950 or 978-230-2558 or fax 978-2551501.

Technical articles are usually scheduled several months in advance and are due 60 days before the issue month (for example, January 1 for the March issue).

GEORGE PENEFIEL – Seeking a C Water Trainee position and has completed the course and has minimal experience and needs additional hours. Will be sitting for the next C Water test and prefers the Broward County area but is willing to relocate. Contact at 954-554-0927.

October ......New Facilities, Expansions, and Upgrades November ..Water Treatment

The closing date for display ad and directory card reservations, notices, announcements, upcoming events, and everything else including classified ads, is 30 days before the issue month (for example, September 1 for the October issue). For further information on submittal requirements, guidelines for writers, advertising rates and conditions, and ad dimensions, as well as the most recent notices, announcements, and classified advertisements, go to or call 352-241-6006.

Display Advertiser Index Blue Planet..................................63 CEU Challenge ............................19 Crom ..........................................50 Data Flow....................................33 FSAWWA ACE ..............................26 FSAWWA Call for Papers..............25 FSAWWA Likins ..........................54 FSAWWA Rewards ......................41 FWPCOA 2016 Short School ........55 FWPCOA Training ........................31 FWRC Announcement ........................11 Attendee Registration ..............12


FWRC (continued) Eye on Industry ........................13 Networking ..............................15 Technical Program ..............16-17 Workshops ..............................17 Exhibitor Info/Sponsorships ......18 Garney ..........................................5 Hudson Pumps............................27 McKim & Creed ..........................53 Stacon ..........................................2 Treeo ..........................................39 Water Resource Tech ..................64

April 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

ROBERT COX – Holds a Florida C Water Distribution license with 20 years experience in the water/sewer field including lift stations, and new water system procedures. Prefers Volusia, Deland, Orange City areas but is willing to travel. Contact at 1131 W. Beresford Ave. Deland, Fl. 32724. 786-575-2512. RAY HOGUE – Holds Florida C Wastewater and B Water licenses and is seeking a supplemental position for one or two days per week in a Water or Wastewater plant. Has 14 plus years experience and is familiar with filling in as a relief worker and is willing to travel. Contact at 150 Rosedale, Dr., Deltona, Fl. 32738. 407-322-0917 or email BRIAN BARNES – Holds Florida C and B Wastewater and C Water licenses and is sitting for the B Water license. Has a Class A CDL and is available for employment July 6. 2016. Contact at 2042 62nd Ave. S. St Petersburg, Fl. 33712. KEVIN MORRIS – Seeking a Wastewater Trainee position. Presently taking a C Wastewater course to sit for the test in May. Employed part-time in Winter Park wastewater plant to earn credits towards license but will need additional credits. Prefers the central Florida area. Contact at 171 Garden Dr, Winter Springs, Fl. 32708 or or 407-218-1894. BRADLEY FOWLER – Seeking a Trainee position and has passed the C water and wastewater courses and needs plant hours to obtain a license. Prefers the Manatee County area and is willing to work within a 50 mile radius of the county. Studying Advanced Treatment. Available for work the beginning of May. Contact at Bradley Fowler S33798 A11246, Marion Correctional Institute, PO Box 158, Lowell, Fl. 32663.

LOOKING FOR A JOB? The FWPCOA Job Placement Committee Can Help! Contact Joan E. Stokes at 407-293-9465 or fax 407-293-9943 for more information. Classified Advertising Rates - Classified ads are $20 per line for a 60 character line (including spaces and punctuation), $60 minimum. The price includes publication in both the magazine and our Web site. Short positions wanted ads are run one time for no charge and are subject to editing.

Florida Water Resources Journal - April 2016  

Conservation and Reuse

Florida Water Resources Journal - April 2016  

Conservation and Reuse