Title: 1995 NWSI Annual Report, Alternative Sources
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004735/00001
 Material Information
Title: 1995 NWSI Annual Report, Alternative Sources
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Resource Projects Department of the Southwest Florida Water Management District
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - 1995 NWSI Annual Report, Alternative Sources
General Note: Box 28, Folder 15 ( 1995 Annual Report of the New Water Sources Initiative - January 1996 ), Item 4
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004735
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text




January 1996


2.0 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES

"Alternative" water sources are sources other than traditional ground-water sources. This chapter
provides a description of the types of potential alternative water source projects which could be
funded under the New Water Sources Initiative program. The following types of projects are
discussed: conservation, reclaimed water, stormwater, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), surface
water, seawater and brackish water desalination, and water resource enhancement projects.

2.1 Conservation

For the purposes of this document, conservation is defined as the beneficial reduction of water use
through voluntary or mandatory altering of water use practices, reduction of distribution losses, or
installation and maintenance of low water use systems, fixtures, or devices. While not a water
"source" in the traditional sense, conservation practices do result in water savings which reduce
stress on environmental systems and defer the development of new water sources.

2.1.1 Water Use

An estimated total of 1,178 million gallons per day (mgd) or 1.2 billion gallons per day of surface
and ground water were used in the District in 1994. A breakdown of 1994 water use by source and
use type is given in Table 2-1. Figure 2-1 illustrates the percentage of water use accounted for by
each use sector.


Table 2-1.


1994 Estimated Water Use in the SWF~WMI)


Estimated Estimated Estimated Total Percent
Use Sector Ground-Water Surface Water Water of
Withdrawals Withdrawals Withdrawals Total
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
Agriculture 424 19 443 37.6
Commercial/ 82 15 97 8.2
Industrial
Mining/Dewatering 54 85 139 11.8
Public Supply 331 113 444 37.7
Recreation 37 18 55 4.7
TOTAL 928 250 1178 100.0
(79%) (21%) (1000%)
mgd = million gallons per day



Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-1


1995 NWSI Annual Report


y raunaJ 1996








1995 NWSI Annual Report January 1996


Figure 2-1. 1994 Estimated Water Use in the SWFWMD


Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1 indicate that agriculture and public supply were the two largest water use
sectors in 1994. Each accounted for approximately 444 mgd or 38 percent of the water use in the
District. Mining/dewatering (139 mgd) represented the third largest use sector in 1994, accounting
for approximately 12 percent of the total water use. Commercial and industrial water use (97 mgd)
accounted for eight percent and recreational water use (55 mgd) accounted for the remaining five
percent. Of the 1.2 billion gallons of water used during 1994, 79 percent was ground water and 21
percent was surface water. Agriculture and public supply are the largest uses of ground water and
mining/dewatering and public supply are the largest uses of surface water.

The numbers in Table 2-1 suggest that large water savings can result from a small percentage
reduction in water use. If future conservation measures result in only a five percent savings in
public supply water use throughout the District, the 22.2 mgd of water saved would be equivalent
to the amount of water used by a city with a population of 200,000 people (based on 110 gallons per
person per day).

2.1.2 Public Supply Water Conservation

The District has set the goal of reducing per capital water use to 110 gallons per capital per day. To
achieve this goal, the District is working with local governments to develop aggressive programs

Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-2


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996







1995NWS Annal epor Jauary199


for public supply water conservation. As part of the District's planning process, five-year plans are
being developed for selected Basin Boards which include funding and implementation schedules for
conservation projects. Most conservation projects accrue local rather than regional water resource
benefits and thus are generally funded by the Cooperative Funding Program rather than the New
Water Sources Initiative. It is possible, however, that cooperative conservation efforts involving
multiple cities or counties may be proposed in the future.

Water conservation programs for public supply are of two kinds: supply-side programs and demand-
side programs (EBMUD, 1994). Supply-side programs are actions taken to improve efficiency
before water reaches the end user. These include metering, pressure reduction, and leak detection
and repair. Demand-side programs are those that encourage or require measures by the end user to
improve water use efficiency. These measures typically include the installation of water-saving
hardware (fixtures, devices, appliances, etc.), leak repair, and habit change. Demand-side measures
occur on the user side of the water meter. District programs that promote demand-side conservation
are of four kinds: educational, incentive, regulatory, and support. A summary of demand-side
conservation measures is provided in the following sections.

Educational/Informational Programs Educational/informational programs attract publicity to
conservation issues and promote community involvement in conserving water. Generally, it is
difficult to quantify the water savings achieved by educational/informational programs. Examples
of educational/informational programs are utility bill inserts, community displays, community
events, demonstration gardens, school education programs, paid advertising and public service
announcements, and speakers bureaus.

Educational/Incentive Programs Educational/incentive programs are educational measures that
function as incentives. For example, water audits not only educate water users about ways they can
increase efficiency in water use, but offer free professional consultation for which a water user might
otherwise be expected to pay. Audits often result in recommendations that, if implemented, can save
the water users money on water bills, and free water-saving devices and informational materials
typically are distributed during an audit. Educational/incentive programs include industrial,
institutional, landscape, and residential water audits,

Incentive Programs Incentives consist of various arrangements under which the costs to the water
user of implementing conservation measures are reduced and thus benefits to the water user are
increased. Incentives can be monetary, as in rebates and low-interest loans, or they can be in the
form of free or subsidized hardware, fixtures, or appliances. Examples of incentive programs are
conservation pricing and goal billing, distribution of water conservation devices, landscape rebates
and rebates or financial assistance to upgrade irrigation systems, and low-volume toilet replacement
incentives or rebates.

Regulatory Programs and Ordinances Regulatory measures are required improvements in water use
efficiency or prohibitions against wasteful water use. Compliance with standards is achieved
through penalties for non-compliance as well as through water user education. Examples of
regulatory programs are landscape standards, requirements for developers to install low-volume
plumbing fixtures, water shortage ordinances, and water waste regulations.

Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-3


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996









1995 NWSI Annual Report January 1996


Potential Public Supply Water Savings

Since it is not possible to easily quantify savings that result from most educational and support
activities, the estimated potential public supply water savings that follow are based on incentive and
regulatory programs. Potential water savings for plumbing retrofit and toilet rebate programs were
based on average household water savings and an estimated percentage of the population
participating in the programs. Water savings for Xeriscape, leak detection, and commercial
conservation programs are based on the percentage reduction in water use estimated to be achieved
by these programs. Appendix A contains detailed tables of public supply conservation savings by
county. Tables 2-2 through 2-5 summarize the potential public supply water savings for the
District's 16-county area.

Aggressive water conservation rate structures have the potential to save an estimated 77.85 mgd,
based on an estimated maximum potential of 25 percent reduction in water use. National case
studies indicate that water savings resulting from rate structures can range from five to 40 percent
for public supply water systems. Orange County, Florida observed savings from 11 to 25 percent
(Briggs, 1989). Proactive leak detection programs can reduce unaccounted for water and result in
savings of up to 13.3 mgd based on savings potential of one to three percent of the total public
supply water use. Enforcement of water restrictions, ordinances, and codes is essential for an
effective conservation program. The enforcement of irrigation restrictions alone is estimated to save
between eight and 12 percent. Even if the above conservation programs were not individually
implemented, ordinances that require efficient landscapes, plumbing fixtures, conservation rates,
leak detection programs, and enforcement of codes and ordinances cumulatively have the potential
to save 77.85 mgd or up to 25 percent of the total public supply water use.

It is important to note that the water savings identified in Tables 2-2 through 2-5 are estimates based
on past project experience, fixture specifications, and findings from conservation literature and
programs examined around the country. Actual water savings may vary, due to a number of
variables including the existence and intensity of associated educational programs, and perceived
or actual water shortage conditions of the region. Projected water savings are not always
cumulative, since there is often an interrelation between separate components of a comprehensive
conservation program.

Since the separate components of a comprehensive water conservation program are not mutually
exclusive, care must be taken so that expectations are not over stated or misrepresented. For
example, expected water savings from a Xeriscape program could be influenced by the existence
of a conservation rate structure.

It is also important to note that the potential water savings for public supply conservation programs
will vary geographically. When potential water savings is grouped by planning area (northern, west-
central, east-central, and southem) as shown in Table 2-5, it becomes clear that the west-central area
of the District (Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties) has the greatest potential for public
supply water savings.


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-4


January 1996


1995 NWSI Annual Report










Table 2-2. Potential Indoor Public Supply Water Conservation Savings
Number of Homes Water Savings Total Capital
Program Targeted' Achieved Potential Cost
(gpd per Savings
household) (mgd) (S million)

Plumbing Retrofit 762,342 (50%) 16.12 12.3 18.4 11.4- 17.24
1,143,512 (75%)
Toilet Rebate 152,468 (10%) 29.03 4.4 22.1 17.5 87.75
762,342 (50%)

TOTAL 45.1 16.7 40.5 28.9- 104.9
gpd = gallons per day
' Targeted Number of Homes is a percentage of the total number of households in the District
(3,551,813 residents/2.3 + residents per household = 1,524,683 households)
2 Based on estimated savings of 7 gallons/person/day.
3 Based on estimated savings of 29 gallons/toilet/day.
SBased on $15 retrofit kit cost.
5 Based on $115 replacement toilet cost one per household.


Table 2-3. Potential Outdoor Public Supply Water Conservation Savings
Public Supply Outdoor Total Potential
Program Residential Water Use Water Use Savings
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
Xeriscape 311.4 31.1 (10%) 5.6 (18%)

Xeriscape (aggressive) 311.4 93.4 (30%) 35.5 (38%)


Table 2-4. Potential Public Supply Conservation Savings for Other Conservation Measures
1994 Potential Potential
Program Public Supply Percentage Water
Water Use Savings Savings
(mgd) (%) (mgd)
Commercial/Industrial 111.6 10-30% 11.2-33.5

Leak Detection 444.8 1 3% 4.4- 13.3
Conservation Rate 444.8 11 -25% 33.5 77.85*
Restrictions/Enforcement 444.8 8 12% 25 37.4*

Ordinances/Codes 444.8 1 25% 3.1 77.85*

TOTAL 444.8 1 25% 3.1-77.85
*Calculations based on percentage of residential-only water use.


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-5


1995 NWSI Annual Revort


January 1996










Table 2-5. Summary of Potential Public Supply Water Conservation Savings by
Planning Area
Indoor Outdoor Other Conservation
Planning Area Conservation Conservation Measures Total
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
Northern' 1.5-3.6 0.5-3.0 0.3-6.5 0.3-6.5
West-Central2 9.7-23.5 3.3-20.8 1.8 45.5 1.8-45.5
East-Central3 2.2- 5.4 0.9- 5.7 0.5- 12.6 0.5- 12.6
Southern4 3.3 8.0 0.9- 6.0 0.5 13.2 0.5 13.2
TOTAL 16.7-40.5 5.6-35.5 3.1-77.8 3.1 -77.8
'Thenorher are inluds Cirus Henano, LkeLev, Maion an Sumer ounies


The northern area includes Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Levy, Marion, and Sumter counties.
2 The west-central area includes all of Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties.
3 The east-central area includes Polk, Highlands, and Hardee counties.
4 The southern area includes Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, and De Soto counties.


2.1.3 Institutional/Commercial/Industrial Water Conservation Programs and Potential Savings

Institutional/commercial/industrial (ICI) water use accounted for approximately 20 percent of the
water withdrawn in the District in 1994. The value of 20 percent includes 97 mgd of self-supplied
ICI water plus approximately 111.6 mgd of publicly-supplied ICI water. ICI water users are a
challenging target for water conservation programs. The difficulty lies in trying to categorize this
sector's specific use of water. For instance, both a lens manufacturer and a hospital would fall under
the ICI water user category; however, each one uses water very differently. Therefore any water
conservation regulation would be difficult to develop given the multitude of variables.

The Tri-County Water Conservation Initiative will improve our understanding of ICI water use. The
initiative is being implemented by a two-person team working directly with local governments in
Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties to evaluate the water use of non-residential facilities.
Those facilities include schools, hospitals, manufacturers, office buildings, restaurants, and hotels.
A consulting firm was selected to conduct evaluations and make comprehensive recommendations
to increase each facility's water efficiency. The data that the Tri-County Initiative collects will allow
the District to understand the different ways water is being used and to ultimately develop programs
that effectively address water conservation in the ICI workplace.

Of the few large-scale industrial/commercial programs that have been initiated throughout the
nation, the potential water savings for the participating facilities was found to average between ten
and 42 percent (Ploeser and others, 1992). This average savings may serve as the basis for what the
District can expect to conserve; however, these numbers vary greatly from city to city and cannot
be relied on until data are collected within District boundaries and these percentages can be verified.
A conservative range of savings of ten to 30 percent has been used to estimate the potential ICI
water savings in each of the District's four planning areas (Table 2-6). The west-central and east-
central planning areas offer the largest potential for ICI water savings.

Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-6


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996









Table 2-6. Potential Industrial and Commercial Self-Supplied Water Conservation Savings
1994 Potential Potential
Planning Area Commercial Percentage Water
Water Use Savings Savings
(mgd) (%) (mgd)
Northern' 8.9 10 30 % 0.9 2.7
West-Central2 42.4 10 30 % 4.2 12.7
East-Central3 44.7 10 30 % 4.5 -13.4
Southern4 0.7 10 30% 0.1 2.1
TOTAL 96.7 10 30 % 9.7 30.9
The northern area includes Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Levy, Marion, and Sumter counties.
2 The west-central area includes all ofHillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties.
3 The east-central area includes Polk, Highlands, and Hardee counties.
4 The southern area includes Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, and De Soto counties.


2.1.4 Agricultural Water Conservation

The objective of water conservation programs for agriculture is to promote higher irrigation
efficiencies. Various options can be undertaken by the agricultural growers to improve irrigation
efficiency. Options include: monitoring water use by metering, the use of soil moisture
measurement devices (i.e., tensiometer, water-table float indicator), understanding and improving
irrigation systems by evaluating performance, keeping abreast with irrigation technology whenever
feasible, and attending educational seminars and workshops to enhance irrigation management skills.

Agricultural water use equaled public supply as the largest water use sector in the District in 1994.
Recognizing the potential to achieve significant savings through agricultural water conservation, the
District funded the Agricultural Water Use Efficiency project as a NWSI cornerstone project in
1994. The project provides funding for the Mobile Irrigation Lab to identify high-end agricultural
water users and provide on-site water efficiency evaluations. To assist growers in implementing
recommendations, water conserving devices such as tensiometers will be provided.

It is estimated that a water savings of at least five or 10 percent can be obtained by adopting
additional conservation programs for agriculture. Potential water savings are shown by crop type
in Table 2-7. Based on an understanding of current agricultural irrigation practices, it is assumed
that for citrus, tomatoes, and strawberries, a five percent efficiency improvement is attainable. For
nursery crops, pasture irrigation, and turf production, 15 percent savings is assumed. For melons,
other miscellaneous vegetables, and other agricultural water use, a ten percent savings is assumed.
The total potential agricultural water saving is 31 mgd. This is equivalent to an overall savings of
seven percent, based on the 1994 agricultural estimated water use of 443 mgd.


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-7


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996










Table 2-8 summarizes potential agricultural water savings by planning areas. The table indicates
that the east-central and southern planning areas have the largest potential water savings. The
northern planning area has the smallest potential agricultural water savings (1.5 mgd) and the east-
central planning area has the largest potential agricultural water savings (13.7 mgd). Appendix A
summarizes potential agricultural water conservation savings by county.


Table 2-7.


Potential Agricultural Conservation Water Savings by Crop Type


1994 Estimated Estimated Rate Potential
Water Use of Savings Water Savings
Crop Type (mgd) (%) (mgd)

Citrus 251 5 12.5
Tomato 36 5 1.8
Strawberry 7 5 0.3
Nursery 14 15 2.1
Pasture & Turf 20 15 3.0
Melons 6 10 0.6
Other Agricultural Use 109 10 10.9
TOTAL 443 7 31.0


2.1.5 Total Potential Conservation Water Savings

The total potential water savings for public supply, agricultural, commercial and industrial
conservation programs is summarized in Table 2-9. For the entire District, the total potential
savings ranges from 55 mgd to 173 mgd, depending on the type and number of conservation
programs implemented. This savings represents a District-wide reduction in total water use of
between five and 15 percent. Public supply water conservation programs offer the largest range of
potential water savings with savings ranging from three to 78 mgd. Potential commercial and
industrial water conservation savings range from about 20 to 62 mgd for both publicly supplied and
self-supplied water users. The potential agricultural water savings are estimated at 31 mgd.


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-8


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996










Table 2-8. Potential Agricultural Conservation Water Savings by Planning Area
1994 Potential Agricultural
Planning Area Estimated Water Use Water Savings
(mgd) (mgd)
Northern' 21 1.5
West-Central2 84 5.9
East-Central3 196 13.7
Southern4 143 10

TOTAL 444 31.1
The northern area includes Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Levy, Marion, and Sumter counties.
2 The west-central area includes all ofHillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties.
3 The east-central area includes Polk, Highlands, and Hardee counties.
4 The southern area includes Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, and De Soto counties.


Of the four planning areas, the west-central planning area, comprised of Hillsborough, Pasco, and
Pinellas counties, has the largest potential for water conservation savings. A savings of between
19 mgd and 86 mgd could be achieved if aggressive water conservation programs were developed
for public supply, agriculture, commerce, and industry. The east-central and southern planning areas
have potential water conservation savings in the range of 12 45 mgd. The northern planning area
has the smallest potential water conservation savings, in the range of three to 12 mgd.


Table 2-9. Total Potential Water Conservation Savings by Planning Area
Estimated Savings (mgd)
Water Use
Sector Northern' West- East- Southern4 Total
Central2 Central3
Public Supply 0.3 -6.5 1.8 -45.5 0.5 -12.6 0.5 -13.2 3.1 -77.8
Agricultural 1.5 5.9 13.7 10.0 31.1
Commercial/Industrial 0.3-1.0 7.3-21.5 1.8-5.6 1.8-5.4 11.2-33.5
(public-supply)
Commercial/Industrial 0.9 2.7 4.2- 12.7 4.5 13.4 0.1 2.1 9.7 -30.9
(self-supplied)
TOTAL 3.0-11.7 19.2- 85.6 20.5-45.3 12.4-30.7 55.1 173.3
The northern area includes Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Levy, Marion, and Sumter counties.
2 The west-central area includes all of Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties.
3 The east-central area includes Polk, Highlands, and Hardee counties.
4 The southern area includes Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, and De Soto counties.


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-9


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996










2.2 Reclaimed Water

In the State of Florida, reclaimed water is defined as "water that has received at least secondary
treatment and is reused after flowing out of any wastewater treatment facility" (Florida Reuse
Coordinating Committee, 1993). Reuse refers to the deliberate application of reclaimed water, in
compliance with FDEP and District rules, for a beneficial purpose. Uses of reclaimed water include
agricultural irrigation, ground-water recharge, industrial processes including power plant cooling,
and irrigation of lawns, landscapes, cemeteries and golf courses. Reuse provides numerous benefits,
most notably by providing an alternate source of water which conserves ground- and surface-water
sources by offsetting the demand for these resources. Reductions in water demands reduce stress
on environmental systems and provide economic benefits by delaying costly water system
expansions.

The District has developed an effective program to promote reuse. Two mechanisms which
encourage the development of reuse systems are: 1) regulatory requirements for water use
permittees, and 2) financial assistance through the Basin Cooperative Funding Program and the
NWSI program. Regulatory policies require permitted water users to utilize the lowest quality of
water appropriate for the specific use, not cause water to go to waste, and to incorporate reuse
measures to the greatest extent practicable. Reclaimed water may be considered a lower quality
water and must be used if the water is available and is technically and economically feasible.

The District's regulatory reuse requirements are complemented by two funding assistance programs:
1) the Cooperative Funding Program, and 2) the NWSI program. The Cooperative Funding Program
will fund up to 50 percent of the cost of reuse system design and construction; pumping, storage, and
transmission facilities; and master plans. As of 1995, 90 reuse projects had been awarded
cooperative funding. When fully developed, the 90 projects will provide approximately 79.5 mgd
of reclaimed water. Cooperative funding is available for both local and regional water utilities. In
contrast, funding from the NWSI program is limited to projects that have regional water resource
benefits.

2.2.1 Reclaimed Water Developed By Currently Funded Projects

Regulatory reuse requirements, financial assistance through the Cooperative Funding Program, and
proactive efforts by local governments have greatly increased the use of reclaimed water. Between
1990 and 1995, the quantity of water reused in the District grew by 31.3 percent. During the same
time period, the quantity of wastewater generated grew by only 16 percent. In 1995, reclaimed
water use in the District totaled 105 mgd. To date, 45 of the District's 48 local governments with
wastewater treatment facilities have developed reuse systems (Figure 2-2). In some areas of the
District, the demand for reclaimed water now exceeds the available supply.

Prior to the establishment of the NWSI program in 1993, approximately 200 mgd of treated
wastewater was disposed of via percolation ponds, sprayfields, deep well injection, and discharge
to surface waters. The potential to develop additional reclaimed water supplies led to the submittal
of a number of reuse projects for NWSI funding consideration in 1994. Seven reuse projects
received NWSI funding for Fiscal Year 1995. Two additional projects will receive NWSI funding


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


Southwest Florida Water Management District


2-10










1995 NWSI Annual Report
Figure 2-2.


Major Wastewater Treatment

Plants and Reuse Systems
Location Map


Reuse Activities in 1994
No Reuse Activities in 1994

NOTE: All plant locations are approximate.




















N


10 0 10 20
scale in miles


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-11


2-11


Southwest Florida Water Management District










in Fiscal Year 1996. The nine projects will use reclaimed water for indirect potable reuse,
agricultural and residential irrigation, wetland rehydration, industrial processes, and ground-water
recharge. Together, the nine projects may provide 100 mgd of reclaimed water (Table 2-10). A
detailed description of the scope and status of each project is provided in Chapter 3 of this report.


Tahle 2-10.


Reuse Prnieets Funded by the New Water Sources Initiative


Southwest florida Water Management District 2-12


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


Total Water
Project Cooperator Project Cost Supplied
(S) (mgd)
Central Hillsborough County Hillsborough County $7,000,000 2-5
Reuse
Manatee Agricultural Reuse Manatee County $14,024,724 16.3
Supply (MARS) Project
Manatee Reuse Aquifer Manatee County $800,000 2
Storage and Recovery
Northwest Hillsborough County Hillsborough County $11,100,000 13.2
Reuse'
Pasco Rainbow Pasco County $50,000,000 15 30
WCRWSA

Plant City Reuse City of Plant City $7,705,000 2
Central Sarasota County Sarasota County $4,263,440 2.8
Reuse Project' Atlantic Utilities
Central County
Utilities
Section 21 Wellfield City of St. Petersburg $841,000 up to 4
Rehydration Pilot WCRWSA
Hillsborough County
Tampa Water Resource City of Tampa $100,000,000 50
Recovery WCRWSA
TOTAL $195,734,164 100-125
WCRWSA = West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
1) Reflects NWSI funding for Phase 1 awarded for Fiscal Year 1996.


2-12


Southwest Florida Water Management District









2.2.2 Potential Future Reclaimed Water Availability

Based on 1995 wastewater flows and reclaimed water allocated by reuse projects funded through
Fiscal Year 1996,.approximately 70 80 mgd of reclaimed water are available for use (Table 2-12).
Assuming that 25 to 30 percent of the reclaimed water offsets potable use, a water savings of 21 mgd
to 24 mgd could be obtained by developing additional reclaimed water supplies.

Short-term, mid-term, and long-term reuse goals are presented in Table 2-11. Key short term goals
are to continue implementing ongoing reuse projects and to develop programs at large facilities that
are not reusing their water. Seven utilities potentially have more than 2 mgd of available reclaimed
water (Table 2-12). The seven utilities are: City of Bradenton, Charlotte County, City of
Clearwater, Florida Cities Water Company, the City of St. Petersburg, the City of Sarasota, and the
City of Tampa. Some of the "available" reclaimed water shown in Table 2-12 represents water that
was discharged due to the lack of demand during wet weather periods. Most of the utilities with
available reclaimed water are in the process of developing/ expanding reuse systems or are
investigating additional reclaimed water storage capabilities.

A critical short-term reuse goal is to determine the feasibility of indirect potable reuse. The
feasibility study for the Tampa Water Resource Recovery Project will determine if reclaimed water
can be used to augment surface waters which are used for drinking water supplies. If feasible, up
to 50 mgd may be used to augment the Hillsborough River. In addition, feasibility studies for the
Section 21 Wellfield Pilot and the Pasco Rainbow Project will determine if reclaimed water can be
used for wellfield rehydration and/or augmentation of lakes and wetlands. Up to 30 mgd of
reclaimed water may be available for wellfield rehydration and lake and wetland augmentation. The
outcome of these feasibility studies will determine the future potential for indirect reuse projects.

Mid- to long-term reuse goals center on optimizing reuse through regionalization and
interconnection, more efficient use, and by reducing wet-weather discharge. By developing regional
reuse systems consisting of multiple sources and demand centers, it will be possible to maximize
reclaimed water utilization, minimize reclaimed water deficits, and increase the amount of potable
water offset. Reclaimed water use efficiency can be improved by metering water use, promoting
conservation of reclaimed water, and educating water users on lawn, turf, and crop water
requirements.

Because large quantities of reclaimed water must be discharged during wet weather periods when
supplies exceed demands, additional quantities of reclaimed water could be utilized if cost-effective
storage facilities could be developed. Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems may eventually
be used to store and recover reclaimed water (see Section 2.4.2). No ASR systems for reclaimed
water are currently operational in the United States, however, the City of St. Petersburg, Charlotte
County, and Manatee County are investigating the feasibility of reclaimed water ASR The Manatee
Reclaimed Water ASR Project is discussed in Section 2.4.2 of this report.


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-13


2-13


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


Southwest Florida Water Management District










Table 2-11. Reuse Goals in the SWFWMD
SHORT TO MID-TERM GOALS
Continue ongoing reuse projects
Develop reuse systems for utilities that do not have reuse programs
Determine the feasibility of indirect potable reuse
surface water augmentation
wellfield recharge
Determine feasibility of ASR for reclaimed water

MID TO LONG-TERM GOALS


Optimize reuse by reducing inefficient use of reclaimed water
Optimize reuse by regionalization and interconnection of facilities
Optimize reuse by reducing wet-weather disposal


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-14


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


2-14


Southwest Florida Water Management District








1995 NWSI Annual ReortJ


Table 2-12. Available Reclaimed Water in the SWFWMD
Reuse Potential
1995 1995 Planned by Available
Waste Reuse Ongoing Reclaimed
Utility Water Flow' Flow' Projects' Water3
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd)

CHARLOTTE COUNTY
Charlotte County (3 plants) 4.1 1.5 0.9 1.7
Englewood Water District 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2
Punta Gorda, City of 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
CITRUS COUNTY
Crystal River, City of 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0
Inverness, City of 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0
DE SOTO COUNTY
Arcadia, City of 0.9 0.1 1.2 0.0
HARDEE COUNTY
Wauchula, City of 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

HERNANDO COUNTY
City ofBrooksville4 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.0
Southern States Utilities 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0
HIGHLANDS COUNTY
Avon Park, City of 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8
Sebring, City of 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY
Hillsborough County Utilities 24.1 6.4 21.7 0.0
(8 plants) ___


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-15


Southwest Florida Water Management District


1995 NWSI Annual ReDort


January 1996


2-15










Table 2-12. Available Reclaimed Water in the SWFWMD (continued)
Reuse Potential
1995 1995 Planned by Available
Waste Reuse Ongoing Reclaimed
Utility Water Flow' Flow' Projects2 Water3
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY (continued)
McDill Air Force Base 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0
Plant City, City of 3.4 0.1 3.4 0.0
Tampa, City of 57.3 0.7 50.0 6.6

MANATEE COUNTY
City of Bradenton 5.0 0.7 0.0 4.3
Manatee County (3 plants) 15.7 6.8 16.3 0.0
Palmetto, City of 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.2
PASCO COUNTY
Aloha Utilities 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9
Dade City, City of 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7
Lindrick Service Corporation 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5
New Port Richey, City of 4.5 0.0 4.0 0.5
Pasco County Util. (4 plants) 7.3 5.7 5.9 0.0
Zephyrhills, City of 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.7
PINELLAS COUNTY
Clearwater, City of (3 plants) 15.4 0.7 0.0 14.7
Dunedin, City of 4.5 1.0 2.1 1.4
Largo, City of 12.0 6.0 4.5 1.5
Oldsmar, City of 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.0


Southwest Florida Water Management District


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


2-16









Table 2-12. Available Reclaimed Water in the SWFWMD (continued)
Reuse Potential
1995 1995 Planned by Available
Waste Reuse Ongoing Reclaimed
Utility Water Flow' Flow1 Projects2 Water3
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
PINELLAS COUNTY
(continued)
Pinellas County (7 plants) 33.1 7.5 24.1 1.5
St. Petersburg, City of 49.2 20.6 4.7 23.9
(4 plants)

POLK COUNTY
Aubumdale, City of 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0
Bartow, City of 3.0 3.0 4.0 0.0
Fort Meade, City of 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.0
Garden Grove Water Assoc. 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0
Haines City, City of 1.2 1.2 1.6 0.0
Lake Wales, City of 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Lakeland, City of (2 plants) 13.4 13.4 0.0 0.0
Polk County Util. (6 plants) 2.0 0.5 5.7 0.0
Winter Haven, City of 4.0 4.0 0.1 0.0
(2 plants)
SARASOTA COUNTY
Atlantic Utilities 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.0
Central County Utilities 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.0
Florida Cities Water Company 2.9 0.2 0.0 2.7
(2 plants)
North Port, City of 1.4 0.1 0.9 0.4
Sarasota, City of 7.2 1.5 1.8 3.9


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-17


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


2-17


Southwest Florida Water Management District







1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


Table 2-12. Available Reclaimed Water in the SWFWMD (continued)
Reuse Potential
1995 1995 Planned by Available
Waste Reuse Ongoing Reclaimed
Utility Water Flow' Flow' Projects2 Water3
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
SARASOTA COUNTY
(continued)
Sarasota Cty./enice Gardens 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0
Siesta Key Utilities 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8
Venice, City of (2 plants) 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 298.0 95.1 157.7 74.6

POTENTIAL POTABLE 28.5
WATER OFFSET5

PLANNING AREA
TOTALS

Northern 4.4 4.4 0.4 0.0

West-Central 215.7 49.8 121.4 53.5

East-Central 29.8 24.5 12.0 3.8

Southern 48.1 16.4 23.9 17.3
Source: SWFWMD, 1995, 1995 Annual Reuse Report. Unless otherwise noted, table only provides data
for wastewater treatment plants with permitted capacities of 1.0 mgd or greater.
2 Based on SWFWMD Cooperative Funding and New Water Sources Initiative projects. Because planned
reuse may be based on future wastewater flows, the planned reuse shown in the table may exceed the
1994 wastewater flow.
3 District total available reclaimed water is estimated as the sum of the available reclaimed water for each
plant. For each plant, the available reclaimed water is estimated as the 1994 wastewater flow minus the
sum of the 1994 reuse flow and the amount of water allocated by ongoing reuse projects.
4 Flows represent combined total for Croom Road and School Street plants.
5 Based on the assumption that 30 percent of the reclaimed water offsets potable water use.


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-18


Southwest Florida Water Management District


2-18










23 Surface Water

Six streams within the Southwest Florida Water Management District are used for municipal water
supplies. The supplies serve the cities of Tampa, Bradenton, Punta Gorda, Port Charlotte, North
Port, and Manatee and Sarasota counties (Table 2-13). In 1994, a total of 104 mgd was withdrawn
from these six sources.

The potential exists to develop additional surface water quantities by expanding existing facilities,
constructing new reservoirs, and developing ASR systems to store and recover water during periods
of high flow. The use of surface waters must be carefully managed to protect the environmental
quality of the natural resources. Rivers, springs, lakes, and estuaries are among Florida's most
valuable assets, not only for their inherent aesthetic and ecological values but also for the significant
economic benefits they render to tourism, sport and commercial fishing, real estate development,
and the general perception of the quality of life in the state. The utilization of surface waters for
water supply purposes should be done from the perspective of multi-purpose management, which
includes the water needs of the natural resource for ecological functions, aesthetic qualities, and
recreational use.

The District's Needs and Sources study evaluated the dependable yield of selected surface waters.
The District determined that natural lakes are not a reliable source for major water supplies due to
the sensitivity of lake levels to changes in rainfall and ground-water levels. Yields from surface
water bodies were estimated according to the technical criteria contained in the District's Water Use
Rules and Basis of Review. Potential surface water yields are listed in Table 2-14. According


Table 2-13.


Surface Water Sources Currently Beinf Used in the SWFWMD~~M


. . . . . . . . . .. if,- -- --= . . .
1994 Permitted 1994 Actual
Average Daily Average Daily
Stream Utility Withdrawal Withdrawal
(mgd) (mgd)
Braden River City of Bradenton 5.6 5.6

Hillsborough River City of Tampa 82.0 59.1
Manatee River Manatee County 34.9 27.3
Myakkahatchee Creek City of North Port 2.1 0.9
Peace River PR/MRWSA 8.6 7.9
Shell Creek City of Punta Gorda 4.2 3.4
TOTAL 137.4 104.2
PR/MRWSA = Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority


1995 NWSI Annual Renort


January 1996


Southwest Florida Water Management District


2-19








January 1996


Table 2-14. Potential Surface-Water Yields in the SWFWMD
Dependable Net
Location Annual Permitted Available
Surface Water Map Relative Yield' Withdrawals Yield2
ID to WUCAs (mgd) (mgd) (mgd)

Peace River (Ft Ogden) 19 Southern 32.6 8.6 24.0
Charlie Creek 16 Southern 14.0 0.0 14.0

Shell Creek 20 Southern 18.3 42 14.1

Myakka River 12 Southern 14.1 0.0 14.1

Manatee River 10 Southern 34.9 34.9 0.0

Braden River 11 Southern 5.6 5.6 0.0

Little Manatee River 9 Southern 8.6 8.6 0.0

Alafia River
-Mainstem 7 Southern 19.6 0.0 19.6
South Prong 8 7.7 0.0 7.7

Hillsborough River/ Tampa 6 Northern Tampa (3) 82.0 (3)
Bypass Canal Bay
Lake Rousseau 21 None 50.0 0.0 50.0

Weeki Wachee River 5 None (4) -

Chassahowitzka River 4 None (5)

Homosassa River 3 None (5)

Crystal River 2 None (4) -
Withlacoochee River 1 None (4) -

TOTAL 143.5
WUCA = Water Use Caution Area
Notes:
(1) Yield based on ten percent diversion unless otherwise noted.
(2) Net yield computed as difference between dependable annual yield and permitted withdrawal.
(3) Under evaluation by SWFWMD.
(4) New surface water reservoir determined to not be feasible, necessary, or cost-effective.
(5) Stream not considered an optimal water supply due to proximity to coast and tidal influences.

Sources:
(a) Hazen and Sawyer, 1994. Economic Impact Statement for Revisions to Chapter 40D-2, FA.C., Water Use
Permitting, and Chapter 40D-8, F.A.C., Water Levels and Rates of Flow, Including Rules Specific to the
Southern Water Use Caution Area, prepared for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Project No.
P261, Table 9.1.1.
(b) Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1992, Water Supply Needs and Sources: 1990-2020.


1995 NWSI Annual Report


Southwest Florida Water Management District


2-20









to the table, an estimated 143.5 mgd of surface water may be available in the District. Most of the
available water (nearly 100 mgd) is located in the southern portion of the District (Figure 2-3).
Streams which could provide additional water include the Peace River, Shell Creek, the Myakka
River, and the Alafia River. It should be noted that although these sources are available, it may not
be possible to develop selected surface water supplies due to economic, political, or environmental
constraints.

Table 2-14 indicates that the largest potential surface water source is Lake Rousseau. Lake
Rousseau is located in the northern portion of the District in Citrus and Levy counties. Due to the
small demand for new water supplies in this area, it is not likely that Lake Rousseau will be
developed as a water source in the immediate future. Although the Tampa Bay area is in need of
additional water supplies, the District's policy of "local sources first" requires communities to
develop all locally available sources of water, including desalinated seawater, prior to considering
the development of water sources outside the local area.

The Peace River is the second largest potential surface water source in the District. Recognizing
the ability for new surface water sources to relieve stress on ground-water systems, the District
approved the Peace River Option in 1994 as a NWSI cornerstone project. The Peace River Option
is a cooperative effort between the District and the Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply
Authority. As of 1994, the amount of water provided from the Peace River was limited by the
capacity of the water treatment plant. The NWSI project will provide an additional 6 mgd of surface
water from the river by upgrading the water treatment plant capacity and constructing additional
aquifer storage and recovery wells to capture high river flows.

2.4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery

The process of storing water in an aquifer when water supplies exceed demand and subsequently
withdrawing the water when the supplies are low and/or demands are high is known as aquifer
storage and recovery (ASR). Generally, the ASR process involves withdrawing water from a river
during periods of high flow in the river. The river water is treated to meet drinking water standards
and wells are used to pump the treated water into an aquifer. When the water is needed, the same
wells are used to remove the water from the aquifer. The water is then disinfected, retreated if
necessary, and pumped into the potable water distribution system.

ASR is a relatively new technology which arose from studies of artificial recharge methods. Early
experiments conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in the late 1940s tested the storage and
recovery of treated water in a brackish aquifer. Early experiments did not progress into practical
water supply operations, possibly due to well plugging problems, cost issues, and because water
supply needs were met by conventional sources such as wellfields, dams, and reservoirs (Pyne,
1995). However, by the 1980s, increasing water demands and the recognition of environmental
constraints to water resource development led to the recognition of ASR as a viable water
management approach. In addition to providing seasonal storage for drinking water supplies, ASR
technology could also provide other water management benefits including long-term storage,
emergency storage, disinfection by-products reduction, restoration of ground-water levels, water


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


Southwest Florida Water Management District


2-21










1995 NWSI Annual Report


Figure 2-3.


Surface Water Supply Sources
Location Map


Sites evaluated for surface water supplies
in the Southwest Florida Water
Management District


10 0 10 20
sce in miles


5otws flrd Wate Maaemn Ditit22


Water Storage Facilities Evaluated
o Offstream Reservoir

x Instream Reservoir

I1 Both Instream and Offstream
Reservoirs Evaluated

A Direct Withdrawal, No Reservoir

1 Site Number


2-22


Southwest Flornda Water Management District









quality improvement, enhancement of wellfield production, and reclaimed water storage (Pyne,
1995).

2.4.1 Potable Water ASR

As of 1994, there were 20 operational ASR projects in the United States, with about 40 additional
projects in the process of being designed and constructed. Two operating ASR facilities are located
in the Southwest Florida Water Management District: the Peace River ASR facility and the Lake
Manatee ASR facility (Figure 2-4). The use of ASR for the Peace River will be expanded under the
Peace River Option. The potential use of ASR for potable water is being investigated by the City
of Tampa (Hillsborough River) and the City of Punta Gorda (Shell Creek). Both the Tampa
Northwest ASR Project and the Punta Gorda/Shell Creek ASR projects are partially funded by the
New Water Sources Initiative program.

2.4.2 Reclaimed Water ASR

ASR could improve reuse system efficiency by increasing the utilization of wet weather flows.
Reclaimed water could be stored during wet periods when excess water is available and recovered
for use during periods of high demand. The use of ASR systems for reclaimed water may be both
viable and cost-effective (Pyne, 1995). Although no reclaimed water ASR systems are currently
operational, the Orange County Water District in California and the cities of El Paso, Texas, and
Gainesville, Florida, inject reclaimed water into aquifers used as potable water supplies. The City
of Gainesville uses injection as a disposal method for reclaimed water. The City of El Paso uses
reclaimed water to recharge the aquifer.

The City of St. Petersburg, Charlotte County, Hillsborough County, and Manatee County are
investigating the seasonal use of brackish water aquifers as storage zones for reclaimed water. The
Manatee County Reuse ASR project is one of the 12 NWSI cornerstone projects. The largest issue
confronting reclaimed water ASR projects is the permittability of such projects from a regulatory
viewpoint due to the potential for impacting potable water withdrawals. The quality of the injected
reclaimed water would be the same as the quality of reclaimed water that is currently provided to
customers for residential irrigation. A key issue is the ability to demonstrate reliable treatment of
the reclaimed water that will consistently meet regulatory standards. Another issue is that it may
be difficult to find sites suitable for reclaimed water ASR An aquifer used for reclaimed water
storage cannot be used as a potable water supply source at a later date. Although aquifer zones of
poorer water may be easier to permit for reclaimed ASR, even aquifer zones of poor water quality
may be suitable as potable water supplies with proper water treatment.

2.5 Stormwater

Stormwater refers to water that flows across the land surface as a result of rainfall events.
Stormwater can be collected, stored, and depending on the level of treatment, used for lawn and
landscape irrigation, recreational lakes, ground-water recharge, industrial cooling and process water,
and other nonpotable uses.


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-23


Southwest Florida Water Management District


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


2-23










1995 NWSI Annual Report


Figure 2-4.


Aquifer Storage

and Recovery Systems
Location Map


10 0 10 20
scale in miles


Southwest Florida Wo2er Management District 2-24


Planned System *

Feasibility Study

Existing System *

Tampa ASR O

Lake Manatee ASR O

Peace River ASR 0

Punta Gorda/Shell Creek ASR O

Manatee County Reclaimed ASR 0

St. Petersburg Reclaimed ASR 0


Southwest Florida Water Management District


2-24







January 1996


In many parts of the world, especially islands, cisterns are used to capture rain water which may be
used as both an irrigation source and a source of drinking water. In the Southwest Florida Water
Management District, cisterns are allowed to be used for both potable and non-potable water sources
in Sarasota and Charlotte counties. The District is examining the feasibility of cistern usage and is
funding the cistern and XeriscaperM project at the Hillsborough County Courthouse. A District
study completed in 1990 found that a typical residential cistern could result in a water savings of
between 15 and 30 percent. Under drought conditions, the water savings would be substantially less.
A conclusion of the 1990 report was that despite the potential water savings, the capital and
maintenance costs required to operate a cistern probably make cisterns economically unfeasible to
many residents. Admittedly, the 1990 report did not consider cistern use in conjunction with
XeriscapeM practices which would reduce the cistern size and cost.

Stormwater may be collected, conveyed, and stored using grassed swales, vegetated buffers,
wetlands, and stormwater detention ponds. Detention ponds are generally constructed in association
with large residential, commercial, or industrial developments to provide flood control and water
quality benefits. Unlike retention ponds, which allow stormwater to completely infiltrate through
the pond bottom, detention ponds serve as storage areas that maintain a permanent water level. If
properly constructed, detention ponds may provide aesthetic benefits and wildlife habitat. Water
stored in detention ponds may be withdrawn for a variety of uses including industrial cooling and
process water, lawn and landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and golf course irrigation.

In the District, few cisterns are in use, possibly due to the relatively high costs associated with
cistern construction and maintenance. Because most cisterns capture only a small volume of water,
their potential to serve as regional water sources is limited. A number of detention ponds in the
SWFWMD capture stormwater which may be subsequently used for lawn, landscape, and golf
course irrigation. However, like cisterns, small local stormwater ponds typically are not large
enough nor do they hold adequate quantities of water at high demand times to justify the pumping,
piping, and potential treatment costs to distribute water on a regional or subregional basis.

Two NWSI projects propose to utilize stormwater, when available, to provide regional water
resource benefits. The Section 21 Rehydration Pilot project will investigate the feasibility of using
stormwater combined with reclaimed water for wellfield rehydration. In the Manatee Agricultural
Reuse Supply project, stormwater may be combined with reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation.
The two projects will demonstrate the feasibility of stormwater reuse as a potential alternative water
source.

2.6 Desalination

Increasing demands for water throughout the U.S. and Florida have prompted the consideration of
new sources and technology. Brackish water and seawater desalination are increasingly being
viewed as viable alternatives to supply part of this growing demand and alleviate stress on
traditional fresh ground-water sources. The abundance seawater in Florida makes the state a natural
candidate for desalination technology.



Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-25


1995 NWSI Annual Report










The process of desalination involves treating mineralized water that varies in salinity from slightly
more saline than drinking water to seawater to remove dissolved solids. The two major methods by
which dissolved solids are removed from water are distillation and membrane processes. In the
United States, membrane processes are the most common method of desalination. Reverse osmosis
(RO) and electrodialysis reversal (EDR) are two types of membrane processes presently in use. In
California and Florida, RO is the most popular method of desalination.

Reverse osmosis utilizes the natural process known as osmosis. Osmosis is the flow of a fluid across
a semi-permeable membrane from a dilute solution to a more concentrated solution. By applying
a pressure to the concentrated solution, such as brackish water, the flow can be reversed. In effect,
water flows through the membrane and is separated from dissolved solids to produce finished water.
The ratio of finished water to raw water is termed recovery, and can be as high as 85 percent for
brackish water.

2.6.1 Brackish Water

Brackish water is water which has a total dissolved solids concentration greater than 1,000 parts per
million (ppm) but less than 35,000 ppm. In contrast, seawater has a total dissolved solids
concentration of about 35,000 ppm. In the United States, there are 880 operating brackish water
desalination plants. California and Florida are the major users of desalination technology, providing
water for industry, municipalities, and power plants. As of 1994, there were 176 brackish water
desalination plants in Florida, producing approximately 50 million gallons per day of fresh water.
Many of these plants (over 60 percent) are small-scale facilities, producing less than 250,000 gallons
per day. Over 85 percent (156 plants) of the facilities use reverse osmosis.

There are 45 brackish water desalination plants in the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. Figure 2-5 shows the locations of some of the major plants. Most of the desalination plants
are located along the coastal margin of Charlotte, Pinellas, and Sarasota counties. The 16 major
desalination plants produce over 25 mgd of fresh water (Table 2-15).

One of the more significant problems facing the desalination industry is disposal of the brine
concentrate. At present, the concentrate is classified as an industrial waste by the FDEP and a
permit is required for its disposal. Surface water discharge is the primary method of brine disposal
in Florida. Many of the FDEP toxicity tests performed on concentrates derived from brackish water
in Florida plants appear to exceed regulatory discharge standards. Reasons for this are as yet
unknown, however, FDEP is involved in examining the problem and is working to resolve the issue.

An alternate disposal method presently in use in the cities of Venice and Englewood is deep well
injection. Brine concentrate injection wells have been classified by the FDEP as Class I industrial
deep injection wells. To prevent contaminant migration and ensure ground-water protection, these
wells have strict design and construction standards with stringent monitoring requirements, making
them economically unfeasible for most of the smaller RO plants.

Production costs are a key factor in determining the potential for additional brackish water
desalination in Florida. A 1990 survey of eight brackish water desalination plants in Florida yielded


2-26


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


Southwest Florida Water Management District









1995 NWSI Annual Report


Figure 2-5.


Major Brackish-Water
Desalination Plants
Location Map


10 0 10 20
scale in miles


Southwest Florida Woier Management District 2-27


Disposal Method
* DeepWell Injection
* Surface-Water Discharge


Southwest Florida Water Management District


2-27









Table 2-15. Major Brackish Water Desalination Plants in the SWFWMD

Brine Concentrate
Raw Finished Disposal
Water Water
Map Plant Surface Deep Well
ID (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
1 City of Dunedin' 7.70 6.50 1.20 0.00
2 City of Wauchula' 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.00
3 City of Sarasota 4.48 3.36 1.12 0.00
4 Camelot Lakes 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.00
5 Sun N Fun Resort 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.00
6 Southbay Utilities 0.48 0.37 0.11 0.00
7 Sorrento Utilities 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.00
8 Sarasota County 7.30 5.80 0.00 1.50
9 City of Venice 5.08 2.54 2.54 0.00
10 Venice Gardens 2.17 1.79 0.00 0.38
11 Plantation 0.34 0.15 0.00 0.19
12 Charlotte Harbor 0.49 0.37 0.12 0.00
13 Englewood 2.74 2.33 0.00 0.41
14 Rotunda West 0.87 0.52 0.35 0.00
15 Gasparilla Island 0.78 0.75 0.03 0.00
16 Southern States 0.23 0.17 0.06 0.00

TOTAL 33.95 25.84 5.65 2.48


Values represent 1990 quantities except for 1, 8, and 9 which were obtained in 1994.
'Membrane softening


Southwest Florida Water Management District 2-28


Southwest Florida Water Management District


2-28


1995 NWSI Annual Report


naJ uary 1996









production costs ranging from $0.86 to $6.89 per thousand gallons. However, the production costs
were not evaluated consistently and total project costs were not always included. In addition, plant
sizes were variable, ranging from nine million gallons per year to over 2,500 million gallons per
year. A 1989 feasibility study of a 4.25 mgd RO facility in Pinellas County estimated production
costs at approximately $1.50 per thousand gallons.

The potential exists to develop additional brackish water desalination plants in the Southwest Florida
Water Management District. Potential sites for additional brackish water desalination plants in
Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties were identified in the West Coast Regional Water Supply
Authority (WCRWSA) Resource Development Plan (WCRWSA draft, 1994). However, it is
difficult to estimate the actual quantity of brackish water available in the District. It should be
recognized that there are finite limits to brackish ground-water resources and the potential for water
quality degradation and seawater intrusion exists if brackish ground-water is not properly managed.

2.6.2 Seawater

The first seawater desalination plant was constructed in Kuwait in 1949. The plant had an initial
capacity of 12 mgd which was later increased to 5.8 mgd. By the 1970s, plants were built or under
construction in the United States, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Italy, Spain, and other
countries (Boyle Engineering Corporation, 1991). There are two seawater desalination facilities in
the United States located in Key West, Florida and Santa Barbara, California. As of Spring 1995,
both plants were in stand-by mode and were not being operated due to the availability of other water
sources.

Similar to brackish water desalination, two issues have hindered the widespread development of
seawater desalination plants; the high cost of water production (particularly as it relates to energy
costs) and problems associated with disposal of the brine waste product. To resolve these issues,
the District has been conducting independent research and working with the Electric Power
Research Institute and the University of South Florida. The District has also initiated discussions
to address the concerns of the Environmental Protection Agency and the FDEP regarding brine
disposal for seawater desalination.

The issue regarding brine disposal is the concern that returning highly concentrated seawater to the
Gulf of Mexico may harm natural aquatic systems. District sponsored research has successfully
demonstrated that through dilution, it is possible to safely return the concentrated brine to the Gulf.
The co-location of a seawater desalination plant with an existing surface water discharge permit,
such as that held by electric power generating facilities, may provide the ideal solution to this
problem.

Although it appears that seawater desalination costs are greater than the costs of water supplied by
traditional sources, it must be recognized that traditional sources are limited and have significant
costs associated with them that go beyond dollars and cents. An often overlooked and critical cost
related to traditional water sources, such as ground water, is environmental damage to wetlands,
lakes, and other surface-water features.


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


Southwest Florida Water Management District


2-29










Estimates of seawater desalination costs suggest that costs may be on the order of $4.00 per
thousand gallons. Since economies of scale are often associated with large facilities, desalinated
water from a 20 mgd or 50 mgd facility may cost less. The cost to end water users will be lower if
desalinated seawater is blended with traditional ground- and/or surface-water sources. Seawater
desalination provides a drought-resistant, sustainable water source which is not known to harm the
environment. When blended with other sources, desalinated seawater can be affordable as well.

Recognizing the potential for seawater desalination, the Governing Board has tentatively committed
$50 million for desalination projects and has budgeted $2 million in Fiscal Year 96 (FY 96). Five
Basin Boards are considering funding desalination: Alafia, Coastal, Hillsborough River, Northwest
Hillsborough, and Pinellas-Anclote. The Pinellas-Anclote Basin Board has budgeted $600,000 and
the Northwest Hillsborough Basis Board has budgeted $100,000 in FY 96.

2.7 Water Resource Enhancement Projects

Water resource enhancement projects may indirectly provide water by increasing ground- or surface-
water levels. Water levels may be increased by augmenting surface-water systems, rehydrating
aquifers, or by reducing surface or ground-water losses. Ground-water and surface water
enhancement projects can provide numerous benefits including water supply augmentation, water-
quality improvements, restoration of wetland function, and the enhancement of wildlife habitat.

Three of the 12 NWSI cornerstone projects are water resource enhancement projects. The three
projects are the Section 21 Wellfield Rehydration Pilot, the Pasco Rainbow, and the Peace Creek
Canal Project. The Section 21 Rehydration Pilot project and the Pasco Rainbow project originated
from the need to rehydrate the aquifer and restore declining lake and wetland water levels in the
vicinity of large public supply wellfields. As part of the two projects, the feasibility of using
reclaimed water and stormwater for wellfield rehydration will be investigated. Feasibility studies
will address water quantity and quality, health concerns, permitting issues, cost allocation, and
public acceptance.

The Peace Creek Canal project involved a one-year feasibility study to evaluate flood control
options which would increase wildlife habitat (through wetland creation/restoration), improve
surface water quality and storage, and potentially use surface waters for restoration of lake and
aquifer levels in the Highlands Ridge area.

The potential for future water resource enhancement projects will to some extent, depend on the
success of current projects. As an example, the possibility of using reclaimed water and stormwater
from the City of Plant City for large-scale wetland restoration on the Cone Ranch property has been
proposed (Greenways Task Force, 1994). The Cone Ranch property is the proposed site of a future
municipal wellfield. The potential for wetland restoration on the Cone Ranch property may depend,
in part, on the success of the Section 21 and Pasco Rainbow projects.

Potential water resource enhancement projects eligible for future NWSI funding include projects that
modify surface water flows, optimize water withdrawal strategies, maximize ground- and surface-
water levels, and/or improve natural ecological functions.


January 1996


1995 NW~CT Annual Renort


2-30


Southwest.Florida Warter Management District









2.8 Summary of Potential Alternative Water Sources

Alternative water source projects which could be funded by the NWSI program include
conservation, reclaimed water, surface water, ASR systems, stormwater, brackish water and
seawater desalination, and water resource enhancement. Based on available data, more than
200 mgd of alternative water sources, not including conservation, could be developed in the District.
Conservation could provide an additional 175 mgd of available water. A summary of available
water by source type is provided as Table 2-16.

As indicated in the table, surface water and seawater desalination offer the largest potential for
future alternative water source development Indirect potable reuse and large-scale stormwater reuse
projects are in the early stages of feasibility studies and their future potential will likely depend on
the outcome of current projects. Water resource enhancement projects, such as wellfield
rehydration, may potentially augment water sources and increase ground- or surface-water levels.


Table 2-16.


Estimated Available Alternative Water Sources in the Southwest Florida Water


Management District
Estimated Quantity Available (mgd)
Alternative Water
Source Type Northern' West- East- Southern4 TOTAL
Central2 Central3
Conservation
Public Supply 0.3 6.5 1.8 -45.5 0.5 12.6 0.5 13.2 3.1 77.8
-Agriculture 1.5 5.9 13.7 10.0 31.1
-Industrial 1.2-3.7 11.5-34.2 6.3-19.0 1.9-7.5 20.9-64.4
Reclaimed Water 0.0 53.5 3.8 17.3 74.6
Surface Water 50.0 ) 0.0 93.5 143.5
Seawater Desalination unlimited unlimited N/A unlimited unlimited
TOTAL >61.7 > 139.1 49.1 > 141.5 > 391.4
Water conservation projects are generally ineligible for NWSI funding since these projects
provide local rather than regional water resource benefits.

SThe northern area includes Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Levy, Marion, and Sumter counties.
2 The west-central area includes all of Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties.
3 The east-central area includes Polk, Highlands, and Hardee counties.
4 The southern area includes Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, and De Soto counties.
5 The safe yield of the Hillsborough River is under evaluation.


1995 NWSI Annual Report


January 1996


Southwest Florida Water Management District


2-31




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs