Integrated water management

1. Integrated water management • Goal: balance water supply and demand by identifying feasible alternatives that meet the test of least cost without sacrificing other needs. • Principal Methods: • Demand management by utilities (e.g., conservation pricing) – discussed previously. • Depleted aquifer recharge/seasonal groundwater recharge. • Wastewater reuse/recycling. • Regional planning & collaboration to capitalize on existing resources, eliminate duplication, manage growth, avoid cost of new supplies.

2. Recycled wastewater treatment process • Primary Treatment – removes 70-85% percent of organic and inorganic solids (non-potable uses; re-circulate in wastewater applications). • Secondary Treatment – mixes remaining suspended solids with microorganisms and air. Micro-organisms convert solids to biomass that settles out (municipal fountains, gardens, UCI). • Tertiary Treatment – filters out remaining solids through granular media (e.g., sand, coal) or a membrane, with final product water disinfected with chlorine or ultraviolet light to kill bacteria, viruses, other microorganisms (potable use).

3. Recycled wastewater • Fountain Valley Groundwater Replenishment system /Orange County– $480 million facility • Provides tertiary treatment of wastewater -- 70 million gallon/day – half distributed to Anaheim; percolates into GW basin; half to Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley; injected into GW wells. • Reduces needs for imported and diverted freshwater. • Reduces wastewater-generated pollution. • Replenishes regional aquifer (62% on N. Orange County’s water is GW). • Provides a barrier against saltwater intrusion.

4. Public perceptions of recycled water • Stigma – so-called “toilet to tap” issue: • Studies indicate potable re-use safe, doubts over safeguards remain. • In less affluent areas, those with abandoned waste sites, contaminated aquifers recycling proposals may arouse mistrust. • Public support ambivalent even in areas under water stress: • San Diego Institute for Policy Research (2007) – only 44% favor WWR. • On learning most of their drinking water is recycled (from Colorado River), 63% of residents were in favor, 28% stated “no.” • Awareness of public opposition to WWR efforts in Los Angeles, San Diego led to public outreach effort in Orange County: • Tailored talks to community groups – promoted safety, benefits.

5. A local example THE GREAT THIRST Tapping into the future The mayor's water conservation plan is a worthy first step. Los Angeles Times May 18, 2008 It's long past time for Los Angeles' leadership to get serious about saving water -- and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's new water-supply action plan is a responsible effort to move beyond our hysterical past to a reasonable future.Designed to make sure the city can meet all of its new demands for water through conservation and recycling, the plan calls for enforcing a 1991 ordinance restricting water use, including prohibitions against hosing down driveways and watering lawns in the middle of the day. It lays out a strategy to recover some of the millions of gallons of rainwater that flow to the ocean each year and promises to push the federal government to clean up the San Fernando Groundwater Basin, a key source that also happens to be a Superfund site. The city will spend $2.3 million on an awareness campaign. It will offer rebates for efficient appliances. It will install "smart irrigation controllers" in parks and will require new development to comply with green standards. It was tiresome, if somewhat predictable, that the media focused on just one aspect of the plan: water recycling for indirect potable use, sometimes referred to, vividly, as "toilet to tap." Gerald A. Silver, president of the Homeowners of Encino and an opponent of an earlier recycling program, told The Times it was "grossly unfair" for the mayor to decide that residents should reuse water.

6. Ecological challenges to water policy • 22% of the state’s 122 remaining native fish species are listed as threatened or endangered under state and U.S. Endangered Species Acts. • Another 45% percent are imperiled or qualified for listing. • More than 90% of California’s lakes, rivers and streams are listed as “impaired;” cannot be used for one or more of their intended uses (e.g., drinking, irrigation, fishing, swimming) (USEPA). • At least nine of the state’s 131 native fish species have become extinct since California became a state. • Surface water quality impairment as a result of high fecal bacteria levels from storm-water runoff are common – crosses political boundaries & watersheds.