RD328 - Expanding Water Reclamation and Reuse in Virginia - November 2011


Executive Summary:
This report has been prepared by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) in response to a line item of the 2011 Appropriations Act (Department of Health, Item 290), a letter request from Delegate Harvey Morgan, and 2011 amendments to § 10.1-2129 of the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act. The agencies were asked to examine opportunities to expand the reuse of wastewater (also referred to as water reclamation and reuse) with the goal of conservation and reducing nutrient pollution in the Commonwealth’s surface waters. As part of this effort, new Water Quality Improvement Fund criteria to financially incentivize water reclamation and reuse were reviewed.

In Virginia, water reclamation and reuse essentially involves the treatment of wastewater to produce water of a quality that can be reused safely for a variety of purposes. Although it is voluntary in Virginia, once implemented, water reclamation and reuse may be subject to state regulatory requirements or guidelines. More than one state agency can regulate water reclamation and reuse in Virginia: DEQ regulates the reclamation and reuse of domestic, municipal and industrial wastewater; VDH regulates the reuse of treated sewage onsite for toilet flushing and has guidelines for the reuse of gray water and harvested rainwater; and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has the authority to develop regulations for the reclamation and reuse of storm water. DEQ has various statutes, regulations and guidance that specifically affect water reclamation and reuse, the most significant of which is the Water Reclamation and Reuse Regulation (9 VAC 25-740-10 et. seq.; http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vpa/pdf/Water_Reclamation_and_Reuse_Reg.pdf). This regulation specifies minimum reclaimed water standards and requirements for permit applications, monitoring, design, construction, operation and maintenance of water reclamation and reuse projects.

There are several advantages and disadvantages of water reclamation and reuse. The most notable advantages for the purposes of this report are that water reclamation and reuse can reduce nutrient loads to surface waters and supplement a community’s overall water supply for other uses. While supporting these goals, however, treated wastewater diverted from a surface water discharge to water reclamation and reuse may reduce minimum instream flow of the surface water, thereby potentially impacting beneficial uses downstream that rely on the water provided by the discharge, including water withdrawals for public water supply. This is a concern where, based on 2009 water withdrawal data, surface water supplies greater than 90 % of Virginia’s public water supply.

DEQ promotes and encourages water reclamation and reuse through, among other things, financial incentives that include Virginia Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund low interest loans and Water Quality Improvement Fund grants.

The water reuse policies and programs in Florida and Georgia were compared to Virginia. Florida has a variety of laws and regulation that drive water reuse with the intended or unintended effect of reducing surface water discharges and/or conserving water. Georgia has fewer regulations than Florida and a limited number of policies and programs in place to drive water reuse.

Florida and Georgia require a feasibility study for water reuse or non-discharging alternatives in lieu of surface water discharges for most domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Virginia largely relies on a market-based approach whereby localities independently determine, based on their needs and available resources, the best alternative for the reduction of nutrient loads to surface waters.

Florida and Georgia have laws and regulations limiting water withdrawals to maintain minimum flows or levels of surface waters and groundwater for the protection of other beneficial uses. Virginia lacks this mechanism to incentivize both water conservation and water reuse, and could consider Florida’s approach to address stream impacts and consumptive use issues. DEQ is currently attempting to address potential adverse impacts to downstream beneficial uses and users that may result from the consumptive use of water reclamation and reuse through proposed amendments to the Water Reclamation and Reuse Regulation and associated guidance.

In order to encourage public input regarding water reuse, DEQ and VDH organized a committee consisting of 20 stakeholders and various technical support staff from VDH, DEQ and DCR to identify potential opportunities to expand water reclamation and reuse with the goals of water conservation and reducing nutrient pollution of the surface water of the Commonwealth. Many of the committee stakeholders also served on the regulatory advisory panel to amend the Water Reclamation and Reuse Regulation and were, as a result, already informed of the purpose of the committee and report, and well prepared to discuss and identify opportunities and concerns related to expanding water reclamation and reuse in Virginia. The agencies met with the committee on August 9, 2011 to receive their input and suggestions. The stakeholders and state agencies identified and prioritized a number of potential opportunities to expand the use or improve implementation of water reclamation and reuse projects. These opportunities fell into six (6) primary categories:

i. Regulatory issues (22 priority points);
ii. Role of education (15 priority points);
iii. Financial issues (12 priority points);
iv. Addressing the link to water resources issues (10 priority points);
v. Addressing public health risks (7 priority points); and
vi. Technical issues related to irrigation sites (7 priority points).

While issues related to regulatory oversight received the most priority points overall from the stakeholder committee, education was one specific area that the committee agreed is critical. The committee agreed that because water reuse is not always the best option, education regarding the pros and cons of specific water reuse applications is a necessary part of any educational effort. For example, reduction in discharges due to treated effluent diverted to water reclamation and reuse must be weighed against the resulting reduction in instream flow and the possible impact on water supply and assimilative capacity. A large part of the educational effort should be aimed at generating demand, as the committee agreed that a key factor to expansion of reuse is establishment of a large customer base for the product. Human health issues arise in this arena, particularly the importance of assuring the public that the product is safe based on appropriate regulation.

Regulations must be balanced between protecting public health and the environment, and providing options to implement cost effective alternatives. The current regulatory process to amend the Water Reclamation and Reuse regulation is aimed at achieving this goal, and the public involvement process to review the proposed regulation will provide additional insight in achieving this balance. The regulatory issue that garnered the most priority points from the committee was related to the use of reclaimed water for groundwater recharge. DEQ will be starting a regulatory process in 2012 to examine the rules related to groundwater recharge, as the related issues encompass multiple regulations and policies.

The mechanisms necessary to implement further action include potential changes in statute, regulation, or agency operations or processes, and local government or private sector action. While actions requiring statutory changes did not rank highest in priority in the list of opportunities, those issues related to legislative action include:

• Providing tax incentives and tax credits for end users in order to create demand;

• Providing subsidies for agricultural irrigation reuse of reclaimed water;

• Establishing priority areas to encourage water reuse pending completion of the State Water Resources Plan;

• Subsidizing operation and maintenance costs of water reclamation and reuse projects; and

• Ensuring continued availability of grant funds for the Water Quality Improvement Fund.

During the 2011 General Assembly, the Water Quality Improvement Act (WQIA) was amended to require that the Water Quality Improvement Fund (WQIF) grant guidelines of the Secretary of Natural Resources (SNR) “define criteria and financial incentives for reuse”. Draft proposed revisions to the WQIF grant guidelines proposed by DEQ are discussed in Section VI of this report. DEQ will also provide in guidance further explanation and details on the elements of water reclamation and reuse projects that qualify for WQIF cost-share.

There are discharging and non-discharging alternatives in addition to water reclamation and reuse that are available to reduce nutrient pollution of surface waters from point source discharges in Virginia. Wastewater treatment facilities can maintain a discharge of treated water to surface waters while reducing their discharge of nutrients with nutrient reduction technology. Non-discharging alternatives may include, but are not limited to, land treatment, conventional or alternative onsite sewage systems, or storm water reclamation and reuse. Advantages and disadvantages of these alternatives are discussed in Section VII.

A variety of factors, including environmental, economic and societal, should be considered when determining the most appropriate alternative(s) to implement for water conservation and the reduction of nutrient pollution in surface waters of the Commonwealth. Based on these factors, water reclamation and reuse may or may not be the best alternative.