Wastewater Treatment and Reclaimed Water Reuse in Arizona ...
Santa Fe Basin Study and Reclaimed Wastewater Feasibility ...
Transcript of Santa Fe Basin Study and Reclaimed Wastewater Feasibility ...
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
1
Santa Fe Basin Study and Reclaimed
Wastewater Feasibility Study
Prepared for the Santa Fe Commission on Sustainability
Andrew Erdmann
Water Resources Coordinator
12.14.16
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
2
Presentation Topics
• Background on Santa Fe Water
− Conservation
− Demand
• Basin Study
− Process
− Findings
• Reclaimed Wastewater Feasibility Study
− Process
− Findings
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
3
Santa Fe’s industry-leading conservation
programs are working
Customers
Consumption
(gpcd)
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
4
Conservation and conjunctive use have led to
greater sustainable water supply
Potable Water Demand
Surface Water Use
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
5
Santa Fe Basin Study
• Developed through preliminary assessment of ongoing practices and public outreach
• Evaluation of water supply and demand for City-County combined water system in 2055, based on climate and population projections
• Development of proposed adaptation strategies
Reclaimed Wastewater Feasibility Study
• Still in Draft Form
• Detailed evaluation of proposed adaptation strategies
• Ranking of strategies based on Triple Bottom Line analysis
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
6
Basin Study:
Projected Climate Changes
Key Takeaways: • Upward of 75% Snowpack Reduction by the
2070s
• 5 Degree F Temperature Increase by 2050
• Higher Evapotranspiration Rates
• Potentially Greater Monsoonal Intensity
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
7
Basin Study:
Historic Climate Variability
City
Well
Field
Buckman
Well Field
Buckman Well
Field expansion
and Direct
Diversion
New water supply sources added
during times of drought
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
8
Santa Fe Basin Projected 2055 Water Supply Gap
Climate Scenario
Simulated Historic
(no climate
change)
Central
Tendency
Warm-
Wet Hot-Dry
Total Demand - Average
Annual (AFY) 21,643 22,925 22,646 23,299
Total Supply - Average Annual
(AFY) 16,488 15,550 16,304 13,976
Water Supply Gap – Difference
between Demand and Supply
(AFY)
-5,155 -7,375 -6,342 -9,323
Basin Study: Projected Gap between
Water Supply and Demand (2055)
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
9
Basin Study: Developing Adaptation
Strategy Portfolios using WaterMAPs
Preliminary Assessment
Fill Supply Gaps
Sustainable Groundwater Pumping
90% of years, deficits are less than 100 AFY
Weighted Criteria and Scoring
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
11
Basin Study: Water Reuse Availability
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Acre
Feet
per
Year
Total Demand
Reclaimed Wastewater Produced
Reclaimed Wastewater Used
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
12
Climate change will impact
supply AND demand
Shortages up to 9,300 AFY
by 2055
Expanding water reuse is
key for mitigating gaps
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
14
How Much Water is Available for Reuse?
0
1
2
3
4
5
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Mo
nth
ly A
vera
ge F
low
(m
gd
)
Assumed Releases to Lower Santa Fe River
Existing Non-Potable Reuse Contracts
1,500 AFY
Remaining Discharge Available for Additional Reuse
2,400 AFY
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
15
Water Reuse Feasibility Study Alternatives
Expand Non-
Potable Reuse
Rio Grande Return Flow
Credits
Indirect or Direct
Potable Reuse
Advanced Water
Purification Facility
Conveyance Conveyance Conveyance
Enhanced Living River and
Aquifer Storage & Recovery
Aquifer Storage & Recovery via
Lower Santa Fe River
Buckman Wells ASR
Augment Nichols Reservoir
Direct Potable Reuse
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
16
Cost-Effectiveness Varies Widely
Highest cost per
acre-foot of water
supply benefit
Lowest
cost
per AF
+130
AFY +1300 to +2300 AFY
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
17
Preliminary Alternatives Screened
to Four Using Weighted Screening
Criteria
Expand Non-
Potable Reuse
Rio Grande Return Flow
Credits
Indirect or Direct
Potable Reuse
Enhanced Living River and
Aquifer Storage & Recovery
Aquifer Storage & Recovery via
Lower Santa Fe River
Buckman Wells ASR
Augment Nichols Reservoir
Direct Potable Reuse
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
18
+2300 A
FY
• Reroute up to 3 mgd WRF discharge by pumping to Rio Grande
• Exchange for Rio Grande water
• Divert additional 2300 AFY through existing Buckman system
Alternative 2 Full Use of SJCP Rights via Rio Grande Return Flow Credits
Up
to
3 m
gd
Paseo Real WRF
Buckman WTP
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
19
Alternative 3 Enhanced Living River and Upper Santa Fe River Recharge
• Discharge to Upper Santa Fe River at Two Mile
• Living River
• Divert via upper aquifer wells below Siler Road
Up to 3 mgd
Paseo Real WRF
Recovery
Wells
Advanced
Water
Purification
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
20
Alternative 4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery via Lower Santa Fe River
• Discharge to Lower Santa Fe River at Siler Rd.
• Divert via upper aquifer wells below Siler Road
Up to 3 mgd
Paseo Real WRF
Recovery
Wells
Advanced
Water
Purification
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
21
Up
to
3 m
gd
• Up to 3 mgd to Advanced Water Purification Facility
• Pump to Buckman WTP for blending with Rio Grande raw water & further treatment
Alternative 7 Direct Potable Reuse
Paseo Real WRF
Buckman WTP
Advanced Water
Purification Facility
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
22
Decision Scores using TBL Criteria
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
2: Rio Grande Return
flow credits / exchange
7: Direct Potable Reuse
4: ASR via Lower SFR
3: Enhanced Living
River & ASR
Weighted Decision Score
ECONOMIC: Cost-Effective Supply Augmentation
SOCIAL: Public Benefit and Social Acceptability
ENVIRONMENTAL: Protect and Sustain the Environment
TECHNICAL: Timely Implementability and Operability
TECHNICAL: Project Risk Mitigation
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
26
Challenges in Expanding Non-Potable Reuse:
Seasonal Demand, Limited Summer Supplies
+45 AFY
+130 AFY
Demand is Highest when Available Supply is Lowest!
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
33
Significant Potential for a
Multi-Benefit Project?
• Living River
• Soil aquifer
treatment
• Recharge
• Preserve
storage in
Canyon
Reservoirs
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
35
Climate change will impact
supply AND demand
Shortages up to 9,300 AFY
by 2055
Expanding water reuse is
key for mitigating gaps
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
36
Triple Bottom Line analysis
ECONOMIC: Cost-Effective Supply Augmentation
SOCIAL: Public Benefit and Social Acceptability
ENVIRONMENTAL: Protect and Sustain the Environment
TECHNICAL / OTHER: Timely Implementability and Operability
TECHNICAL / OTHER: Project Risk Mitigation
Subcriteria and performance measures further define each criterion
Weighted criteria decision model
illustrates tradeoffs with sensitivity analyses
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
37
Decision Scores using TBL Criteria
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
2: Rio Grande Return
flow credits / exchange
7: Direct Potable Reuse
4: ASR via Lower SFR
3: Enhanced Living
River & ASR
Weighted Decision Score
ECONOMIC: Cost-Effective Supply Augmentation
SOCIAL: Public Benefit and Social Acceptability
ENVIRONMENTAL: Protect and Sustain the Environment
TECHNICAL: Timely Implementability and Operability
TECHNICAL: Project Risk Mitigation
Highest Water Supply Benefit,
Lowest Cost
Minimal Additional Piping for
Future Connection
Future Stormwater
Recharge?
Use Reservoir Bypasses
for Living River
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
38
Key Takeaways
Conservation and
sustainable supplies
are critical
Expanding
non-potable reuse
would fall short of
supply goals
Higher supply benefit
more cost-effective
Full use of SJCP rights
via Rio Grande Return
Flow Credits: cost-
effective and simple