Think back to how our society functioned 50 or 60 years ago. We drank beer or soda pop from cans that we simply tossed in the trash. Industries took in raw materials, made products, and sent the wastes into the air and water, or to the dump.
Around the first Earth Day back in 1970, we decided that was no way to live. In the 1990s we got serious about recycling, and curbside programs sprang up everywhere. Now recycling is the default position where any resource is concerned.
To a large degree that’s true in wastewater treatment, as well — though not everywhere. In water-scarce areas, of course, water reclamation is more rule than exception. As water-supply issues become more acute, one can’t help but wonder if that should be the case in most regions, water scarce or not. Should the default position be to, in essence, put the cleaned-up water back where it came from?
A radical idea?
I know, this sounds a bit edgy. Reclaiming wastewater costs money — more than basic secondary treatment. Communities aren’t swimming in cash, and homeowners and businesses aren’t exactly clamoring for higher user fees. But before dismissing the idea, let’s look at a few of arguments in its favor.
First, as NPDES permits get stricter, the gap between secondary-treated and reclaimed water is shrinking. Permits continue to ratchet down limits, most notably on nitrogen and phosphorus. Removal of those nutrients often takes out more of the traditional constituents — BOD and TSS — in the bargain. For example, one way to reduce phosphorus discharges is to filter phosphorus-containing solids (TSS) out of secondary effluent.
So if you’re running a filtration (tertiary) step, and you’re disinfecting, how far are you from actual reclaimed water? Is it then simply a matter of finding users for the water and laying pipe to get it to them? (I know, all that costs money, too.)
Completing the cycle
Second, why make city water and then ship it down a stream? It’s one thing if you’re a city like my hometown, right on Lake Michigan. There you pull in water, treat it, send it to the homes and businesses, get it back, treat it again and put it back in the lake. The cycle is complete. It makes perfect sense.
But consider another community where I lived, my college town in southeastern Wisconsin. The source was groundwater. The wastewater treatment plant discharged to a river. In time, the aquifer came under stress; the long-term supply became a concern. Suppose that city, and other communities relying on the same aquifer, were to reclaim their wastewater and use it for groundwater recharge? Keep it local.
Third, why make city water and use it to irrigate lawns and parks? Grass and trees grow fine on lower-quality water. Might it be cheaper, all things considered, to use reclaimed water for the landscapes, as long as the distribution system isn’t a major public works project?
Showing respect
And finally, here’s a softer argument. Doesn’t reclamation show the ultimate respect for the resource? And might it finally lead people to respect and value that resource the way they should? Yes, final effluent from treatment plants generally is cleaner than the receiving stream. But when we ship it downriver, there’s still a perception that it’s something to get rid of.
If more communities reclaimed water — whether supply issues really demanded it or not — would their residents respect that water more? And respect the people who treat it more? If water sourced in (or near) the community stayed in the community, would people be more inclined to treasure it and less likely to abuse it? I suppose that’s a good question.
Please share
I can imagine lots of counterarguments to what I’ve presented. So, rather than debate myself, I’ll leave the counterpoints to you.
What’s your opinion? Should water reclamation become the default standard or at least become much more prevalent? What would it take for your facility to reclaim wastewater, if you’re not doing that already? Am I stark raving crazy? Send your comments by way of an email to editor@tpomag.com. I promise to respond, and we will publish comments in a future issue.
