Centralized versus Decentralized Wastewater Reclamation in the Houghton Area of Tucson, Arizona
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 139, Issue 3
Abstract
Reclaimed wastewater is increasingly important to satisfaction of water-sustainability objectives in water-short municipalities throughout the United States and particularly in the Southwest. Water reclamation and reuse present new challenges for urban planners, who now tend to consider renewable freshwater and reclaimed wastewater as unique parts of a single water resources portfolio. Efficiency objectives in geographically dispersed communities lead planners to explore the relative merits of centralized versus decentralized wastewater-treatment capacity when new construction is required. However, the complexity of the planning landscape—in which existing water distribution and sewerage capacities; geographic factors; and uncertainty in growth projections, energy cost, and even the sustainability of existing freshwater supplies contribute to plan selection—suggests that decision support methods can usefully supplement engineering judgment to find a near-optimal level of decentralization in facilities planning. In this study, an existing decision support system (DSS) was modified to include costs attributable to infrastructure construction, operation, and maintenance for wastewater collection and transmission of both potable and reclaimed water at the regional (city or city subsection) level to aid water supply planning. The modified DSS was then applied to a study area in southeast Tucson, Arizona. Several scenarios are developed and compared on the basis of cost and energy consumption. A sensitivity analysis is provided. In general, increased peripheral demand, limited existing capacity, greater elevation differences, and lower discount rates favor decentralized design and construction.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 083590. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We gratefully acknowledge the WateReuse Foundation’s financial, technical, and administrative assistance in funding and managing the project through which this information was discovered. The comments and views detailed herein may not necessarily reflect the views of the WateReuse Foundation, its officers, directors, employees, affiliates, or agents.
References
Arizona Dept. of Water Resources (ADWR). (2010). “Tucson active management area.” DRAFT Demand and Supply Assessment, Phoenix.
Asano, T. A., ed. (1998). “Planning issues.” Wastewater reclamation and reuse, Technomic, Lancaster, PA, 396–407.
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). (2005). “Cost estimate classification system: As applied in engineering, procurement, and construction for the process industries.” AACE International Recommended Practice 18R-97, Morgantown, WV.
“Current cost indices.” (2011). Engineering News-Record, 〈http://enr.construction.com/economics/〉 (Jan. 2011).
Davis, S. (2009). Decision support system for selection of satellite vs. regional treatment for reuse: Final project report and user manual, WateReuse Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
Davis, S., and Osgood, S. (2008). “Satellite versus regional treatment: A new tool for a big choice.” Proc., 23rd Annual WateReuse Symp., WateReuse Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
Dove, L. A. (1977). “From wastewater to resource in St. Petersburg, Florida.” Resour. Recovery Conserv., 2(4), 329–336.
Johnson, W. D. (1991). “Dual distribution systems: The public utility perspective.” Water Sci. Technol., 24(9), 343–352.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (2008a). “Potable and reclaimed water conceptual plan.” Houghton Area Master Plan (Houghton Area): Final Rep., Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Dept., Tucson, AZ.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (2008b). “Wastewater conceptual plan.” Houghton Area Master Plan (Houghton Area): Final Rep., Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Dept., Tucson, AZ.
Miles, S. W., Bonné, R. P., Fisher, R. K., and Ammerman, D. K. (2001). “Reclaimed water offsets peak potable demands in Cary, NC.” Proc., WEFTEC 2001 (Session 31–40), Water Environment Foundation, Alexandria, VA, 108–116.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2008). “Grand challenges for engineering.” 〈http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/8996/9136.aspx〉 (Dec. 2011).
Okun, D. A. (2000). “Water reclamation and unrestricted non-profitable reuse: A new tool in urban water management.” Annu. Rev. Public Health, 21(1), 223–245.
Pacific Institute. (2004a). “Agricultural water to air model.” 〈http://www.pacinst.org〉 (Dec. 1, 2004).
Pacific Institute. (2004b). “Urban water to air model.” 〈http://www.pacinst.org〉 (Dec. 1, 2004).
Serchuk, D. (2009). “Calculating the true cost of carbon.” Forbes, 〈http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/cap-and-trade-intelligent-investing-carbon.html〉 (Jun. 2, 2011).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008). EPANET 2.00.12 [Computer software]. Washington, DC.
Woods, G., et al. (2011). “Water management by optimizing distributed wastewater reclamation capacity.” Proc., 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 139 • Issue 3 • May 2013
Pages: 313 - 324
Copyright
© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Aug 18, 2011
Accepted: Mar 30, 2012
Published online: Apr 3, 2012
Published in print: May 1, 2013
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.