Current Trends in Regionalizing Wastewater Treatment Facilities

1
Current Trends in Regionalizing Wastewater
Treatment Facilities

• 2009 CWEA Annual Conference
• April 30, 2009
• Michael Harrison P.E.

2
Overview

• Why Regionalization? (California Central Valley
  and Foothill Regions)
• Regional Evaluation Criteria
• Regional Case Studies
• Summary

3
Whats Pushing Regionalization

• Regulatory Compliance Regional Water Quality
  Control Board
• More stringent requirements requiring upgrades
• Limited disposal options
• No Development to Help Pay for Expansion/
  Upgrades
• Existing users are footing the bill rate
  increases
• Excess Capacity in Larger Existing Facilities
• Larger expansion projects in anticipation of
  rapid future growth

4
Advantages of Regionalization

• Favorable economies of scale for constructing
  larger treatment facilities (less cost per
  person)
• Reduced O M costs
• Treatment performance reliability
• Larger WWTPs offer more opportunities for
  sustainable treatment
• Cogeneration
• Biosolids recycling

5
Disadvantages of Regionalization

• Lengthy Process Timing Issues
• Five-year permit cycle
• Short-Term Costs Potentially Higher to Pay for
  Conveyance Facilities
• Conveying Reclaimed Water Back to Remote Sites
• Decentralized treatment is better alternative
• Loss of Agency Control
• Environmental Issues
• Growth Inducement

6
Regional Evaluation Criteria

• Disposal and Compliance Evaluation
• Disposal drives level of treatment
• Long-term compliance
• Consistent with California Water Code
• Conveyance Costs
• Connection / Buy-in Fees
• Governance Structure
• JPA
• Separate industrial user

7
Case Studies

• Sacramento County
• City of Ceres City of Turlock
• Amador County
• Western Placer County
• City of Roseville
• City of Lincoln

8
Sacramento County- One Way it Worked

• Early 1970s 22 separate WWTPs that discharged
  into local waterways and the American and
  Sacramento Rivers
• Funded by 1972 Clean Water Act which called for
  an area wide wastewater management plans,
  establishes federal grant program
• Sacramento County and Cities of Sacramento and
  Folsom join forces to develop regional program

9
(No Transcript)
10
Cities of Turlock/Ceres Another Success Story

• Ceres WWTP had limited land disposal capacity
  (approx. 2.1 Mgal/d)
• Originally considered connection with Modesto
• WWTP issues at Modesto derailed project
• Turlock had available existing capacity
• Ceres now sends up to 2.0 Mgal/d of partially
  treated effluent to Turlock WWTP via pump station
  and 12-mile pipeline.

11
(No Transcript)
12
Amador County Regional W/W Study -Unresolved

• Amador Water Agency initiated project
• Limited drinking water resources
• Potential reclaimed water uses
• Planned for a regional tertiary treatment
  facility in Martell Area
• Site located adjacent area of greatest
  development and reclamation potential

13
(No Transcript)
14
Western Placer County Study

• Original study in 1998 studied feasibility of
  regionalizing facilities in Placer County
• Agencies formed Placer Nevada Wastewater
  Authority (PNWA) and entered Joint Powers of
  Authority agreement.
• Regional facilities were constructed (City of
  Lincoln WWTRF and City of Roseville WWTP)

15
Western Placer County Pipeline Alternatives
16
Future Study Recommendations

• Proactive verses reactive regional disposal
  planning Integrated water solution
• Dont consider city limits or county lines
• Grant funding is important to promote
  regionalization (Clean Water Act)
• Public outreach / stakeholder meeting
• Agency Champions
• Timing of facility needs
• Coordinate with regional board
• Eliminate/revise Proposition 218

17
Regional Challenges

• Proximity / Up front conveyance costs
• Inequitable governance
• Lack of commitment of ALL participating agencies
• Dispersed disposal and reclamation Areas

18
Keys to Success

• Regulatory mandates and funding
• Favorable disposal options
• Available Land or Dilution
• Early commitment of agencies
• Mutual benefits to all agencies

19
Questions?