Florida Water Resources Journal - February 2019 by Florida Water Resources Journal

Editor’s Office and Advertiser Information:

Florida Water Resources Journal 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive Clermont, FL 34711 Phone: 352-241-6006 • Fax: 352-241-6007 Email: Editorial, editor@fwrj.com Display and Classified Advertising, ads@fwrj.com

Business Office: P.O. Box 653, Venice, FL 34284-0653 Web: http://www.fwrj.com General Manager: Editor: Graphic Design Manager: Mailing Coordinator:

Michael Delaney Rick Harmon Patrick Delaney Buena Vista Publishing

Published by BUENA VISTA PUBLISHING for Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc. President: Richard Anderson (FSAWWA) Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Vice President: Lisa Prieto (FWEA) Prieto Environmental LLC Treasurer: Rim Bishop (FWPCOA) Seacoast Utility Authority Secretary: Holly Hanson (At Large) ILEX Services Inc., Orlando

Moving? The Post Office will not forward your magazine. Do not count on getting the Journal unless you notify us directly of address changes by the 15th of the month preceding the month of issue. Please do not telephone address changes. Email changes to changes@fwrj.com, fax to 352-241-6007, or mail to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711

Membership Questions FSAWWA: Casey Cumiskey – 407-979-4806 or fsawwa.casey@gmail.com FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318 FWPCOA: Darin Bishop – 561-840-0340

Training Questions FSAWWA: Donna Metherall – 407-979-4805 or fsawwa.donna@gmail.com FWPCOA: Shirley Reaves – 321-383-9690

For Other Information DEP Operator Certification: Ron McCulley – 850-245-7500 FSAWWA: Peggy Guingona – 407-979-4820 Florida Water Resources Conference: 407-363-7751 FWPCOA Operators Helping Operators: John Lang – 772-559-0722, e-mail – oho@fwpcoa.org FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318

Websites Florida Water Resources Journal: www.fwrj.com FWPCOA: www.fwpcoa.org FSAWWA: www.fsawwa.org FWEA: www.fwea.org and www.fweauc.org Florida Water Resources Conference: www.fwrc.org Throughout this issue trademark names are used. Rather than place a trademark symbol in every occurrence of a trademarked name, we state we are using the names only in an editorial fashion, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. None of the material in this publication necessarily reflects the opinions of the sponsoring organizations. All correspondence received is the property of the Florida Water Resources Journal and is subject to editing. Names are withheld in published letters only for extraordinary reasons. Authors agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Florida Water Resources Journal Inc. (FWRJ), its officers, affiliates, directors, advisors, members, representatives, and agents from any and all losses, expenses, third-party claims, liability, damages and costs (including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees) arising from authors’ infringement of any intellectual property, copyright or trademark, or other right of any person, as applicable under the laws of the State of Florida.

2018 FSAWWA Fall Conference Recap 19 24 29 30

General Information, Contest Winners, Events Awards Conference Sponsors Incoming Chair Reception and Barbeque

News and Features

Columns

4 Insane in the Membrane: Operators and the Future of Wastewater Operations—Jason Judd 34 2019 FWPCOA Officers and Committee Chairs List 60 From AWWA: Water Equation and AWWA Sections Positively Impact Water Heroes! 65 News Beat 71 FSAWWA Awards

Technical Articles

16 FWRJ Reader Profile—Patrick (Murph) Murphy 46 C Factor—Mike Darrow 54 Test Yourself—Donna Kaluzniak 69 FSAWWA Speaking Out—Michael F. Bailey

Departments 72 Service Directories 75 Classifieds 78 Display Advertiser Index

36 Testing Partially Treated Surface Water for Aquifer Storage and Recovery at the Peace River Facility—Ryan Messer, Mike Coates, Jon Ouverson, Pete Larkin, and Mark McNeal 48 Innovative Disposal of Reverse Osmosis Concentrate in Central Florida—Michael L. Weatherby, Deborah Beatty, Mark B. McNeal, and Jon Fox 56 Toho Water Authority’s Unique Approach to Pricing Irrigation Water—Andrew Burnham, David Hyder, and Patrick Luce 62 A Unique Alternative Water Supply in the Central Florida Water Initiative Area: The Judge Farms Project—A. Dale Helms, Saurabh Srivastava, David MacIntyre, and Deborah Beatty

Education and Training 9 17 32 39 43 45 51 55 61 77

Florida Water Resources Conference FWPCOA Spring Short School FWPCOA Online Training FSAWWA Fall Conference Call for Papers AWWA/WEF Utility Management Conference CEU Challenge FWPCOA Training Calendar FSAWWA Drop Savers Contest TREEO Center Training FSAWWA Roy W. Likins Scholarship

Volume 70

ON THE COVER: Attendees in the exhibit hall at the 2018 FSAWWA Fall Conference. The full conference recap begins on page 19.

February 2019

Number 2

Florida Water Resources Journal, USPS 069-770, ISSN 0896-1794, is published monthly by Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc., 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711, on behalf of the Florida Water & Pollution Control Operator’s Association, Inc.; Florida Section, American Water Works Association; and the Florida Water Environment Association. Members of all three associations receive the publication as a service of their association; $6 of membership dues support the Journal. Subscriptions are otherwise available within the U.S. for $24 per year. Periodicals postage paid at Clermont, FL and additional offices.

POSTMASTER: send address changes to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

Insane in the Membrane: Operators and the Future of Wastewater Operations Jason Judd There’s been an increasing amount of chatter in regards to the future of wastewater and water treatment plants. Utilities continue to jockey for the best access to the precious resource of water. I’m sure you’ve heard how scarce freshwater is in the western United States. Florida hasn’t had such extreme measures of scarcity as, for example, California, but the state is preparing for its water needs. What that means exactly is different for each water organization. This article will explain some issues that affect Florida’s water supply, what technology the industry will likely utilize to address these issues, and what wastewater operators can do to prepare for the future.

Problems and Solutions Florida has a unique problem: How can we be running out of water when we have so much of it in and around the state? Can’t we just take water from the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean? Yes and no. Both bodies of water are very salty. Desalination is expensive and building a desalination plant is not an economical or environmental choice for many municipalities. There’s plenty of fresh surface water and water in the aquifer, right? Some municipalities are closer

to large freshwater sources than others. Many water plants are receiving freshwater from deep wells that take it from the Florida aquifer. There is enough freshwater for now, but taking from our freshwater sources is not sustainable. Many deep wells are being abandoned because of mineralization, and they can no longer pump quality water. Freshwater lakes, like Lake Okeechobee, are facing environmental disaster and are caught in a political tug of war about how to save them. There is only a small portion of the aquifer that is high-quality freshwater, and lower zones of the aquifer are brackish water and saline water. Saltwater, being heavier than freshwater, sinks to the deepest points and remains undesirable for potable water use. There are more economical resource recovery and/or replenishment methods. Many municipalities across Florida started utilizing their effluent by sending it to customers for reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is wastewater that has been treated and can be used for irrigation, industry, and agriculture. Using wastewater effluent as reclaimed water alleviates some of the demand on a potable water system and reduces surface water discharge. Some municipalities are still buying freshwater from their neighboring utilities to supplement their drinking water. There are also a number of organizations buying reclaimed water because their utility doesn’t produce enough wastewater effluent to keep up with the reclaimed water demand. Tighter regulations may also be ahead of us.

City of Clearwater reverse osmosis #2 plant with reverse osmosis membranes.

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Red tide and the blue/green algae issues are increasingly getting worse for the state. Some believe these issues are related to fertilizer runoff, which contains nitrogen and phosphorus. The nation has seen Florida’s surface water issues lately on national news broadcasts and in the print media, and there might be more discussion about lowering nitrogen and phosphorus limits or other further regulations. There are some throughout the industry already struggling to meet stricter permit limitations. Other problems municipalities face are what is dumped down the drain. Rags, trash, and pharmaceuticals, such as antibiotics, synthetic estrogen, and opiates, are among some of the many things found in wastewater influent. Scientists have also studied the effects of personal care products, soluble metals, and pesticides in wastewater. One solution for many of these issues is becoming increasingly clear and gaining popularity throughout the industry: membranes. I took a class called “Process Control of Advanced Waste Treatment Plants” earlier this year in Marathon. This class taught me quite a bit and opened my eyes to the future of membranes in water and wastewater. I had heard of membrane bioreactors (MBRs) previously, but hadn’t given them much thought. After my class, I passed a few small wastewater treatment plants on my way back home to St. Petersburg. As I drove through the Florida Keys, I continued to think about membranes. I conducted some research when I got home. The MBRs throughout the Keys have a small footprint and produce an effluent that meets the strict state guidelines. They are a combination of wastewater treatment processes and membrane systems and can be retrofitted to old wastewater plants fairly easily. I was asked by some colleagues about membranes again a few months after I took the class. I had to do more research to find out why membranes kept coming up in conversation. California is leading the way in “toilet to tap” water recycling, but Florida currently (and luckily) doesn’t have such hard-pressed issues as in the West. My research provided enough information that I can inform you, my fellow operators, about membrane technology and explain why I believe this could be our future. I began my official education at the Florida Section American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) Region IV and X Joint Workshop, Continued on page 6

Continued from page 4 “Understanding the Alphabet Soup of Membranes.” Plant operators don’t always hear about future projects or where the industry is going. We aren’t always involved in upper-management meetings and operators aren’t typically thrilled about adding classes or workshops to their workday or their valuable days off. The workshops and conferences, however, are a great way to keep up with new technology and where the industry is headed. I will give you a list of resources at the end of the article, but first, let me help you put all of this together. Let’s start calling “toilet to tap” either potable reuse (PR) or indirect potable reuse (IPR). Resource recovery and IPR are what Florida will focus on, and I will explain why I believe this shortly. The IPR is injecting wastewater effluent into a source in which a water treatment plant extracts a blended water resource to be purified and provides it to customers for consumption. Direct potable reuse (DPR) is where no environmental buffer is present and the wastewater treatment plant effluent is directly pumped into the water treatment process to supplement the drinking water supply. Some of us operate reclamation facilities that produce reclaimed water, which is called resource recovery and uses wastes as input material to create valuable

products as new outputs1. Pelletizing sludge and utilizing the methane from digesters are also examples of resource recovery. Wastewater effluent can be more than reclaimed water. Many IPR projects have been established in the United States, and generally, they involve using reclaimed water to recharge groundwater aquifers and augment surface water reservoirs that are used as drinking water supplies2. Replenishing the aquifer makes more sense than releasing a valuable freshwater resource into saltwater or brackish water. Freshwater is far scarcer than saltwater and I believe Florida will focus on IPR because it’s more cost-effective than other options. The IPR replenishes a valuable resource while reducing discharges to surface water, and it has the environmental buffer, which is much more palatable to the public. Where do membranes come in? The use of membranes is getting more popular. You can find reverse osmosis (RO) in many applications, including drinking water treatment processes, household systems, portable systems used by the military, the food industry, large aquarium systems, and many other systems that utilize water and wastewater. Membrane systems might be retrofitted at a plant near you. You may see RO plants popping up

Pinellas County solid waste power plant cooling water supplied by the county’s industrial wastewater treatment plant.

Microfiltration at the Pinellas County industrial wastewater treatment plant.

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

a short distance from wastewater treatment plants. The Tampa Bay Water Desalination Plant utilizes RO to treat seawater, which can be used for drinking water, according to its website3. It’s possible that the plants can be combined and produce drinking water directly from wastewater treatment plant effluent. Hillsborough County was the first utility in Florida to run a pilot project for direct potable reuse. Membranes provide flexibility to meet the many challenges utilities face. The utility’s finished water met drinking water standards and was even used in the brewing of craft beer4. Membrane systems also provide a smaller footprint for those utilities that have little room to expand. The Pine Island and Flamingo Bay sites are packaged plants in south Florida’s Everglades National Park. The two wastewater treatment facilities treat wastewater for a combination of parks, maintenance buildings, and residential housing. Two FastPac™-immersed MBR packaged plants from USFilter will be installed for the park's Pine Island area located in Dade County and the Flamingo Bay area located in Monroe County5. The upgrades are necessary for meeting stringent Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requirements, which would have made the Flamingo facility obsolete. I had the opportunity recently to visit two plants that use membranes. The first plant I visited was the Pinellas County Solid Waste Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is a unique plant that treats landfill leachate. The property is selfcontained, with a clay bed and a collection system that transports all runoff to the treatment facility. The runoff from the landfill is treated by a small wastewater treatment facility. Once the solids are separated from the water, the water continues through three stages of filtration: microfiltration, cartridge filtration, and RO. The effluent is then provided to the onsite power plant for its cooling towers. This plant is fairly compact, with an abundance of meters and analyzers. Frank Ciafone, who is a level A wastewater treatment plant operator, is the courteous and very knowledgeable plant operator who gave me the tour. The second plant where I took a tour is a brackish water treatment plant in Clearwater, which caters to a mixed population of residents and tourists. The city is taking a proactive approach to preparing for high water demands and water scarcity issues. Fred Hemerick, the water production coordinator for the city, showed me the plant and provided tremendous insight regarding what water and wastewater treatment changes we may see in the future. Clearwater’s brackish water plant is an RO facility that uses ozone for treatment of hydrogen sulfide. The Pinellas County solid waste facility and the Clearwater RO #2 plant were very clean and Continued on page 8

Continued from page 6 there is an obvious focus on preventing contaminants and providing a quality product. I found the RO plants to be small, but this comes from a wastewater treatment plant operator who has operated large activated sludge plants. The plant tours were interesting and I began to visualize how wastewater plants and water plants could work together in the future in regards to resource recovery.

Membranes are the Future Membranes seem to be the best technology for the water scarcity battle as they remove bacteria, viruses, inorganics, natural organics, microorganisms, and pesticides. The membrane is semipermeable, having pores to allow water through, while rejecting particles and ions; the smaller the pore size, the better the membrane will be at rejecting them. Pressurized water is pushed through the semipermeable membrane. The smaller pore membranes require more pressure, which in turn requires more electricity. The pressure and electricity requirements are what make desalination impractical for many applications. Thinking like a wastewater operator, I looked at the membrane system like an activated sludge plant, where there are different levels of treatment. The first stage for retreatment is microfiltration (MF), which utilizes large pores for handling larger particles and eliminates Cryptosporidium and Giardia. The second level of treatment is ultrafiltration (UF), which uses a membrane with slightly smaller pores and eliminates some viruses and humic materials. The third level of treatment is nanofiltration (NF), using 90 to 150 pounds per square inch (psi) to remove humic material, bacteria, viruses, and virtually all cysts. Lastly, and with the smallest-pore membrane in the treatment process, is RO, which achieves 92 to 99 percent rejection of dissolved organics. Pretreatment is essential to membrane filtration, as a

particle equal to something much smaller than a human hair will foul a membrane. Membranes get expensive to replace and the operators I’ve spoken to have expressed that cleaning membranes can be labor-intensive. During my plant tours I learned that, with membranes, operators can expect to monitor pressure, temperature, water velocity, pH, permeate production, recovery rate, and conductivity. Operators make process adjustments to avoid things like scaling and membrane damage. I heard terms like sonic wave sensing, particle counting, bubble point testing, biological monitoring, and silt density testing. All of the data are collected to monitor membrane performance, membrane integrity, water quality, and overall plant performance. At the tours I went on, there were no messy solids handling and no endless dissolved oxygen readings.

Get Yourself Up to Speed There have not been any changes to licensing requirements at this time regarding membranes. There are discussions regarding future changes, possibly creating a combination license, for example. Any changes in the FDEP rules will certainly be announced in publications like this one. Continue pushing yourself to achieve those A level water and wastewater operator licenses. My advice is to always prepare yourself for the future. If you have your A license in water or wastewater, then try for a dual license. Dual licensing is not possible for some, so here are some other ideas: S The Southeast Desalting Association (SEDA) holds classes that educate membrane plant operators on the specifics of membrane applications and operations. S The University of Florida TREEO Center also has a number of great classes to prepare you for a membrane plant. For example, a class on FDEP’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) for water sampling and meter testing, paired

with its introduction to SOPs for groundwater, would be a great start to making heads or tails out of all the meters, sampling, and FDEP requirements. Always contact any school to determine its curriculum and ensure that you’re able and eligible to attend its classes or certification programs. Finally, get involved with organizations like the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association (FWPCOA), Florida Section American Water Works Association (FSAWWA), Florida Water Environment Federation (FWEA), and the Florida Rural Water Association (FRWA). These organizations provide a variety of resources, classes, short schools, workshops, and conferences, and can answer your questions. Getting involved will help you be the best you can be and add value to you as an employee. You’re on your way to being a part of your organization’s resource recovery plans and Florida’s future!

Acknowledgments I’d like to thank the following for their assistance with this article: Fred Hemerick, water production coordinator, City of Clearwater; Frank Ciafone, operations specialist, Pinellas County Utilities; and Wayne Longhurst, operations specialist, Pinellas County Utilities.

References 1. Wikipedia, June 2018 – Resource Recovery, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_recovery. 2. American Water Works Association, Potable Reuse 101: An innovative and sustainable water supply solution. April, 2016. 3. https://www.tampabaywater.org/tampa-bayseawater-desalination-plant. 4. Xylem 2018, http://makingwaves.xylem.com/florida-directpotable-reuse. 5. h t t p s : / / w w w. w a t e r wo r l d . co m / a r t i c les/2004/03/everglades-national-park-selectsmembrane-technology-for-wastewater-treatme nt.html.

Resources Available • • • • • • •

Cartridge filtration at the Pinellas County industrial wastewater treatment plant.

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

www.southeastdesalting.com www.treeo.ufl.edu www.fsawwa.org www.fwpcoa.org www.fwrc.org www.fwea.org www.frwa.ne

Jason Judd, BBA, is a class A wastewater operator. S

February 2019 â&#x20AC;¢ Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;¢ February 2019

February 2019 â&#x20AC;¢ Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;¢ February 2019

February 2019 â&#x20AC;¢ Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;¢ February 2019

FWRJ READER PROFILE Industries, a chemical plant in Bartow, working with all aspects of the shipping department (rock unloader, bulk loader, acid loader, payloader and tractmobile operator, anhydrous ammonia and sulfur loader/unloader) for three years, then moved to the uranium recovery facility onsite for three years. I spent the last two years as a maintenance mechanic and welder in the sulfuric acid plant.

Patrick (Murf) Murphy City of Plant City

Work title and years of service. I became the chief plant operator at Plant City about a year after being hired in 2003, so I have fifteen and a half years of service with the city. Plant City is the Winter Strawberry Capital of the United States (three-fourths of the nation’s midwinter strawberries come from here), and is also the home of the Florida Strawberry Festival, which will next be held February 28 through March 10. I worked at the City of Lakeland from 1987 to 2003, most of that 16-year span as the chief plant operator of the Glendale Wastewater Treatment Plant (a 13.7-mgd facility after being upgraded twice), getting trickling filter and anaerobic digestion experience. I also received hazardous materials and hazardous waste operations and emergency response training as a member of the emergency response team. I started there the day after I left the City of Winter Haven, where I worked from 1985 to 1987. Most of that time was at Plant #3 (Pollard Road in Wahneta), a 5-mgd wastewater facility, with some time at the Lake Conine Plant #2 (a 1.2-mgd facility). From 1977 to 1985, I worked at Farmland

What does your job entail? I supervise and operate the Plant City Water Reclamation Facility (10 mgd), the reuse facility, and four water treatment facilities. I manage the HachWIMS (water information management system) database; oversee the Trihedral VTScada telemetry system; prepare the discharge monitoring reports and operating reports each month; review bimonthly, quarterly, and semiannual/annual reports for submittal; work on capital improvement projects; assist with standard operating procedures, budgetary concerns, and technical memos; and try to provide guidance for the great group of operators that keep us in compliance! I also hog the job of being the tour guide for groups that come to visit (just because I love it) and submit award nominations for the operators and the facilities as often as possible. What education and training have you had? Besides high school and a little college, the bulk of my education has come from on-the-job training, “trial by fire,” correspondence courses, and short schools and seminars through FWPCOA, FWEA, AWWA, and Florida Rural Water Association (FRWA); reading and rereading various white papers and articles from the Florida Water Resources Journal; and from some of the amazing engineers, vendors, regulators, and operators that I’ve had the opportunity to work with and learn from.

From left: Murf, Tim Harley, and Mike Darrow at the 2018 Florida Water Resources Conference picking up the FWEA Earle B. Phelps First Place Award for Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility for the City of Plant City.

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

What do you like best about your job? I really love my job, so picking something I like best is very difficult. I really enjoy giving tours, getting to meet different folks (some who know nothing about our industry) and sharing what we do with them. I like that our city elders and citizens are supportive of the needs of our infrastructure and operations. I wouldn’t want to work here if the teamwork wasn’t exceptional, but saying that, we are all on the same team, protecting the health of citizens and preserving Florida’s natural resources. I look forward to visitors—engineers, vendors, students, and other operators—because everyone has something to offer that will help us be better, will ask questions that make us think, and will keep me up to date on what other folks are doing in the industry. What professional organizations do you belong to? I’ve been a member of FWPCOA for approximately 32 years now, and I’m currently the organization’s state secretary treasurer/elect. I’ve been a member of FWEA and FSAWWA for almost six years and am also a member of the WateReuse Association (about a year) and FRWA (since 2004), both through city memberships. I am also an original card-carrying member of Friends of Ol’ Marvel (FOOM), Marvel Comics' self-produced fan magazine of the mid-1970s. I still have all 22 issues, besides the personal issues I’m eaten up with. How have the organizations helped your career? I was coerced/mentored by Mary Katherine Kinloch in 1988 to teach class C preparatory courses for wastewater, and if that don’t shed shyness quickly, nothing will. She also got me Continued on page 18

From left: David, Murf, and Nestor pose before the FSAWWA Fishing Tournament in July 2018.

Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association

FWPCOA STATE SHORT SCHOOL March 18 - 22, 2019 Indian River State College - Main Campus – FORT PIERCE –

COURSES Backflow Prevention Assembly Tester..............................$375/$405

Utility Customer Relations I, II & III ..................................$325/$325

Backflow Prevention Assembly Repairer..........................$275/$305

Utilities Maintenance III & II ..............................................$325/$325

Backflow Tester Recertification ..........................................$85/$115

Wastewater Collection System Operator C, B & A .. .......$325/$325

Facility Management Module I ........................................$275/$305

Water Distribution System Operator Level 3, 2 & 1.... ......$325/$325

Reclaimed Water Distribution C, B & A ............................$325/$325 (Abbreviated Course) ....................................................$125/$155

Wastewater Process Control ............................................$225/$255 Wastewater Troubleshooting ............................................$225/$255

Stormwater Management C, B & A .................................$260/$290

For further information on the school, including course registration forms and hotels, visit: http://www.fwpcoa.org/SpringStateShortSchool

SCHEDULE CHECK-IN: March 17, 2018 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. CLASSES: Monday – Thursday........8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday........8:00 a.m. to noon

FREE AWARDS LUNCHEON P Monday, March 18, 4:30 p.m. P

For more information call the

FWPCOA Training Office 321-383-9690 Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

From left: Joe Keinke, Environmental Protection Commission; Brandon Wilde, Erica Peck, and Kyle Hurin, Florida Department of Environmental Protection; and Murf during an October 2018 construction engineering inspection of the water reclamation facility.

From left: Adrian Smude, Steve Hollencamp, Mary Smude, Arley Smude, Jay Hollencamp, and Murf on the “Cocktail, Caviar, and Friends” tour of the water reclamation facility in December 2018.

Murf, with wife Casey and youngest daughter Alexis, at Niagara Falls in October 2018.

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Continued from page 16 involved with the State Exam Review Committee, where I was fortunate to work with Bill Allman and Jeff Dupont for about five years, which was a real confidence builder and learning experience. There are too many others to count, but I would call out the FWPCOA state officers (beside Rim Bishop, who’s still standing) who have provided an example of dedication and professionalism, and a good portion of them are still extremely active in the organization and have multiple memberships. I'm going to blame Greg Chomic for not getting me involved in FWEA sooner; egad, but I missed a lot of amazing networking, rubbing elbows with engineers and vendors alike! I was a late starter with FSAWWA also, since Plant City requires dual certification in wastewater and drinking water, but the reference documents alone are worth the membership. Then there’s the Florida Water Resources Conference (my Disney World), where you can learn about techniques and technologies that will keep your head spinning for weeks. What do you like best about the industry? Never a dull moment, and it’s a neverending learning experience. What other industry can one work in, be making a difference for the environment, protecting the public, and most of the time not get shot at? There’s more changes coming (direct potable reuse being one), but hopefully, most of the changes won’t be like that first bite of possum, which swells as you chew it and you’ve got to keep chewing enough to swallow it. What do you do when you’re not working? I tunnel through the firewall with a virtual private connection to see what’s going on at work. My wife Casey is very supportive of my activities for work and with the associations, so I try not to push my luck there. I’m usually in and out without being noticed, unless I see something that I need to call in about. I love fishing, golfing, shooting pool, and darts, but I’m not good enough at any of them to pay bills and usually only half-heartedly plan at doing any of them, unless someone pushes me. Three quarters of my life I barely made it out of Polk County, so my wife (from New York, and a world traveler) of 16 years made it her mission to get us out of the state at least once a year, for confirmation that bumpkins don’t explode and “crackers” don’t crumble if they cross the state line. S

RECAP OF 2018 FSAWWA FALL CONFERENCE

2018 FSAWWA Fall Conference: Planning the Future of Water Peggy Guingona The Florida Section of the American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) celebrated its 92nd year of commitment and dedication to the world’s most important resource by hosting its 24th Fall Conference, with the theme, “Planning the Future of Water,” from November 25-29 at the Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate. The yearly event, which attracted 1700 attendees, included water utility executives and managers, engineers, educators, manufacturers, consultants, operators, students, and others from the water profession. A total of 175 exhibit booths were sold. There were plenty of opportunities to meet old colleagues and make new friends at the continental breakfasts, lunches, meet-and-greet receptions, golf tournament, Poker Night and Happy Hour, and annual BBQ Challenge and reception to welcome the incoming chair, Mike Bailey.

Opening General Session The Opening General Session (OGS) on Monday afternoon is one of the conference’s mustattend events and has been a part of the conference since 2013. The keynote speaker this year was Tim Gard, CSP, CPAE, who is a very funny presenter. Gard is a motivational speaker who consistently inspires positive and lasting change with the use of humor as a skill, at both work and home. Individuals, groups, and organizations of all kinds around the globe have learned through laughing for more than 20 years with Gard. He encourages and inspires audience participants to take the serious things seriously, while taking themselves lightly, and therefore gaining the critical skill of approaching challenges with a “can do” and cooperative attitude. When this ability is developed within an individual, he or she can then support teammates and coworkers to efficiently problem-solve, work together, and stay on track— because “negativity” is suddenly a nonoption! As a matter of fact, Gard was the subject of many conversations during the conference. The attendees were commenting all week that they had so much fun and his presentation was a wonderful way to start the conference. It’s on me to find a keynote speaker for 2019 to best him! The FSAWWA always strives to outdo each fall conference.

BBQ Challenge and Incoming Chair’s Reception On Monday evening, the conference held the fifth BBQ Challenge, which was open to all attendees. It was also an opportunity to introduce and welcome the incoming chair, Mike Bailey (for more information, see page 30).

Technical Program The excellent technical program is successful every year through the dedicated efforts of Dr. Fred Bloetscher. In 2018, the Monday specialty workshops were offered, as they have been in the past. The workshops were: S Laws and Ethics S Affordability of Water S Selling Your Brand S Science of Water: Is Our Water Safe to Drink? S Automation Workshop Tuesday and Wednesday technical sessions focused on the conference’s theme. The sessions included: S Management and Leadership S Southeast Desalting Association/American Membrane Technology Association (SEDA/AMTA) Membrane Technologies S Solutions to Address Your Big Water Distribution Challenges

S S S S S S S

How to Evaluate and Measure Corrosion Saving on Your Sewer Collection System Membranes 2 Case Studies in Water Treatment Advances Pipe Design Potable Reuse: Becoming a Reality for Florida? Geographic Information Systems and Computer Operations to Help Manage the System S Water Quality On Wednesday, the Water Use Efficiency Division held a water conservation symposium. The topics included: S Net Blue: Water Neutral Growth from the Alliance for Water Efficiency S Tampa Bay Water Offset Expansion Program S Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department: Declining Per Capita Through Planning and Implementation of Water Conservation Strategies S Cluster of Updates, or Conservation Snippets

Exhibits The exhibit hall, which had 160 booth spaces and 15 tabletops, gave attendees another chance to network and learn about the latest and most innovative products and services in the water industry. Company representatives were available each day to help attendees solve their problems and meet future challenges. Continued on page 20

Opening General Session

Tim Gard, keynote speaker.

Pictures of the happy crowd (top) and those who participated in the presentation (bottom).

Ray Baral, AWWA vice president and visiting officer.

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

RECAP OF 2018 FSAWWA FALL CONFERENCE

Continued from page 19

Meetings

Water Bowl Front row, left to right: Daniel Whalen, Carlyn Higgins, and Angela Rodriguez; back row: Jessica Cormier, Daniel Cardona, Tulsi Shukla

Dr. Steve Duranceau (back row, third from left) with past and present University of Central Florida students.

The FSAWWA Executive Committee held its meeting on Sunday morning, followed by the board of governors meeting in the afternoon, with 33 board members present and other active volunteers attending. This is where the real work of the section is planned for the following year. Two specials guests from AWWA were present: Raymond Baral Jr., AWWA vice president; and Susan Franceschi, the association’s chief membership officer. Other meetings were also held by the organization’s councils and committees. There’s a group for almost every water topic. Meetings are also held at other section events throughout the year.

Full STEAM Ahead Program On Tuesday, the AWWA Diversity and Member Inclusion Committee, led by Jackie Torbert (past FSAWWA chair), and the FSAWWA Young Professionals Committee held a workshop for STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art/Architecture, Math)

University of North Florida students in front of the FSAWWA booth are (left to right) Caryle Capuyan, Teddy Robinson, Samantha Chan, and Steven Weatherford.

Poster Contest

Meter Madness

In front (left to right) are Eric Ingram, Luke Byous, and Bryan O’Berry; in back is Michael Baenes. Poster Contest Winner Daniel Whalen.

Exhibits

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Luke with the winner’s trophy.

Water For People Duck Race

Full STEAM Ahead Program and OMC’s High School Initiative Susan Franceschi makes a presentation.

Above: The Tetra Tech group, which was the beverage sponsor and donated 200 rubber duckies, with Juan Aceituno, FSAWWA Water For People chair (far right). Top left: Dumping the duckies. Above: Duckies with Tyler Tedcastle.

students from the Jackson Middle School. The guest speaker was Susan Franceschi from AWWA. The program included presentations from the local high school students who participated in the First Lego League Competition building, a demonstration of the final robot designs, lunch, and a scavenger hunt in the exhibit hall.

High School Academy Students Meet, Greet, and Eat For the third year, the FSAWWA Operators/Maintenance Council invited high school academy students from the Heritage High School Academy of Environmental Water and the St. Johns Technical High School Academy of Coastal and Water Resources to attend the conference. It’s predicted that over 30 percent of the water industry’s operators will be retiring in the next decade and there is already a shortage of new operators to fill their shoes. The section is taking proactive measures to overcome this shortage through the FSAWWA Operators Initiative. The goals of the initiative are to: S Understand and communicate the need for operators S Support the development of new and existing operators As part of this initiative, FSAWWA provides support to two technical high schools in Florida that provide four years of coursework and training in preparation for students to take the C license operator exam. The students attended the conference on Tuesday, November 27. As part of their schedule for the day, they attended a lunch that in-

At left: Water For People Raffle:

Middle School STEAM program participants.

cluded a panel of both experienced and new operators to discuss their careers in operations and management. The lunch was sponsored by: S Carus Corporation S Fluid Control Specialties Inc. S Hydromax USA S Jacobs S King Engineering Associates Inc. S Reiss Engineering S OUC

Water For People Duck Race

High School students with their mentors.

A duck race was held on Tuesday, November 27, at the conference hotel’s lazy river as a fundraising event for Water For People. A big thanks goes to Juan Aceituno, the FSAWWA Water For People chair, and his team for making the event a successful moneymaker. Special thanks also go to Tyler Tedcastle, Member Engagement and Development Council chair, for wrangling all of the little duckies through the river, and to Greg Taylor, section trustee, for serving as emcee. Continued on page 22

Jackie Torbert (far left) testing the robot.

Jackson Middle School students with STEAM committee members. Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

RECAP OF 2018 FSAWWA FALL CONFERENCE

Continued from page 21

Awards The section’s annual business luncheon and awards ceremony celebrated the current roster of statewide officers and inducted the new officers for 2019. Awards were also given for the best papers and to the outstanding volunteers in the water field. See pages 24-28 for award recipients.

Contests Several contests, with both team and individual competitors, were held.

Ductile Iron Tap

Water Bowl Winner: University of Central Florida The University of Central Florida (UCF) retained the title of champion at the 2018 Young Professionals Water Bowl. The UCF has been the champion for the past four years, and this year’s team consisted of Carlyn Higgins, Angela Rodriguez, and Daniel Whalen. The university provided two teams to compete for the title in the single-elimination competition format. Teams from the University of North Florida and Florida International University also participated in the contest. The contest is modeled after the classic “College Bowl” television quiz show. Team members were asked questions related to the water industry, encompassing water chemistry, operations, and design of treatment systems. The event was moderated by Cara Keller and Michael Stanley and the judges were Shelby Hughes and David Yonge. Poster Contest Winner: University of Central Florida Daniel Whalen, from the University of Central Florida, was the 2018 Fresh Ideas Poster Contest winner. He presented his poster entitled, "Evaluation of Anion Exchange System Performance Regenerated with Seawater." By winning the competition, Whalen receives a trip to ACE19, AWWA’s annual conference and exposition, to be held in June in Denver, to compete with contest winners from across the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Puerto Rico.

Operator Events JEA Water Buoys at work.

Hydrant Hysteria First Place: JEA

Second Place: Bonita Springs Utilities Hydrant Hysteria (new this year to the conference!) is a fast-paced two-person competition to determine who can assemble a fire hydrant the fastest. Two or more teams go head to head while assembling the hydrant to see who will be crowned Hydrant Hysteria champion. The first-place winner, JEA, with a time of 2:22 minutes, qualifies to go to ACE19 in Denver to compete in the national contest. The judge was Seth Daniel with Clow Valve Company. Meter Madness First Place: Luke Byous, JEA Meter Madness has a repeating champion: Luke Byous of JEA! He assembled a water meter .21 seconds ahead of Eric Ingram from JEA and Bryan O’Berry from FKAA. Byous qualifies to go to ACE19 in Denver to compete in the national contest. Meter Madness is a competition where participants receive a bucket of meter parts for a specific water meter to assemble against the clock. To make is more interesting, three to six miscellaneous parts are included in the bucket. After assembly, the meter must work correctly and not leak. The judge was Brian Rodriguez with FKAA. Tapping Contests Using skill and dexterity, as well as speed, teams of four compete for the fastest time while they perform a quality drill and tap of pipe under available pressure. Two taps are allowed per team. The Fun Tap is the simpler version of the two contests. Ductile Iron Tap Winners First Place: JEA Water Buoys

Fun Tap

First Place: City of St. Cloud Hammerheads.

Second Place: City of West Palm Beach Bulldogs.

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Third Place: Village of Wellington MVPs.

Sessions and Meetings Fun Tap Winners First Place: City of St. Cloud Hammerheads Second Place: City of West Palm Beach Bulldogs Third Place: Village of Wellington MVPS Mike Spriggs, with A.Y. McDonald, was a judge, and Josh Anderson, with Florida Pipeline Sales, was a judge and moderator.

Above: Young Professionals Committee meeting.

Backhoe Rodeo First Place: Drew Robinson, Village of Wellington Second Place: Scotty Almon, City of St. Cloud Third Place: Paul Wooton, Orange County

Annual Luncheon

Backhoe operators show their expertise by executing challenging lifts and drops of various objects in the fastest time. The judges for the event were Todd Jernigan and Jason Copeland with OUC, and Matt Jeffries with American Flow Control. All five operator contests have been held for a very long time (except for Hydrant Hysteria) and are open to public and commercialfield operators working in the state of Florida. Contact Mike George at (352) 200-9631 for more information.

Grace Johns gives Nominating Committee report.

Attendees enjoy the lunch.

Peggy Guingona is executive director of Florida Section AWWA.

Bill gives his outgoing speech.

Mike (with crown) and Bill.

Mike gives his acceptance speech.

Invocation given by Robert Claudy.

Passing the Gavel Mike Bailey (left), the incoming section chair for 20182019, receives the gavel from outgoing chair, Bill Young.

Section staff with Mike Bailey.

Section staff with AWWA staff.

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ February 2019

RECAP OF 2018 FSAWWA FALL CONFERENCE

Annual Section Awards Recipients of this year’s awards are noted and/or pictured on the following pages. The Florida Section AWWA honored outstanding individuals and organizations in the state’s water industry on two different dates. Several awards were handed out at the opening general session held on November 26.

REGIONS VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR AWARD This award honors individuals who contributed their time and talent to the success of their region.

Alysse Ness, with Larry Miller, Region II chair. Region II

Jessica Green, with Scott Richards, Public Affairs Council chair. Region III

Shelby Hughes (right), with Dan Glaser, Region IV chair. Region IV

Kevin Cevallos, with Tyler Davis, Region VI chair. Region VI

Veronica Llaneza, with Austin P’Pool, Region VII secretary. Region VII

Bobby Gibbs, with Sean Lathrop, Region XII chair. Region XII

Not Pictured:

Karen Miller Region V

Alicia Keeter Region IX

Michael Acosta Region X

Morgan Leger Region XI

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

COUNCIL CHAIR AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE This award honors distinguished service by a council or committee chair who has made the most significant contribution to the council.

Tom Hogeland Manufacturers/ Associates Council

Steve Soltau Member Engagement and Development Council

Steve Soltau Operators/Maintenance Council

Briana LeTourneau, with Scott Richards, Public Affairs Council chair. Public Affairs Council

Mike Stoup Technical and Education Council

Chuck Weber, with Lisa WilsonDavis, Water Utility Council chair. Water Utility Council

Jonathan Fernald Contractors Council (no photo)

ANNUAL AWARDS LUNCHEON On November 28, FSAWWA honored outstanding individuals and organizations in the state’s water industry at the annual awards luncheon.

AWWA GEORGE WARREN FULLER AWARD Pictured with Mark (top row, middle) in that row are his children Alex (left) and Cameron (right), and (bottom row, left to right) Tristen and his wife, Kim.

The George Warren Fuller Award is presented annually by the American Water Works Association to its sections' respective selected members for their distinguished service to the water supply field in commemoration of the sound engineering skill, brilliant diplomatic talent, and constructive leadership that characterized the life of George Warren Fuller. Mark Lehigh is the recipient of this year’s distinguished award. This Fuller awardee truly represents what the award is and has had a career worthy of accomplishments that reflect the life of George Warren Fuller. Lehigh is the water operations section manager for Hillsborough County Public Utilities Department. He started with the county right out of high school and has continually served the public sector for more than 35 years. His service to FSAWWA started in 1993. He has served as the Region IV secretary, Region IV chair, Administrative Council chair, founding member of the Operators Council and its first chair, Region IV Golf Committee member, section vice-chair, section chair-elect, and 2014-2015 section chair. Currently, he serves as the section’s general policy director. He has a true passion for the water industry, epitomizes the strength and vitality of the water community, and is an advocate for the Florida Section AWWA. “I am extremely proud of this organization and eternally grateful for the opportunity to serve. I have met so many talented people and made longlasting friendships along the way,” said Lehigh. “I truly appreciate what FSAWWA is all about. Before any action is taken to move forward, I ask myself: Is this the best thing for the section and the members? The answer must always be ‘yes’!”

Mark receiving Fuller Award pin from Ray Baral.

DR. EDWARD SINGLEY AWARD OF EXCELLENCE

Robert L. Claudy Jr.

This award was given to Robert L. Claudy Jr., past section chair, by the FSAWWA Executive Committee for dedicating his time and talents to the Roy Likins Scholarship Committee that far and away exceeds his duties and obligations in his service to the FSAWWA board of governors and section.

Mark with past Fuller awardees and well-wishers.

ALLEN B. ROBERTS JR. AWARD This award is named in honor of Allen B. Roberts Jr., who worked diligently as the Florida Section's executive director to improve the status of the section by providing valuable leadership. Lisa Wilson-Davis received this year’s award for her outstanding service as a member. She has contributed most to the section by providing valuable support to its programs through outstanding leadership, creativity, and service in the water-related field, particularly to the resolution of problems and the implementation of activities within the FSAWWA Water Utility Council and the association. Lisa Wilson-Davis Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

RECAP OF 2018 FSAWWA FALL CONFERENCE ROBERT L. CLAUDY JR. AWARD This award is named in honor of Robert L. Claudy Jr., who was a past chair of FSAWWA, and is a big supporter and still active in the Roy Likins Scholarship program.

MAC DADDY This award honors the Manufacturers/Associates Council (MAC) member who has contributed the most to the success of the fall conference. Mike George (no photo)

CHARLES HOGUE AWARD Mike George was honored by the MAC with this award as its individual member of the year. (no photo)

Kim with Bob Claudy.

Kim Kowalski, a past Manufacturers/Associates Council (MAC) chair, current section vice chair and fall conference committee chair, was the recipient of this MAC award for her efforts in promoting water quality in the industry, the community, the section, and the association.

FSAWWA SERVICE AWARDS The following were honored for their service to the Florida Section.

YOUNG PROFESSIONAL OF THE YEAR Veronica Llaneza was named the young professional of the year. Larry Miller Region II Chair 2016-2018

Kristen Sealey Region XI Chair 2013-2018

Mark Kelly Contactors Council Chair 2016-18

Kevin Stine Manufacturers/Associates Council Chair 2016-2018

Terri Holcomb Trustee 2017-2018

Greg Taylor Trustee 2016-2018

LANDMARK AWARDS The FSAWWA gives this award to various facilities or structures serving as components of water systems that have historical significance and, as such, may be candidates as an American Water Works Association Water Landmark or a Florida Section Water Landmark. The facility or structure should have been in service and operational for 50 or more years to qualify for this important recognition. Wells, pumps, and piping may qualify if deemed to be of important significance.

Not Pictured Monica Autrey Region IX Chair 2013-2018

Scott Richards Public Affairs Council Chair 2014-2018

February 2019 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

Judy Grim Roy W. Likins Scholarship Committee Member Dedicated Service - 2006-2018

Dania Beach Water Treatment Plant Constructed 1952 Accepted by Dr. Fred Bloetscher on behalf of Dania Beach.

WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AWARDS An award is given to a utility with outstanding performance during the preceding year that deserves special recognition by the section. The criteria for these awards shall be based on, but not limited to, the following: • Must be a member of AWWA (organization or individual) • Actively supports the activities of the Florida Section • Has completed the questionnaire • Demonstrates high standards and integrity

AWWA AWARDS

AWWA honors significant membership tenure with the following awards. The recognition received builds with a member’s years with the association.

GOLD WATER DROP AWARDS Recipients were honored for 50 years of AWWA membership.

The following utilities earned the first-place award in their respective divisions:

Division 2 - Bay County Utility Services Accepted by Bobby Gibbs and Sean Lathrop.

Not Pictured: Frederick H. Elwell Gene A. Heath Robert L. Claudy Jr.

AWWA LIFE MEMBER STATUS AWARDS Recipients were honored for 30 cumulative years of membership and being at least 65 years of age.

Division 4 – City of Ocala Water Resources Accepted by front row (left to right): Rachel Slocumb, Joan Anderson, and Rusella BowesJohnson; back row: Daniel Matvejs, Charlie Varney, Richard Knight, and Stacey Ferrante.

Division 5 - City of Boca Raton Utility Services Department Accepted by (left to right) Kara Mills, David Palmer, Lisa Wilson-Davis, and Jimmy Georgievski.

Division 6 – Charlotte County Utilities Accepted by (left to right) Duane Smith, Stephen Kipfinger, and Tony Smith.

Douglas H. Eckmann

Bruce A. Neu

Larry J. Ruffin

Not Pictured: Paul A. Jurczak Scott Kelly Arthur R. Miller III Candia E. Mulhern

Harold C. Nantz D. Robert Smedley Scott W. Solomon

SILVER WATER DROP AWARDS Recipients were honored for 25 cumulative years of AWWA membership.

Division 7 – Broward County Water and Wastewater Services Accepted by (left to right) Mike Stanton, Clive Haynes, and Mark Darmanin. Not Pictured: Division 1 – Bal Harbour Village Utilities Division 3 – City of Riviera Beach Utility Special District Division 8 – Palm Beach County Water Utilities

Mark J. Abbott Philip R. Boller James S. Bradbury Mark Branstetter A. Randolph Brown Andre A Dieffenthaller Alan Street Lee Robert J. Ori John R. Plattsmier John Polley David John Prah Brandon D. Selle Sandeep Sethi Ronald W. Thomas Edward Weinberg J. Dennis Westrick

Charles J. Weber

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

RECAP OF 2018 FSAWWA FALL CONFERENCE

ROY W. LIKINS SCHOLARSHIP The scholarships are awarded each year by the section to outstanding graduate or undergraduate college students enrolled in an accredited Florida institution who are pursuing a degree related to the drinking water industry. The scholarship is named for the late Roy Likins, former president of Palm Coast Utility Corporation and a lifelong member of the American Water Works Association, who served as section chair and secretary-treasurer, as well as Region IX chair with the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association. $5,000 - Tatiana Konstanti, University of Florida $5,000 - Paola Mendoza-Perilla, University of Florida $5,000 - Estenia Ortiz, University of South Florida $5,000 - Tulsi Shukla, University of Central Florida $5,000 - Rahamat Tanvir, Florida Atlantic University $3,000 - Paul Haskins, University of Florida $3,000 - Madison Rice, University of South Florida $3,000 - Daniel A. Whalen, University of Central Florida $3,000 - Austin Wise, Florida Gulf Coast University $3,000 - Nadezhda Zalivina, University of South Florida

Top row, left to right: Steve Soltau, Austin Wise, and Daniel Whalen; bottom row, left to right: Madison Rice, Tatiana Konstantis, and Tulsi Shukla.

WATER CONSERVATION AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE

BEST PAPER AWARDS “Evaluating the Effect of Changing Disinfectant Type on Corrosion Rates of Common Distribution System Metals” Angela B. Rodriguez, M.S., E.I., and Steven J. Duranceau, Ph.D., P.E.

Public Education Best in Class – Mega Utility Orange County Utilities Water Division “Tinker Water Conservation Education Program”

Accepted by Steve Duranceau.

Accepted by (front row) Bridgett Tolley and Terri Thill; (back row) Norman Blowers and Jessica Green. “Comparing 1999 and 2017: How Have Utility Costs and Finances Changes in 20 Years?”

Water For People Fundraiser Recognition Water For People Exhibitor Fundraiser Recognition of Gold Sponsors

Accepted by Frederick Bloetscher, Ph.D., P.E.

Not Pictured: “A Framework for Regulating Raw Water Augmentation: Results From a Pathogen Benchmarking Study” David MacNevin, Ph.D., P.E.; Matthew Azarian, E.I.; and Andrea C. Netcher, Ph.D., P.E. Left to right: Tyler Tedcastle, Carter VerPlanck; Veronica Llaneza, Jacobs; Juan Aceituno, Jacobs; Scott Johnson, Data Flow Systems; and Ana Maria Gonzalez, Hazen and Sawyer.

FloridaSection 28

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

ASA Analytics Blue Planet Environmental Systems Inc. Carter VerPlanck Data Flow Systems Inc.

Hazen and Sawyer Jacobs Moss-Kelley Inc.

Thank you!

FSAWWA Fall Conference Sponsors The section thanks all the sponsors for their generous support of the conference.

Premier Sponsors

• • • • • •

AECOM Data Flow Systems Inc. Electro Scan Inc. Ferguson Waterworks HDR Engineering Inc. Insituform Technologies

• • • • • •

Jones Edmunds Kimley-Horn & Associates SIGMA Corporation The Ford Meter Box Company Wager Company of Florida Inc. Wright-Pierce

Platinum Sponsors

• • • • • • • • •

American Cast Iron Pipe Company Bermad Valve Blue Planet Environmental Systems CDM Smith Core & Main LP Gannett Fleming Garney Construction Globaltech Inc. Grundfos

• • • • • • • •

Hazen and Sawyer Jacobs Engineering Reiss Engineering Tetra Tech Thames & Associates U.S. Pipe Wharton-Smith Inc. Xylem Dewatering Solutions

Gold Sponsors

• • • •

Barney's Pumps Black & Veatch Carter|Verplanck Florida Aquastore and Utility Construction Inc.

• Hydra Service Inc. • ISCO Industries • Star Pipe Products

Silver Sponsors

• Hach Company • MARS Company • McWane Ductile

• PCL Construction Inc. • Smith-Blair • Spirit Group Inc.

Poker Sponsors Golf Sponsors Eagle AECOM Data Flow Systems Inc. Electro Scan Inc. Ferguson Waterworks Haskell HDR Engineering Inc. Insituform Technologies Jones Edmunds

Kimley-Horn & Associates SIGMA Corporation Specification Rubber Products The Ford Meter Box Company Wager Company of Florida Inc. Wharton-Smith Inc. Wright-Pierce

Birdie

Par

PCL Construction Inc. Ryan Herco Flow Solutions

Star Pipe Products

Royal Flush • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

AECOM Data Flow Systems Inc. Electro Scan Inc. Ferguson Waterworks Haskell HDR Engineering Inc. Insituform Technologies Jones Edmunds Kimley-Horn & Associates Sensus SIGMA Corporation The Ford Meter Box Company Wager Company of Florida Inc. Wright-Pierce

RECAP OF 2018 FSAWWA FALL CONFERENCE

Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority team, pork butt-category champion and grand champion.

Incoming Chair’s Reception and BBQ Challenge One of the highlights of the conference was the fifth annual BBQ Challenge and the incoming chair’s reception held on the event lawn at the convention center. The setting made for a great evening of music, networking, and excellent food for more than 300 attendees. Mother Nature, however, did not cooperate, and the beautiful lawn setting was abandoned for tables and chairs in the conference center foyer. Despite that, folks had a great time. It was also a chance to toast Mike Bailey, incoming chair, who will lead the section in 2019 and hear him speak about what he hopes to accomplish in the coming year. Complimentary beverages were sponsored by the FSAWWA Contractors Council and the following companies: S MMR S Fortiline Waterworks S Reynolds Construction S Electroscan S Cogburn Brothers Electric S McDade Waterworks S Petticoat Schmidt S Green Monster Coatings The BBQ sides were sponsored by the FSAWWA Contractors Council and the following companies: S Sinns and Thomas Electric S Aqua Aerobics S MMR Constructors S Precon S Trench Plate Shoring S TSC Jacobs North S Revere Controls S SanPik Inc. S Gilmore Electric S United Rentals S C2I S VMG S Green Monster Coatings S Sunbelt Rentals They all helped to make the 2018 event a success! There is nothing like an ice-cold drink and delicious sides to go with great barbeque! In charge of the event were Richard Anderson and Mike Alexakis, as cochairs, and Mike George and John Fernandez were committee members. This year’s contest featured a record 13 teams competing for the honor of “grand champion.” Grill masters from the following companies competed for top honors in chicken, pork, ribs, beef brisket, people’s choice, and overall champion:

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

S S S S S S S S S S S S S

Aegion Corp./Insituform Charlotte County Utilities/Jones Edmunds Inc. Fortiline Waterworks GHD Garney Companies George F. Young Kimley-Horn & Associates (first-time entry) McKim & Creed PCL Construction (first-time entry) Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Trench Plate Rentals (first-time entry) Village of Wellington (first-time entry) Wharton Smith Construction

As the conference attendees socialized and feasted on the barbeque, judging took place to determine the best in each category and the grand champion. Richard Anderson, the barbeque event cochair, announced the results at the end of the evening. Top honors went to the following teams: S Wharton-Smith took the first-place prize for best chicken S Kimley-Horn for pork ribs S Fortiline Waterworks for brisket S Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority for pork butt Team Kimley-Horn & Associates earned the crowd’s vote, winning the people’s choice award, and the team from Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority was declared the “2018 BBQ Grand Champion.” Congratulations to all the teams competing this year! We hope to see you in 2019. Overall, this year’s event was a tremendous success that featured great food and fun in a fantastic locale. Watch for news of the sixth annual BBQ Challenge at this year’s Fall Conference at Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate. You don’t want to miss it!

Fortiline Waterworks team, brisket-category champion.

Kimley-Horn & Associates team, pork ribs-category champion and peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s choice award.

Richard Anderson, emcee for the evening.

Outgoing section chair Bill Young toasts incoming chair Mike Bailey.

FSAWWA Water Monster Tank featured at the BBQ (available for other events).

Wharton-Smith team, chicken-category champions.

Bill Young, Grace Johns, and Mike Bailey.

Mike Bailey gives his acceptance speech.

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ February 2019

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;¢ February 2019

2019 FWPCOA OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS For more information on officers and committee chairs, visit the association website site at www.fwpcoa.org.

• Vice-Chair Raymond Bordner (727) 798-3969 04-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary Debra Englander (727) 892-5633 04-secretary@fwpcoa.org • Treasurer Janet DeBiasio 04-treasurer@fwcpoa.org

Region 5

CORPORATE OFFICERS • President Mike Darrow (863) 409-4256 president@fwpcoa.org • Vice President Kenneth Enlow (813) 226-8708, ext. 239 vice-pres@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Rim Bishop (561) 627-2900, ext. 314 sec-treas@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Patrick Murphy (813) 757-9191 st-elect@fwpcoa.org • Past President Scott Anaheim (904) 665-8415 past-pres@fwpcoa.org

REGIONAL OFFICERS Region 1 • Director Albert Bock 01-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Russel Burton 01-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair (currently vacant) • Secretary-Treasurer Tom Walden (850)980-5161 tjwalden@cs.com

Region 2 • Director David Ashley (904) 665-8484 02-director@fwpcoa.org

• Chair Josh Parker (904) 665-6052 parkje@jea.com • Vice-Chair Larry Johnson johnlarry1953@att.net • Secretary-Treasurer Jackie Scheel (904) 665-8473 ScheJB@jea.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Ralph (Andy) Bowen (904) 665-6052 bowera@jea.com

Region 3 • Director Kevin Shropshire (321) 221-7540 03-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair June Clark (321) 868-1240 03-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair Glen Siler 03-vicepchair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary Marcy King-Daniels (321) 221-7570 03-secretary@fwpcoa.org • Treasurer Russ Carson (321) 749-5914 jrcdillo@aol.com

Region 4 • Director Mark DiNobile (727) 892-5841 04-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Robert Case (727) 892-5076 04-chair@fwpcoa.org

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

• Director Stephen Utter (772) 978-5220 05-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair George Horner (772) 873-6400 GHorner@cityofpsl.com • Vice-Chair Val Santos (772) 462-1150 santosv@stlucieco.org • Secretary-Treasurer John Lang (772) 562-9176 jflang2012@gmail.com

Region 6 • Director Dennis Godwin (561) 876-7220 06-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Vince Munn vmunn@pbcwater.com • Vice-Chair Pat Lyles (561) 381-5354 4953lexus@comcast.net • Secretary-Treasurer Patti Brock 06-sec-treas@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Jessica Hill (561) 386-5839 R6Training@outlook.com

Region 7 • Director Renee Moticker 07-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Michael Towns 07-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair Pavol Plecenik (800) 639-7739 07-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary Deborah Wallace 07-secretary@fwpcoa.org • Treasurer Tim McVeigh (954) 683-1432 07-treasurer@fwpcoa.org

• Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Erica Latker 07-st-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 8 • Director Nigel Noone (239) 565-5352 08-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Matt Astorino (239) 677-0042 08-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair Anthony Leporatti 08-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Patrick Long 08-sec-treas@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Igor Gutin 08-sec-tres-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 9 • Director Scott Ruland (407) 656-2332, ext. 228 09-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Tom Mikell (352) 393-6614 mikelltj@gru.com • Vice-Chair (West) Syed Hasan (352) 393-6769 hasansz@gru.com • Vice-Chair (East) Brian Terry (386) 574-2181 bterry@deltonfl.gov • Secretary Jim Parrish (386) 574-2181 jamesparrish@2001@yahoo.com • Treasurer Glenn Whitcomb champ95@cfl.rr.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Ally Munion 0-9sec-treas-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 10 • Director Charles Nichols Sr. (863) 581-0111 10-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Charles Nichols Jr. (863) 291-5763 10-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair Edward Clark (863) 815-6595 10-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org

• Secretary-Treasurer Katherine Kinloch (863) 679-3972 catloch3@verizon.net • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Cindy Sammons 10-st-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 11 • Director Athena Tipaldos (407) 246-4086 11-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Daniel Friedline Daniel.friedline@cityoforlando.net • Chair-Elect Terri SeligmanSmith 11-chair-elect@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Scott Stoll (407) 709-8808 scottstolfwpcoa@aol.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Nioker White nwhite@ouc.com

Region 12 • Director Steve Saffels 12-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Brent Laudicina (941) 773-5551 12-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair Dana Mills 12-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Zoé Chaiser 813-757-9191 zchaiser@plantcitygov.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect John Wolfe (813) 875-2486 12-sec-treas-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 13 • Director (currently vacant) • Chair Kevin McAuliffe 13-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair Tracy Betz 13-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Treasurer Arnold Gibson (386) 466-3350 13-treasurer@fwpcoa.org • Secretary Bill Ewbank 13-secretary@fwpcoa.org

STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS

SPECIAL COMMITTEE CHAIRS

• Awards and Citations Renee Moticker (954) 967-4230 awards@fwpcoa.org • Constitution and Rules Kenneth Enlow (813) 226-8708 const-rules@fwpcoa.org • Customer Relations Norma Corso (941) 764-4508 cust-rel@fwpcoa.org • Dues and Fees Tom King (321) 867-3042 dues@fwpcoa.org • Education Tom King education@fwpcoa.org • Ethics Scott Ruland (386) 878-8976 ethics@fwpcoa.org • Historical Al Monteleone (352) 459-3626 historian@fwpcoa.org • Job Placement Joan Stokes (407) 293-9465 • Membership Rim Bishop (561) 627-2900, ext. 314 membership@fwpcoa.org • Policies and Procedures Kenneth Enlow (813) 226-8708 vice-president@fwpcoa.org • Program and Short Course Jim Smith (386) 878-8976 programs@fwpcoa.org • Publicity Phil Donovan (561) 966-4188 06-director@fwpcoa.org • Systems Operators Ray Bordner (727) 798-3969 sys-op@fwpcoa.org • Website Walt Smyser (954) 558-5656 webmaster@fwpcoa.org

• Audit Tom King (321) 867-3042 audit@fwpcoa.org • Exam Consultant Ray Bordner (727) 527-8121 exam@fwpcoa.org • FWRJ/FWRC Tom King (321) 867-9495 Thomas.j.King-1@nasa.gov • Legislative Tim McVeigh (954) 683-1432 legislative@fwpcoa.org • Nominating Raymond Bordner (727) 527-8121 h2oboy2@juno.com • Operators Helping Operators John Lang (772) 562-9176 oho@fwpcoa.org • Safety Peter M. Tyson (305) 797-8201 safety@fwpcoa.org • Scholarship Renee Moticker (954) 967-4230 awards@fwpcoa.org

EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEES CHAIRS • Backflow Glenn Whitcomb backflow@fwpcoa.org • Continuing Education Jim Smith CEU@fwpcoa.org • Industrial Pretreatment Kevin Shropshire (407) 832-2748 03-director@fwpcoa.org • Plant Operations Jamie Hope (352) 318-3321 hope2protectFLwaters@gmail.com • Reclaimed Water Jodie Godsey reclaimed@fwpcoa.org

• Stormwater Brad Hayes stormwater@fwpcoa.org • Utilities Maintenance Robert Case (727) 893-5076 robertcase1952@gmail.com

ADMINISTRATION • Executive Director (currently vacant) exec-dir@fwpcoa.org • Training Coordinator Shirley Reaves (321) 383-9690 training@fwpcoa.org • Webmaster Walt Smyser (954) 558-5656 webmaster@fwpcoa.org

FWRC/FWRJ APPOINTMENTS • Trustee Tom King (321) 867-3042 Thomas.j.King-1@nasa.gov • Trustee Rim Bishop (561) 627-2900, ext. 314 rbishop@sua.com • Trustee Scott Anaheim (904) 665-8415 sanaheim@bellsouth.net • Member Ray Bordner (727) 527-8121 h2oboy2@juno.com • Member Al Monteleone (352) 259-3924 scooter1030@embarqmail.com • Member Glenn Whitcomb (386) 561-2100 backflow@fwpcoa.org • Member Mike Darrow (863)409-4256 president@fwpcoa.org

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

F W R J

Testing Partially Treated Surface Water for Aquifer Storage and Recovery at the Peace River Facility Ryan Messer, Mike Coates, Jon Ouverson, Pete Larkin, and Mark McNeal he Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority (authority) operates a potable water aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system that includes ASR Wellfield No. 1 (WF1) and ASR Wellfield No. 2 (WF2) at the Peace River Regional Water Supply Facility (PRF). The authority continuously explores options to increase regional water supply system reliability by increasing water supply capacity and storage for drought tolerance. Using partially treated surface water (PTSW) instead of fully treated potable water as a recharge water source for the ASR system would provide for additional storage, with a significant decrease in overall delivery cost from the ASR system. Rather than the current ASR operating practice of treating stored river water to potable standards twice before distributing treated water to the public (once on injection/recharge to ASR and again after recovery from ASR), the authority would only need to treat the water once.

Background The authority supplies wholesale drinking water to four member counties (Charlotte, DeS-

oto, Sarasota, and Manatee) and one nonmember customer (City of North Port) in southwest Florida. The authority’s water supply source is the Peace River, where a small percentage of seasonal high flows is harvested and stored in a 6.5bil-gal (BG) offstream surface reservoir system. The authority also stores water in two ASR wellfields with a design capacity of 6.3 BG. Currently, the ASR system stores fully treated drinking water that is recovered into the surface reservoir system during dry periods and retreated prior to delivery to the authority’s customers. The PRF is a 51-mil-gal-per-day (mgd) conventional surface water treatment plant using alum coagulation; the current demand on the PRF is approximately 26 mgd. The development of a reliable public water supply at this scale on the Peace River using a seasonally available water resource is only feasible through the availability of large-volume offstream water storage (reservoirs and ASR), which must supply water to meet customer demand during the dry season when little or no water is available for harvest from the river. This ensures that withdrawals for public supply do not adversely

Figure 1. Wellfield No. 2

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Ryan Messer, P.E., is project manager and reuse practice lead with HDR in Tampa. Mike Coates, P.G., is deputy director with Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority in Lakewood Ranch. Jon Ouverson is a hydrogeologist with Jacobs in Tampa. Pete Larkin, P.G., is vice president and Mark McNeal, P.G., is chief executive officer with ASRus LLC in Tampa.

affect flows in the river needed to support the Charlotte Harbor estuary downstream. The authority’s two ASR wellfields consist of 21 potable water ASR wells. The WF1 consists of eight Suwannee Zone ASR wells and a single Tampa Zone ASR well located on the PRF property and has been in operation since the mid1980s. A test ASR well completed in the Avon Park High Permeability Zone is also located within WF1, but has not been used for ASR to date. The WF2 was constructed in 2002 and consists of 12 Suwannee Zone ASR wells located immediately south of the authority’s Reservoir No.1 and approximately one mi southwest of the PRF. Each well has a capacity to inject or recover approximately 1 mgd. Figure 1 shows WF2 and its monitoring wells. The potable water ASR system, as currently permitted and operated, requires that the stored water be fully treated prior to recharge into the aquifer and then fully treated again when the stored water is recovered. This makes storing water in the ASR system economically less favorable for the authority than storing raw surface water in the offstream reservoirs, which only requires treatment once prior to delivery to its customers. Replacement of potable water with PTSW for the authority’s ASR recharge program would provide cost, efficiency, reliability, environmental, permitting, and resource recovery benefits. To successfully permit the ASR system to a PTSW system, a demonstration was necessary to show that the total coliform bacteria (which is present in all Florida surface waterbodies)

would be deactivated with residence time in the aquifer, and that the groundwater standard for total coliform of 4 colony-forming units (CFU)/100 mL could be achieved within the property under the control of the authority. To provide the data necessary to support the PTSW ASR, a pilot test was designed using two wells at WF2 (S-4 and S-20) and recharging PTSW from Reservoir No.1 (see Figure 1). Cycle testing began in February 2017 and was completed in January 2018. The following sections detail the cycle test design, water quality results, well performance, and recommendations and considerations for future development of this alternative water supply concept.

Table 1. Cycle Test 1 Operational Summary

Pilot Test Overview The objective of the PTSW ASR pilot testing was to conduct small-scale cycle tests using recharge volumes large enough to arrive in the monitor wells, but not so large that it potentially left the property under the control of the authority. The pilot test was implemented at WF2 using wells S-4 and S-20. Surface water stored in Reservoir No. 1 was filtered and recharged in the wells and then later recovered back to Reservoir No. 1. The ASR wells S-4 and S-20 were selected as the pilot test wells for the following reasons: S They are closest to Reservoir No. 1 and require the least amount of temporary piping. S They are some of the furthest wells from the property boundary, maximizing the buffer and the maximum possible distance to assess water quality prior to leaving the entity-controlled property. S The grouping of monitor wells near S-4 and S-20 provides a comprehensive monitoring network to evaluate water quality at different distances (travel times) from the ASR well. The S-20 has a relatively high-specific injectivity, and S-4 has a relatively moderate-specific injectivity that is representative of most of the other ASR wells in WF2. This will allow for the comparison of well performance regarding the effect of PTSW on a well where the capacity relies primarily on matrix primary porosity (S4) and one with a more secondary porosity (fractured) flow profile (S-20). Pilot testing was conducted in conjunction with the authority’s normal potable water ASR system operations at this storage site and is an integral part of the authority’s water reliability strategy. It could not be shut down for the extended period of time necessary to complete the PTSW pilot testing. A cycle test program was proposed to the Florida Department of Environmental Protec-

tion (FDEP) in a permit modification request to implement PTSW pilot testing that consisted of up to three cycles at progressively increasing volumes. The target recharge volume proposed for the first cycle was relatively low (50 mgd) to allow for evaluation of water quality changes at monitor wells near the point of recharge before the PTSW left the property under control of the authority. After the first cycle was completed, it was decided to only conduct two cycles and increase the recharge volume and storage duration between recharge and recovery for the second cycle test.

Description of Pilot Test Equipment Temporary piping and pumping equipment was installed at S‐4 and S‐20 so that the wells could be recharged directly from Reservoir No. 1 during the temporary test program. A single electric-driven centrifugal pump, filtration, and piping system was rented from Xylem Dewatering Solutions Inc. to temporarily supply PTSW to S‐4 and S‐20 during the demonstration period. The pump was powered using one of the authority’s nearby control panels and operated locally with an adjustable frequency drive. The pump intake was a floating high-density polyethylene (HDPE) tee with 0.25-in. diameter holes, which served to mitigate the intake of aquatic organisms. The pump intake was located at Reservoir No. 1 near S‐4 and S‐20 to minimize the distance of temporary piping to the wells. A pressurized filtration system, consisting of four parallel filter pods, was installed downstream of the pump to remove particulates and total suspended solids (TSS). The filter pods were fitted with a stainless steel filter basket with one-eighth-in. openings and allowed for the installation of 100-micron and 50-micron mesh filter bags to be utilized without the risk of los-

ing a mesh bag to the formation of the ASR wells. During operation, pressure data upstream and downstream of each filter pod were observed to determine the replacement schedule for the mesh filter bags. A pump operation indicator was added to the authority’s supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) program to alert the PRF operators of a failure. Temporary recharge piping was installed from the filters to existing tees located at S-4 and S-20, which allowed use of the existing flow meters at the well headers. In case S-4 and S-20 needed to be purged (backflushed) during recharge periods, isolation valves were installed on the recharge piping to allow the purged water to be stored in the onsite dry ponds. The existing ASR well system piping was used during recovery to convey recovered water back to the reservoir.

Cycle Testing Recharge and Recovery Summary Cycle Test 1 (CT1) began on Feb. 9, 2017, with the recharge of PTSW at ASR wells S-4 and S-20; the recharge phase of CT1 continued until March 9, 2017. Recharge consisted of the injection of 59.4 mil gal (MG) of PTSW at ASR wells S-4 and S-20. The additional ASR wells within WF2 (S-10 through S-19) were not in operation during the CT1 recharge phase. Following the recharge phase of CT1, S-4 and S-20 remained in storage until March 27, 2017, when the recovery phase of CT1 was initiated. The S-4 and S-20 began the recovery phase of CT1 exclusive of the other WF2 ASR wells from March 27 to April 9, 2017, recovering a total of 25.1 MG during that time, which was approximately 42 percent of the total PTSW injected during the CT1 recharge phase. On April 10, 2017, the remaining WF2 ASR Continued on page 38

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

Continued from page 37 wells began recovery, increasing the WF2 recovery rate from an average of 1.8 mgd (S-4 and S20) to a maximum of 14.4 mgd during CT1. Recovery was ceased on June 5, 2017, at S-4 and S-20, but continued at five of the WF2 ASR wells (S-11, S-14, S-15, S-16, and S-18) until June 15, 2017. A total volume of 801.2 MG was recovered from WF2 from the start of PTSW CT1 to June 15, 2017, when recovery ceased at all of the WF2

ASR wells. Table 1 provides a summary of the operational recharge, storage, and recovery of CT1. The normal seasonal recharge cycle at WF2 using potable water began on June 19, 2017, at ASR wells S10 through S19. A volume of 102.7 MG of potable water was recharged prior to beginning PTSW Cycle Test 2 (CT2). The PTSW CT2 recharge began at S-4 and S-20 on July 6, 2017, and the PTSW CT2 recharge at S-4 and S-

Table 2. Cycle Test 2 Operational Summary

Figure 2. S-4 Specific Injectivity/Specific Capacity

February 2019 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

20 and recharge of potable water with ASR wells S-10 through S-19 continued until Nov. 1, 2017; however, PTSW injection was interrupted sporadically due to mechanical issues with the PTSW supply pump, which was not in operation between the dates of July 14 through July 17, July 18 through July 24, and July 28 through Aug. 2, 2017. Additionally, recharge was temporarily suspended at S-4 and S-20 from Sept. 7 through 17, 2017. During this time, the S-10 through S-19 recharge was also temporarily suspended for a shorter period between Sept. 10 and Sept. 12, 2017. On September 28, the use of mesh filter bags for filtration was discontinued, and the stainless steel baskets with one-eighth-in. holes were utilized as the only filtration for the remainder of the recharge period. A total of 783 MG of potable water and 178.3 MG of PTSW were recharged during the PTSW CT2 recharge phase. The PTSW CT2 recharge phase was completed at S-4 and S-20 on Nov. 1, 2017. Immediately thereafter, a storage phase was initiated until Dec. 5, 2017, when recovery from S-4 and S-20 was initiated. Between Dec 5, 2017, and Jan. 2, 2018, water was recovered from the test wells uninterrupted and totaled 55.9 MG. Table 2 provides a summary of the operational recharge, storage, and recovery of CT2. Over the PTSW recharge periods, the range of specific injectivity (SI) values observed at S4 and S-20 were within the range recorded at these wells over the period of record, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. During PTSW recharge, the SI at S-4 ranged from 3 gal per minute (gpm)/ft to 11 gpm/ft and S-20 ranged from10 gpm/ft to 30 gpm/ft, both within the range of SI observed over the historic period of record. The PTSW cycle test recharge data suggest that a small but gradual decline in well performance is observed; however, this is expected to be manageable through purging the wells periodically and/or installation of improved filtration. Though SI data after the mesh filter bags were removed did not conclusively indicate plugging at a greater rate than when the mesh filter bags were installed, the data could have been skewed by other variables in the calculation of SI (e.g., changing head conditions from varying wellfield flow rates). Based on the visual evidence of the particulate matter collected in the bags, it could be expected that the filtration was providing some degree of benefit, possibly slowing the rate of plugging in the wells. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recommended that filtration should be included in longer-term implementation of PTSW, or that a more rigorous, long-term testing of PTSW without filters be conducted to assess the longterm impacts of recharge without filtration. Continued on page 40

Continued from page 38

Cycle Testing Water Quality Summary The PTSW is of good quality, meeting most primary and secondary drinking water standards; however, there are some differences when compared to native groundwater or potable water. For example, total coliform is

present in the PTSW, where typically itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not in native groundwater or potable water sources. The regulatory groundwater discharge standard for total coliform is 4 CFU/100 mL. Since total coliform levels are significantly higher in PTSW, it was important to determine how long coliform can persist in the aquifer after recharge of PTSW and identify the rate of total coliform inactivation. The

Figure 3. S-20 Specific Injectivity/Specific Capacity

Figure 4. Partially Treated Surface Water Cycle Testing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Total Coliform

February 2019 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

PTSW cycle testing data showed that total coliform arrived at the monitor wells at relatively high concentrations during recharge. This large concentration was possibly due to the floating intake tee becoming a perch location for birds, and due to the intake of top water rather than deeper waters. Total coliform is recorded in terms of the most probable number (MPN) of CFUs, with the laboratory maximum level established at >2420 CFU/100 mL, or too numerous to count (TNTC). In samples with results of >2420 CFU/100 mL, the actual number of total coliform bacteria present can be significantly higher, and therefore a value of >2420 CFU/100 mL at the monitor wells does not necessarily mean that the level of total coliform is the same level as the source water, which is the reservoir (i.e., the reservoir bacteria count could be significantly higher). Figure 4 is a graph of total coliform concentration at each of the sampled wells. The graph includes the PTSW total coliform, PTSW storage volume, and WF2 potable water storage volume so that the mode of ASR operation can be viewed in line with the total coliform data set. During CT1 recharge, total coliform was observed at M-14 and ASR well S-19. At the nearest downgradient monitor well (M-14) PTSW water arrived within hours of initiation of recharge, suggesting fractured flow between the monitor well and S-20 and/or S-4. After recharge was stopped, total coliform decreased by two orders of magnitude at M-14 over a storage period of approximately two weeks. During longer recharge periods (CT2), total coliform was observed at multiple monitor wells, and predominantly in the southwestern direction, as M-14, M-12, and M-15 showed the highest concentrations of total coliform reaching TNTC. Total coliform was also detected in high concentrations at M-11. Cycle testing data suggested that total coliform was persistent in the Floridan aquifer in the immediate vicinity of these monitor wells for as long as recharge of PTSW continued; however, as observed during CT1, total coliform decreased rapidly once recharge ceased. Besides total coliform, other differences between the PTSW characteristics and native groundwater and potable water were useful in determining the presence of the PTSW at the monitor wells. Being able to differentiate the PTSW water from potable water was necessary, since the other wells in WF2 were recharged with potable water during PTSW cycle testing. Several parameters from the reservoir analysis had concentrations that were distinguishable from native groundwater or potable water. Continued on page 42

Continued from page 40 The following is a list of some of the parameters that were considered as potential indicators for PTSW: S Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and Chloride – The TDS and chloride are higher in the native groundwater compared to potable water and PTSW; however, potable water and PTSW are similar. Therefore, changes during CT2 when both PTSW and potable water were recharged could not be differentiated by TDS and chloride concentrations. S Sulfate – Native groundwater sulfate concentrations are higher than potable water and PTSW; however, the sulfate concentration in potable water (typically 100 to 150 mg/L during recharge months) is higher than PTSW (between 50 and 90 mg/L). Sulfate was a good indicator of PTSW arrival as decreases in concentrations were observed at wells where other PTSW indicator parameters (e.g., total coliform) were also observed. Since both potable and PTSW sulfate concentrations are lower than native groundwater, the observed decreases in sulfate during CT2 may be partially attributed to the influence from potable recharge, since potable ASR operations at WF2 coincided with PTSW recharge at S-4 and S-20. S Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity – The TSS and turbidity of native groundwater are very low, with turbidity generally below 1

nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) and suspended solids less than 1 mg/L. Turbidity of the reservoir water is slightly higher, ranging from 5-20 NTUs, and TSS ranged from 5-25 mg/L. Since turbidity and suspended solids are also low in potable water, this difference appeared to make turbidity and TSS good tracers for the PTSW; however, there were some disparities observed. Turbidity and TSS increased in wells where other indicator parameters increased; however, turbidity and TSS were significantly higher than the reservoir water in some of the wells (e.g., M-12 and M-11). This increase in suspended solids at M-11 and M-12 would suggest early arrival of the PTSW (the first sample after recharge began), whereas other indicators (including total coliform) did not show the same at these wells. Since TSS can be generated in wells from pumping the well (e.g., purging for sampling), it was not a conclusive indicator, yet TSS and turbidity quickly returned to the background in M-12 and M-11 once PTSW recharge ceased, suggesting that the increased TSS and turbidity at these wells had some link to the PTSW recharge activity, though not completely understood. S Total Organic Carbon (TOC) – The TOC was found to be the most useful indicator parameter for PTSW as it's detected at relatively high concentrations compared to potable water and

Figure 5. Partially Treated Surface Water Cycle Testing – M-12 Total Coliform and Total Organic Carbon

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

native groundwater, where TOC concentrations are low or nondetectable. Concentrations of TOC in the reservoir ranged between 10 mg/L and 20 mg/L during recharge events. The TOC was used to establish approximate percentages of PTSW observed at the monitor wells. Being able to establish whether the decrease in total coliform observed in the monitor wells after recharge ceased was due to inactivation or movement of PTSW out of the monitoring well area of influence was an important aspect of the water quality evaluation. Since the presence of TOC was a decisive indicator of arrival of PTSW at the monitor wells, and since it’s recorded in actual concentration to allow for an estimation of the ratio of PTSW present, it was selected as the most useful tracer to evaluate the fate of total coliform. Figure 5 is a graph showing the concentration of total coliform and TOC of monitor well M-12 (located about 450 ft southwest of test well S-20) and PTSW during recharge to illustrate the fate of total coliform in the aquifer. The graph shows the PTSW CT2 from the start of recharge through storage and recovery. The arrival of PTSW at M-12 was indicated by the sharp increase in TOC and total coliform, shown on the figure as a vertical green dashed line. After approximately 55 MG of recharge of PTSW (approximately six weeks), concentrations of TOC and total coliform at M-12 reached the same levels observed at PTSW, suggesting that nearly 100 percent of the water pulled from the monitor well was PTSW. This trend was consistent through the remainder of the recharge period. Recharge stopped (at both PTSW and WF2 potable recharge) on Oct. 31, 2017, indicated by the vertical grey dashed line in the figure. A sharp decreasing trend in total coliform is observed after recharge ceased, reaching nondetect in approximately three weeks and remaining below 4 CFU/100 mL through the remainder of storage and recovery. The TOC also showed a decreasing trend after recharge ceased, presumably by either dilution from PTSW moving out of the monitoring interval or uptake of the carbon source by natural sources. In either case, when comparing TOC and total coliform concentrations, TOC declined at a significantly slower rate. For example, on Nov. 16, 2017, the TOC concentration suggested that approximately 45 percent of the sampled water from M-12 was PTSW, yet total coliform had decreased to 11 CFU/100 mL. By Nov. 30, 2017, TOC concentrations suggested that approximately 25 percent of PTSW remained; however, total coliform had been less than 4 CFU/100 mL for approximately 10 days. These data provide evidence that the decreased concentrations of total coliform were a result of die-off in the

aquifer rather than dilution or movement of water past the monitoring interval. Similar TOCto-total-coliform ratios can be calculated at the other monitor wells where PTSW arrival was observed, supporting this conclusion. Water quality analysis during cycle testing also included Escherichia coli (E. coli), which is a common coliform bacterium in the environment that is found in the intestines of humans and other animals. The E. coli concentrations from the PTSW were low, with only eight of the 28 samples measured above the detection limit (1 CFU/100 mL) and the highest concentration recorded at 6 CFU/100 mL. The E. coli concentrations at the monitor wells where PTSW was detected were also low and frequently below detection limits. The highest level recorded was 12 CFU/100 mL in M-12; however, most monitor well samples where E. coli was detected were 4 CFU/100 mL or less. As observed with total coliform, once PTSW recharge ceased, E. coli showed rapid die-off in the aquifer, as indicated by the data. Analysis of the water quality data provided some insight to the directional flow paths at WF2. Arrival of PTSW during CT1 was observed at M-14 within hours of initiating recharge, suggesting a direct conduit system to

this well from S-20 and/or S-4. Some PTSW arrival was noted at S-19 and S-17; however, only a small percentage of PTSW was observed based on the TOC and total coliform concentrations. During CT1, only PTSW was recharged using S4 and S-20; a total of 58 MG was recharged and the other WF2 wells were not in operation. During CT2, a larger volume of PTSW was recharged compared to CT1, totaling 178 MG. During this cycle, arrival of PTSW was first seen at M-14, followed by M-12, M-15, and M-11, with each exhibiting TOC and total coliform concentrations that suggest nearly 100 percent PTSW at the monitor well. The exact time of arrival at M15 was uncertain since sampling for PTSW parameters at this well did not begin until it was observed that PTSW had arrived at M-12, the next closest monitor well in the direction of M-15. The relatively fast arrival of PTSW at M-12 and M-15, and the fact that other wells at equidistance (e.g., M-13) from S-20 and S-4 did not show indications of PTSW, suggests a preferential flow path from S-4 and S-20 in the direction of M-14, M-12, and M-15. This directional flow may have been influenced by potable recharge activities that occurred simultaneously at the other WF2 ASR wells during

PTSW recharge, which may have prevented movement of PTSW to the east or southeast directions. Mixing of potable water with PTSW would have been expected at M-12 and M-15, yet despite the 4:1 volume of potable to PTSW recharged during CT2, the monitor wells exhibited water quality suggesting nearly 100 percent PTSW. This may have been a result of the higher flow rate at S-20 compared to the other wells. The average flow rate at S-20 was 1.4 mgd compared with 0.5 mgd to 0.75 mgd at the other WF2 wells. This disparity in the flow rate may have contributed to the flow of PTSW along a conduit system (i.e., fractures or solution channels within the aquifer) that potentially exist in the direction of M-14, M-12, and M-15. The mobilization of arsenic (which is naturally present in the formation matrix) through geochemical interactions resulting from ASR activities has been well-documented at the PRF ASR system and other ASR systems throughout the region. During PTSW cycle testing, arsenic was monitored to observe if any changes in this geochemical interaction occurred as a result of the differing water quality characteristics of PTSW. Figure 6 is a graph of the arsenic data from the Continued on page 44

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ February 2019

Continued from page 43 PTSW cycle testing, showing arsenic concentrations from each of the monitor wells sampled. Arsenic detections were observed in most M-series wells, but were recorded in highest concentrations at M-11, M-12, M-14, M-15, and M-16. Not all of these increases are necessarily attributed to PTSW cycle testing; the WF2 potable water storage volumes had been increasing each year since 2013. Arsenic detections began to increase at M15, M-18, and M-19 once storage volumes increased, but before PTSW testing, though M-18 and M-19 have remained below 10 µg/L. Elevated concentrations of arsenic observed at M11, M-12, and M-16 began in 2017, suggesting a possible relationship to PTSW testing; however, PTSW CT2 coincided with the potable water storage, reaching the highest volumes at WF2 since operations began, which may be the cause of the higher arsenic concentrations observed at the monitor wells. Arrival of PTSW was observed at M-11 and M-12, but not at M-16. Arsenic responses during CT2 storage and subsequent recovery are similar to M-11 and M-12, suggesting that the increases may be related to the increase in WF2 storage volume. Overall, arsenic concentration remained low at the monitor wells, with only M-12, M-14, and M-15 exceeding 10 µg/L. Arsenic concentrations at M-15 are relatively low, with the highest concentration recorded at 16 µg/L. Increased monitoring frequency at this well has been initiated to track arsenic concentration changes.

Summary and Recommendations

Pilot testing of PTSW included two cycle tests conducted between February and December 2017, using two wells in WF2, S-4, and S-20. During CT1, a total of 58 MG of PTSW was recharged. Following a two-week storage period, all of the PTSW was recovered. The CT2 consisted of 178 MG of recharge (a one-month storage period) and recovery of 57 MG from S-4 and S-20. Recharge capacity of the wells was not significantly impacted by injection of PTSW, and recovery efforts helped restore lost capacity. The intake screen was valuable for keeping large aquatic organisms out of the pump, helping to protect the temporary PTSW system. The filtration system proved to be effective at removing algae that was suspended in the reservoir. Changing of the filter bags on a routine basis was necessary as they became blinded within approximately two to three days. Near the end of the CT2 recharge, the mesh filter bags were left out, leaving only filtration through a stainless steel basket with one-eighth-in. openings. This coarser filtration appeared to have some short-term impact on S-4, but the well capacity was restored through intermittent shortterm well development, as well as a sufficient recovery period. Arrival of PTSW was observed at select monitor wells primarily in the southwest direction, indicating a preferential flow path. At monitor wells M-14, M-11, M-12, and M-15, water quality analysis suggested PTSW arrival approaching 100 percent at these wells. Total co-

liform was present at high concentrations; however, once recharge of PTSW ceased total coliform inactivation was observed, with total coliform counts reaching less than 4 CFU/100 mL after approximately three to four weeks. Arsenic concentration increased at some of the monitor wells, near the end of CT2 recharge. It was uncertain, however, if these increases were a result of PTSW or the increase in WF2 overall storage volumes. For full-scale PTSW implementation, a zone of discharge or other regulatory relief mechanism will be needed to allow exceedances of some drinking water standards to naturally attenuate before leaving the property under the control of the PRF. Implementation of PTSW appears to be feasible after the PTSW pilot study; however, there are long-term unknowns for utilization of this source water that may not become immediately apparent. Should the authority choose to implement PTSW as a source water, the following are some mitigation strategies for consideration if water quality standards are not met at compliance wells: S Stop recharge at ASR wells that are closer to the monitoring wells with exceedances. S Limit wellfield storage volumes to keep PTSW within the property boundary. S Add additional monitor wells within the PTSW flow path on authority-controlled land (e.g., to the west-southwest of WF2). S Expand the ASR wellfield to the west further onto authority-controlled property and discontinue use of ASR wells closer to property boundaries. S Acquire or otherwise expand control of property near the ASR production wells. S Add in-line disinfection to the PTSW conveyance system to preemptively treat coliform and algae as needed.

References 1. CH2M and ASRus, August 2016. “Florida Department of Environmental Protection Class V, Group 7, Operation Permit Aquifer Storage Recovery – Request for Major Modification to Permit Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Peace River Facility.” Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on behalf of the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority. 2. CH2M and ASRus, March 2016. “Partially Treated Surface Water Desktop Study.” Prepared for the Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority, Bradenton, Fla. S Figure 5. Partially Treated Surface Water Cycle Testing – Arsenic

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Operators: Take the CEU Challenge! Members of the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association (FWPCOA) may earn continuing education units through the CEU Challenge! Answer the questions published on this page, based on the technical articles in this month’s issue. Circle the letter of each correct answer. There is only one correct answer to each question! Answer 80 percent of the questions on any article correctly to earn 0.1 CEU for your license. Retests are available. This month’s editorial theme is Water Supply and Alternative Sources. Look above each set of questions to see if it is for water operators (DW), distribution system operators (DS), or wastewater operators (WW). Mail the completed page (or a photocopy) to: Florida Environmental Professionals Training, P.O. Box 33119, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. 334203119. Enclose $15 for each set of questions you choose to answer (make checks payable to FWPCOA). You MUST be an FWPCOA member before you can submit your answers!

Earn CEUs by answering questions from previous Journal issues!

A. Dale Helms, Saurabh Srivastava, David MacIntyre, and Deborah Beatty (Article 1: CEU = 0.1 WW)

1. The Central Florida Water Initiative (CWFI) groundwater availability analysis projects a shortfall of _____ mil gal per day (mgd) by 2035. a. 250 b. 400 c. 800 d. 1,100 2. Which of the following is not listed as a benefit of this project? a. Direct potable reuse b. Reduce Lake Toho pollutant loading c. Augmentation of Toho Water Authority’s nonpotable reuse system d. Reduce irrigation demand from groundwater resources 3. Proposed withdrawals from the two tributary ditches will not adversely impact nearby wetlands because a. reservoir water will be pumped directly to them. b. water diverted to those ditches are rich in wetland nutrients. c. wetland water levels are heavily influenced by Lake Toho. d. wetland species are already in transition.

SUBSCRIBER NAME (please print)

Article 1 _________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

Article 2 _________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

If paying by credit card, fax to (561) 625-4858 providing the following information: ___________________________________ (Credit Card Number)

Contact FWPCOA at membership@fwpcoa.org or at 561-840-0340. Articles from past issues can be viewed on the Journal website, www.fwrj.com.

A Unique Alternative Water Supply in the Central Florida Water Initiative: The Judge Farms Project

___________________________________

____________________________________ (Expiration Date)

Innovative Disposal of Reverse Osmosis Concentrate in Central Florida Michael L. Weatherby, Deborah Beatty, Mark B. McNeal, and Jon Fox (Article 2: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW)

1. The disposal of reverse osmosis (RO) concentrate via injection well requires that the well must a. extend a minimum of 5,000 ft below land surface. b. discharge just above the bottom of the underground source of drinking water. c. be operated as a Class V, Group 4 installation. d. be designed to Class I industrial standards. 2. Which of the following is cited as a disadvantage of completing this injection well system into the Upper Cretaceous formation? a. It lacks permeability. b. The operating cost will be greater. c. The standard casing materials cannot withstand higher hydraulic pressure. d. It has been designated an underground source of drinking water. 3. The “Boulder Zone” into which coastal communities commonly inject RO concentrate is within which of the following geological formations? a. Oldsmar b. Hawthorne c. Cretaceous d. Avon Park

4. Based on simulated results, a surface water diversion permit sufficient to support ____ mgd annual average day of supplemental reuse was issued. a. 3 b. 6 c. 8.22 d. 9.54

4. If successful, the initiative discussed in this article will increase the opportunity for a. discharging secondary wastewater plant effluent underground. b. increased surficial aquifer water supply. c. development of central Florida brackish groundwater supplies. d. aquifer storage and recovery projects.

5. Which of the following processes is incorporated in the proposed treatment facility to be located at the reservoir site? a. Coagulation b. Disinfection c. Biological nutrient removal d. Aeration

5. Which of the following is not listed as a parameter for which a water quality exemption will be sought? a. Coliform bacteria b. Sodium c. Radionuclides d. Total dissolved solids Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

C FACTOR

The 1840s: Not a Good Time for White House Water Mike Darrow President, FWPCOA

ow–it’s February! This coldweather month is already here. Presidents’ Day in the United States is here as well. I was doing some research on U.S. presidents and water policy and found some information about the White House and its water supply and the link to three U.S. presidents.

First Sources of Water The first water system for the City of Washington, near the White House, was created in 1802 at a natural spring. In 1808 a well was sunk at the spring site and the system was expanded to a few nearby hotels. The U.S. Congress first appropriated funds in 1819 to purchase this spring and supply for a dedicated water source to the president's house,

but this was not completed until 1833. With the addition of steam-driven pumps and cast iron piping, this spring water was delivered to the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. Water was supplied this way until the early 1850s, when the water sources were changed.

Death in the White House In the 1840s the three presidents elected in United States were William Henry Harrison, James K. Polk, and Zachary Taylor; two of the three died in office and the third was sickened in office and died three months later. President Harrison, nicknamed “Old Tippecanoe,” took office in 1841 and died just 31 days into his presidency; this is the shortest length of office for any U.S. president. Officially, President Harrison died of pneumonia, and President Polk and President Taylor both died both of gastrointestinal issues. New forensic research shows all three deaths could be link to the White House water supply in the 1840s and early 1850s. Researchers were looking through the journal of President Harrison’s doctor and learned that

The southern façade of the White House in the 1800s.

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

his death was related to stomach and gastrointestinal issues; they also found that all three presidents had similar symptoms. History has generally accepted that President Harrison died of pneumonia after giving what remains the longest inaugural address on record, in a freezing rain without wearing a hat or coat. Harrison’s gastrointestinal tract, however, may have been a veritable playground for the bacteria from the White House water, which may have hastened his death. Harrison suffered from indigestion most of his life. The standard treatment then was to use carbonated alkali, a base, to neutralize the gastric acid. Unfortunately, in neutralizing the acid, Harrison removed his natural defense to harmful bacteria. As a result, it might have taken far less than the usual concentration of salmonella to cause gastroenteritis. In addition, Harrison was treated during his final illness with opium, also standard at the time, which slowed the ability of his body to get rid of bacteria, allowing them more time to get into his bloodstream. It had been noted that, as Harrison lay dying, he had a sinking pulse and cold, blue extremities, which is consistent with septic shock. Harrison may have died of pneumonia, but there is the strong likelihood that it was secondary to gastroenteritis. James K. Polk reported frequently in his diary that he also suffered from stomach and intestinal problems while in the White House. For example, Polk’s diary entry for June 29, 1848, noted that “before sunrise” that morning he was taken with “violent diarrhea” accompanied by “severe pain,” which rendered him unable to move. Polk, a noted workaholic, spent nearly his entire administration tethered to the White House. After leaving office, weakened by years of gastric poisoning, Polk succumbed to cholera morbus, a severe form of gastroenteritis, a mere three months after leaving the Oval Office. Zachary Taylor succumbed in July 1850 to what was essentially an acute form of gastroenteritis; the cause was probably salmonella bacteria. Almost immediately after his death, rumors began to circulate that Taylor was poisoned by proslavery Southerners, and similar theories persisted into the 21st century. A recent post-mortem analysis conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory revealed no evidence of poisoning and con-

William Henry Harrison

James K. Polk

cluded that Taylor, like Polk, had contracted cholera morbus, and his food or drink may have been contaminated from the water. This phenomena wasn’t only limited to mid-nineteenth century presidents. In 1803, Thomas Jefferson mentioned in a letter to a good friend that “after all my life having enjoyed the benefit of well-formed organs of digestion and deportation,” he was taken, “two years ago,” after moving into the White House, “with diarrhea, after having dined moderately on fish.” Jefferson noted he had never had it before, but intestinal problems plagued him for the rest of his life. Reports of Jefferson’s death stated that he had died because of dehydration from diarrhea.

was a ground depression opening used to get rid of waste, which was upstream of the natural flow of the groundwater to the White House’s source water. This sewerage dump was used by locals and the government to dump nightly waste–never a good thing to be downstream of that! This method of disposal for human waste, with no treatment, would have been a breeding ground for two deadly bacteria, Salmonella typhi and Salmonella paratyphi, the causes of typhoid and paratyphoid fever. Limited records for the time do not show results of other deaths from this water at the White House, but the source water was moved to the Potomac River in the mid-1850s.

Was It the Water?

Advances in Water Supply and Treatment

We can speculate about the causes of these deaths: Was it the spring or the delivery system that was contaminated? Was it due to increased withdrawal rates from the spring? How many others may have died? Was it the change in the water source in the 1850s that stopped this problem? Or was this another wild conspiracy theory? To me, as a water/wastewater operator, I want to know more about this. There was no chlorination or advanced water treatment back then. The source water was everything to a water’s purity for drinking. A good well was life to the area, and very important for community growth and the well-being of it citizens. As it turns out, there was no wastewater collection system back then in Washington, D.C. The common method of disposal in the area was an old sewerage dump. This dump

Zachary Taylor

I wanted to relay this story in honor of Presidents’ Day and because it shows the importance of our daily tasks as operators and mechanics for public health and safety. It also shows the progress we’ve made over the centuries and the need for continued advancement of technology in water supply, wastewater collection, and treatment. Modern living on the scale we have now could not exist without our efforts of working together to be dedicated professionals protecting public health. We would read this story in a different light today if we didn’t have safe drinking water and reliable wastewater treatment, so keep up the good work. Your community depends on you each and every day!

Continuing Education Units and Florida Department of Environmental Protection License Renewal Time Our water and wastewater state licenses renew on April 30, so let the fun begin! As you all know, there is a two-year renewal cycle where CEUs in our discipline must be achieved. The process involves taking training courses and submitting them to the FDEP operator certification program for application to your license number. Before your license can be renewed, the right amount of CEUs must be tagged to your number. So what are you waiting for? We at FWPCOA are here to help you in the process by offering CEUs in many different ways. The fastest way is through our Online Institute at www.flextraining.com or through our website at www.fwpcoa.org. This is a great place to get low-cost and easy-access training to you anytime. Make sure you take advantage of this for fast results. Contact Tim McVeigh at ProgAdmin@fwpcoa.org for more information. You can also look for training in your area and through your region on the website or the local training office for a class near you. Did you know that reading the Florida Water Resource Journal could be another way to get your CEUs? Read an article every month, take a test, submit it, and earn your CEUs! Turn to page 45 for more information on this. Anyway you get them, you’re now on track to continue working in your discipline and protecting the public. Nothing wrong with improving your knowledge base! S

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

F W R J

Innovative Disposal of Reverse Osmosis Concentrate in Central Florida Michael L. Weatherby, Deborah Beatty, Mark B. McNeal, and Jon Fox he Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) has identified that fresh groundwater supplies in central Florida are not sustainable at the current withdrawal rates and are inadequate to meet the growing demands over the next decade. Figure 1 illustrates the area of the CFWI with partnering water management districts (Southwest, South, and St. Johns River) and the cover of the CFWI regional water supply plan that outlines potential water supply projects to meet future demands. Water utilities in the CFWI area are identifying future alternative water supplies, including sources such as brackish groundwater, surface water, reclaimed water, and stormwater, and implementing conservation measures to ensure that current and future supplies last longer. The Water Cooperative of Central Florida (cooperative) was formed as a regional effort to develop a long-term, sustainable water supply approach on which its utility members can rely. The cooperative members consist of the City of St. Cloud, Toho Water Authority, Orange County Utilities, and Polk County Utilities. The cooperative, together with the Reedy Creek Improvement District (collec-

tively referred to as “utility partners”), have identified brackish groundwater from the Lower Floridan aquifer (LFA) as a viable, sustainable alternative water supply source in central Florida.

Florida Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Disposal History The challenge to the development of a brackish water source is the limited options available to dispose of the reject, or concentrate, stream from the reverse osmosis (RO) treatment process. The RO treatment of brackish groundwater is a commonly utilized treatment process and concentrate disposal via injection wells. It’s the widely utilized disposal option in Florida coastal communities or areas due to the prolific Oldsmar Formation “Boulder Zone” and its ability to readily accept RO reject flows. Unfortunately, the known unlimited capacity of the Boulder Zone in south Florida is unavailable, for the most part, in central Florida. The seeming lack of an injection zone for disposal, coupled with the deep occurrence of fresh groundwater in central Florida, made brackish water devel-

Figure 1. Central Florida Water Initiative study area and the cover of the final regional water supply plan. (source: https://cfwiwater.com)

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Michael L. Weatherby, P.G., is president of HydroGeo Consulting LLC in Tampa. Deborah Beatty, P.E., is project manager and senior engineer with Toho Water Authority in Kissimmee. Mark B. McNeal, P.G., is chief executive officer of ASRus LLC in Tampa. Jon Fox, P.E., is vice president and project manager with Tetra Tech Inc. in Orlando.

opment in the CFWI area an infeasible water supply option in the past.

Central Florida Concentrate Disposal Options Evaluated To meet future water supply demands in the CFWI area, the utility partners evaluated the most feasible and cost-effective RO concentrate disposal options available to the central Florida region. Without an affordable disposal option, the development of a large-scale brackish water supply in central Florida would be cost prohibitive. The disposal options study included managing the concentrate through surface water discharge, agricultural reuse blending, wastewater reuse blending, zero liquid discharge, RO concentrate reduction processes called enhanced recovery, and deep injection wells. The study detailed advantages, disadvantages, challenges, and planning-level costing of each option. The evaluation made clear that even the most cost-effective disposal option is still too expensive to develop for the utility partners. The following six concentrate disposal options were evaluated. Option 1: Surface Water Discharge The impact of discharging RO concentrate to a surface water body can vary, depending on the surface water body’s volume, flow, depth, temperature, and surface water chemistry, in addition to the volume, flow, temperature, chemistry, and specifically salinity of the RO concentrate. Identifying whether a target surface water body is considered as impacted by specific water quality conditions (i.e., nutrients, salinity, etc.) is critical to determining if a surface water disposal option is feasible. The advantages and disadvantages for disposal to a surface water body are as follows:

Advantages S Cost-efficient operation. S Can provide additional flows needed to waterlevel-impacted waterbodies. Disadvantages S Permitting is challenging for discharge of moresaline RO concentrate to fresh surface water and to identified impaired waterbodies. S Long pipelines likely needed to transport concentrate. S Blending facility may be needed. S Toxicity caused by total dissolved solids (TDS), ion imbalances, and pH may occur. S Potential flood control may be challenging during above average rainfall. Option 2: Agricultural Reuse The impact of using RO concentrate for agriculture irrigation purposes can vary, depending on the level of salinity tolerance that specific crops can tolerate, soil percolation rates, irrigation demands, and water quality regulatory standards of surface waters and subsurface groundwater, as well as the volume, flow, temperature, and chemistry of the RO concentrate. The advantages and disadvantages for disposal via agriculture irrigation are as follows: Advantages S Spray irrigation is a proven concentrate management option. S Reduces groundwater reliance as an irrigation source. Disadvantages S Salinity could impact quality of crop yield, soil, nearby waterbodies, and groundwater. S Large blending facilities are needed. S Large-scale storage during periods of above average rainfall or post-harvest periods. S Cooperation and agreements from local agricultural community to use a blended resource. S Binding legal agreements tied to land sales. Option 3: Wastewater Reuse The RO concentrate may be disposed at water reclamation facilities (WRFs) that will treat the concentrate and become a part of reclaimed water from the facility. The addition of RO concentrate to a WRF is specific to the volume, flow, and chemistry (primarily salinity) of the RO concentrate and the inflow to the specific WRF. If the RO concentrate is too saline for a specific WRF to adequately absorb and treat the RO concentrate without causing harm to the biological treatment process, this option cannot be feasible. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a delicate balance between the quality of the RO concentrate and the ability of the specific WRF to treat the additional flow. Due to the location of the potential reverse

osmosis water treatment plant (ROWTP) at the Cypress Lake site, nine WRFs are considered viable options; eight of these are owned and operated by the Toho Water Authority (TWA) and the remaining WRF is owned and operated by the City of St. Cloud. The advantages and disadvantages for disposal into a WRF are as follows: Advantages S The WRFs could have sufficient hydraulic capacity for proper blending. S Existing permits could provide flexibility to operate at permitted levels. S Could blend concentrate with raw wastewater or finished reclaimed water. Disadvantages S The WRFs could be located far away from the RO concentrate source. S Concrete structures can be attacked by high chloride and sulfate. S Delivery of the concentrate must mimic the diurnal wastewater flow patterns to avoid highsalinity slugs entering the system. S Discharging directly to rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) could potentially impact groundwater quality. Option 4: Zero Liquid Discharge The term zero liquid discharge (ZLD) is used to describe the various technologies that are employed to produce a solid waste stream from a liquid process stream. The various categories of ZLD options can be classified as: S Evaporation ponds S Thermal-based technologies (brine crystallizers) Most of these technologies are in conceptual development or are only available for small-scale application and are energy-intensive. The ZLD technologies are not commonly used in Florida, mainly due to the availability of injection zones for RO concentrate in coastal Florida where desalination of brackish groundwater is common. Additionally, evaporation ponds have significant operational limitations in states such as Florida that have annual average precipitation rates of 50 in.; they are much more effective in arid areas, such as the southwest United States. The advantages and disadvantages for ZLD technologies are as follows: Advantages S Creates a solid to be safely disposed or recovered as a byproduct for beneficial use. Disadvantages S High capital costs (brine crystallizers). S Very high energy consumption (brine crystallizers). S Evaporation ponds will have limited performance during wet weather periods.

Option 5: Concentrate Reduction/Enhanced Recovery Concentrate reduction and enhanced recovery are terms used to describe the various technologies that are employed to reduce RO concentrate flow. A significant reduction of RO concentrate flows does make concentrate disposal easier; however, a liquid disposal option is still needed in concert with this option. The various categories of enhanced recovery options can be classified as: S Intermediate treatment (chemical softening) S Thermal-based technologies (brine concentrators) S Additional membrane stages S Electric potential driven membrane technologies such as electrodialysis (ED) and/or electrodialysis reversal (EDR) These concentrate reduction and enhanced recovery options are energy-intensive. The advantages and disadvantages for concentrate reduction and enhanced recovery technologies are as follows: Advantages S Concentrate TDS up to 20,000 mg/L (additional-stage membranes, ED, and EDR). S Concentrate TDS as high as 250,000 mg/L (brine concentrator). S Additional high-quality product water produced (additional stage membranes and brine concentrator). Disadvantages S Energy cost increases with TDS of water (ED and EDR). S Still requires a liquid disposal option. S Membranes need to be periodically cleaned (ED and EDR). S High capital costs (brine concentrator). S High energy consumption (brine concentrator). Option 6: Injection Wells The injection zone evaluation was initially based on the ability of a selected injection zone to accept up to 2 mil gal per day (mgd) of concentrate from the Cypress Lake ROWTP and the hydrogeological characteristics needed to meet regulatory requirements of an industrial injection well for disposal. In Florida, the historical and current common method of RO concentrate disposal using injection wells follows a design and permitting mechanism for Class I industrial injection wells. These Class I wells must dispose of fluids into an injection zone that is not an underground source of drinking water (USDW), which has an adequate thickness of overlying low-permeability rock to confine the injected water to prevent it from migrating upward into a USDW that could be used as Continued on page 50

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ February 2019

Continued from page 49 a drinking water supply in the future. An USDW in Florida is defined as water having a TDS water quality concentration of less than 10,000 mg/L. The federal definition of a USDW includes additional criteria, including that the formation is capable of producing a sufficient amount of water for public supply. There are two types of Class I injection well

designs: municipal and industrial. Municipal injection wells dispose of treated domestic wastewater and today can only dispose of wet weather excess reclaimed water, or water that has undergone the high-level disinfection (HLD) process. Since the injectate is generally fresh water, the wells can be designed with a carbon steel final casing. The industrial injection well design requires a corrosion-resistant injection tubing inside the final

Figure 2. Hydrogeological section showing the estimated depth of the base of the underground source of drinking water.

February 2019 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

carbon steel casing. This final tubing is either left with a fluid-filled annulus (sealed at the bottom with a packer) or is cemented from top to bottom. The disposal of RO concentrate using an injection well requires the wells to be designed to Class I industrial standards. These Class I injection well designs also include a dual-zone monitoring well to monitor for impacts to the base of the locally identified USDW. Based on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) underground injection control (UIC) rules (Chapter 62-528, Florida Administrative Code [FAC]), the Class I industrial injection well regulations prohibit adverse injectate impacts to a USDW, and if impacts are discovered, they constitute a serious violation that can shut down the Class I industrial injection system. Evaluation of central Florida hydrogeology indicated that the base of the lowermost USDW (waters with less than 10,000 mg/L TDS concentrations) existed into the top half of the LFA permeable zones of the Oldsmar Formation, which is commonly used for RO concentration disposal in coastal Florida and is far below the base of the identified USDW in the area. In central Florida, however, since the lowermost permeable unit of the LFA intersects the base of the USDW, the upper half of the lowermost potential injection zone (Oldsmar Formation) is considered by FDEP as a USDW, while the lower half of the fractured zone is non-USDW or greater than 10,000 mg/L TDS concentration. With this general information, the LFA cannot be considered for RO concentrate disposal through traditional Class I industrial injection well criteria. Figure 2 provides a hydrogeologic section developed for the project showing the approximate depth of the base of the lowermost USDW, which is protected by FDEP and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The local hydrogeologic and water quality information was provided from the test wells constructed at the site. Due to Class I industrial injection well rules, the only available injection zone that will avoid impacting a FDEP-defined USDW was the Upper Cretaceous formation permeable zone below the Floridan Aquifer System (FAS). The previous study identified the potential Upper Cretaceous formation injection zone between approximately 3,600 and 5,000 ft below land surface (bls), which is shown in light blue in the figure. The Upper Cretaceous formations are not commonly used for injection in Florida. Currently, only three injection wells in southwest Polk County are constructed in the Upper Cretaceous formations, along with one well in the Florida Panhandle. The corresponding deeper well design makes these injection wells much more expensive Continued on page 52

FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDAR SCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY! February 4-7 ......Backflow Tester* ................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405 4-8 ......Water Distribution Level 3 ................Osteen..............$225/255 4-8 ......Reclaimed Water Distribution C ......Osteen..............$225/255 18-21 ......Backflow Tester ..................................Osteen..............$375/405 19-March 4 ......Wastewater Collection C, B ..............Miami-Dade......$225/255 22 ......Backflow Tester Recerts*** ..............Osteen..............$85/115

March 4-6 ......Backflow Repair* ..............................St. Petersburg ....$275/305 18-22 ......Spring State School ............................Ft. Pierce

April 1-5 ......Wastewater Collection C ..................Osteen..............$225/255 8-10 ......Backflow Repair ................................Osteen..............$275/305 22-25 ......Backflow Tester* ................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405 26 ......Test Retakes ........................................Osteen..............$80 26 ......Backflow Tester Recerts*** ..............Osteen..............$85/115

May 6-10 ......Water Distribution Level 2 ................Osteen..............$225/255 6-10 ......Reclaimed Water Distribution B ......Osteen..............$225/255 31 ......Backflow Tester Recerts*** ..............Osteen..............$85/115

Course registration forms are available at http://www.fwpcoa.org/forms.asp. For additional information on these courses or other training programs offered by the FWPCOA, please contact the FW&PCOA Training Office at (321) 383-9690 or training@fwpcoa.org. * Backflow recertification is also available the last day of Backflow Tester or Backflow Repair Classes with the exception of Deltona ** Evening classes

You are required to have your own calculator at state short schools and most other courses.

*** any retest given also Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;¢ February 2019

Continued from page 50 to construct than typical FAS injection wells and results in higher injection pressures, which increases operation and maintenance costs. Even with these limitations, such as lower formation permeability and higher construction and operational costs, this RO concentrate disposal option was the least costly option evaluated in this study. The advantages and disadvantages for injection well disposal are as follows: Advantages S Proven technology with minimal maintenance. S Provide continuous flow capacity regardless of the season. S Minimal to no additional land. S Splitting the flow among multiple wells can save energy costs. S Variable or increasing injectate salinity does not affect injection. S No third-party involvement or contractual agreements needed. Disadvantages S Not commonly considered for injection. Only four injection wells currently exist in Florida in the Upper Cretaceous permeable zone. S Upper Cretaceous formations will cause elevated wellhead pressures at 2 mgd (potentially >200 pounds per sq in. [psi]). S Must be monitored for potential plugging effects due to low permeability of the injection zone.

Selected Disposal Option The disposal option evaluation highlighted complications and limitations of all other disposal options to permit, implement, and operate. For ex-

ample, changes in water quality of the RO concentrate will not affect the disposal process using injection wells when a slight change in the concentrate water quality would render other evaluated disposal options unusable. Ultimately, the other disposal options were deemed not feasible or had significantly higher costs when compared to the injection well option. For the 10-mgd initial phase of the ROWTP, the next viable option of EDR was 50 percent more expensive than utilizing Upper Cretaceous formation injection wells; for the final 30-mgd ROWTP phase, EDR was 30 percent more expensive than utilizing multiple injection wells. The recommended injection well option is easily expandable to provide additional system redundancy or injection capacity if needed. Even though the study recommended the injection well option because of less limitations and lower cost of all the options evaluated, a more detailed evaluation would be needed to move toward the permitting phase. Concerns among the utility partners regarding the cost of constructing these Upper Cretaceous formation injection wells to depths up to 5,000 ft bls prompted the pursuit of an alternative approach to permit an injection well in the LFA for the disposal of RO concentrate. To develop an injection well disposal option that is more affordable and is permittable in central Florida, a creative well design and permitting approach was developed not previously presented to the UIC department at FDEP for RO concentrate disposal. Instead of a Class I industrial injection well that’s constructed into the Upper Cretaceous formations, a Class V Group 4 injection well approach was utilized. This approach will allow a shallower injection well to be developed into the LFA (which

Figure 3. East-west cross section showing the estimated base of the underground source of drinking wate and the ultimately proposed injection well.

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

is not available for the Class I injection well option) to depths up to 2,400 ft bls, reducing the injection well costs up to 60 percent.

Class V Injection Well Design and Permitting Strategy Brackish groundwater RO concentrate is developed when brackish groundwater is forced under pressure into a membrane that divides the brackish water into two streams. The fresh permeate (water that goes through the membrane) is the portion that becomes drinking water and the reject, or concentrate, is a waste byproduct that needs disposal. The RO concentrate is saline because it is a concentration of all the impurities in the brackish groundwater, predominantly salts. Understanding the injectate water quality, regional hydrogeology, and target injection zone is important to meet the regulatory requirements to properly design and permit this injection well. Since the source of the concentrate is natural groundwater, FDEP UIC rules allow for a Class V Group 4 injection option for nonhazardous industrial and commercial disposal wells for disposal of desalination process concentrate (Chapter 62-528.600(2)(d), FAC) provided the concentrations of the waste do not exceed drinking water standards contained in Chapter 62550, FAC. This rule has not been used in Florida for the disposal of RO concentrate since injection wells are commonly constructed in south Florida in the Lower Floridan aquifer Oldsmar Formation below the identified base of the lowermost USDW, or along the Florida Gulf Coast in the Avon Park High Permeability Zone of the Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA). Having local subsurface hydrogeologic and water quality information was critical in developing a permitting strategy for this project. During the brackish water supply evaluation, the utility partners had constructed multiple test wells at and near the proposed ROWTP site. A test well was constructed to a depth of 2,600 ft at the ROWTP site, which provided much-needed hydrogeological and ambient water quality information. Figure 3 shows the east-west hydrogeological cross section of the area surrounding the injection well site. The Oldsmar Formation is the target formation for injection of RO concentrate. This figure also shows the approximate location of the base of the USDW (where aquifer water exceeds 10,000 mg/L TDS concentrations). The previous hydrogeologic data identified the base of the USDW and the LFA permeable zone, which was valuable information to present to FDEP’s UIC department. The permitting of the first Class V injection well for disposal of 2 mgd and possibly up to 6 mgd of RO concentrate in Florida was significant for FDEP to consider and will set a new precedent in the state.

The added significance for this unique Class V permitting option surrounded the criticality of water supply issues in central Florida as a whole. Without this Class V permitting concept to dispose of RO concentrate in the LFA and approval to impact a small portion of the USDW (that has TDS concentrations over 8,000 mg/L) in the injection zone, the future option of using brackish groundwater may have been removed from the water supply options for an entire region. This Class V injection well option is less costly to construct, will operate with less wellhead pressure (which lowers operation costs), eliminates plugging potential issues that can shorten the injection well life, and may reduce the number of injection wells needed for this facility. The TDS concentration of the produced RO concentrate is estimated to be approximately 16,000 mg/L; therefore, the Class V well design does not change from a Class I industrial injection well design because the RO concentrate remains corrosive to steel. To meet the Class I industrial injection well design requirements, a fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) injection tubing is designed to be cemented inside the final steel casing to protect it from salt corrosion. Class I injection wells typically require a dual-zone monitoring well to be constructed within 150 ft of the Class I injection well to monitor for impacts to shallower aquifers. An added benefit of the Class V injection system is the lower-cost requirement of a singlezone monitoring well instead of the dual-zone monitoring well required for Class I injection wells. Figure 4 provides the construction details of the Class V Group 4 injection well system at the Cypress Lake ROWTP location.

mg/L TDS concentration, regulatory relief will be needed to allow for injection of RO concentrate into the Oldsmar Formation and impact the upper portion of this permeable zone. A water quality criteria exemption (WQCE) will be prepared for parameters, such as chloride, sodium, TDS, and radionuclides, that will exceed the water quality in the upper portion of the Oldsmar Formation. This regulatory relief, expected to be approved by FDEP, changes the water quality standards of specific parameters to a new standard that must be met in the receiving aquifer zone.

Exploratory Well Construction This FDEP Class V Group 4 well construction and testing permit is a critical component of the Cypress Lake ROWTP project for it to move forward for the utility partners. The next phase of the project is to drill the first well as an exploratory well to gather subsurface information, such as ambient aquifer water quality profile data, formation lithology, injection zone productivity, and injection capacity, which will help the utility partners better understand the capacity of each injection well and determine how many injection

wells will be needed to meet the disposal capacity of each phase of the ROWTP system design and construction. The exploratory well will be completed as a Class V injection well.

Conclusion This new disposal option, successfully permitted, is the first Class V injection well permit to be issued in Florida for the disposal of RO concentrate. The permit allows for the construction and testing of the shallower injection well and associated monitoring well. Additional permitting, after testing and prior to placing the well into service, will be necessary. The permitting of this disposal option is the first step toward the development of the first brackish water supply in central Florida. Without this FDEP permitting approach, the development of brackish groundwater would not be economically feasible in this area, which is experiencing limits on potable groundwater development. Once feasibility is demonstrated, this Class V injection well option can be used throughout the CFWI area, making brackish groundwater development a cost-effective alternative water supply in an area not previously considered to be viable. S

Class V Injection Well Florida Department of Environmental Protection Permitting The Class V Group 4 well construction and testing permit application was prepared and submitted on behalf of the utility partners to the FDEP UIC department in June 2016. The application included the local hydrogeological information obtained from the existing onsite monitoring wells constructed at the proposed ROWTP site, an area of review documenting the existing wells in the area, injection well design, drilling and testing plan, and plugging and abandonment plan, among other required information. The Class V Group 4 well construction and testing permit was received on Jan. 30, 2017, allowing the utility partners to begin construction of the injection well. Since the RO concentrate water quality will contain specific constituents that exceed the upper portion of the Oldsmar Formation that contains groundwater with less than 10,000

Figure 4. Permitted injection well and associated monitoring well construction details.

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ February 2019

Test Yourself

What Do You Know About Sedimentation and Flotation? Donna Kaluzniak

1. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Sedimentation and Flotation, the purpose of sedimentation tanks, also called clarifiers, is to a. eliminate dissolved solids from the waste stream. b. provide contact with microorganisms for biological treatment. c. remove rags, roots, and large debris from influent wastewater. d. remove settleable and floatable materials.

2. Primary clarifiers are typically located directly after preliminary treatment, while secondary clarifiers are located after biological treatment. Other than location, what is the main difference between primary and secondary clarifiers? a. Effluent from a primary clarifier is typically clearer than that from a secondary clarifier. b. Primary clarifier effluent is often reused in other plant processes or irrigation. c. Primary clarifier sludge is denser than that from secondary clarifiers. d. Secondary clarifier sludge is denser than that from primary clarifiers.

3. The factor most often reported as influencing clarifier performance is the influent flow rate. What two factors affecting clarifier performance are directly related to flow? a. Detention time and surface loading b. Food/microorganism ratio and sludge age c. Mean cell residence time and organic loading d. Sludge volume index and hydraulic loading

4. As wastewater enters a clarifier, it should be evenly dispersed across the entire

cross section of the tank and flow at the same velocity in all areas towards the discharge end. When the velocity is greater in some sections than others, what can occur? a. b. c. d.

Algal overgrowth Flocculation Homogenous bulking Short-circuiting

5. In clarifiers, proper sludge withdrawal is important. If sludge remains in the tank too long, what may happen that can cause the sludge blanket to rise to the surface? a. b. c. d.

Aerobic decomposition Gasification Molecular degeneration Short-circuiting

6. To ensure proper clarifier operation, operators should test for pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and suspended solids in clarifier effluent. What other measurement should be performed on a regular basis? a. b. c. d.

Alkalinity Nitrogen Sludge blanket level Total volatile solids

7. In a clarifier, the surface of the water is higher than the surface of the water in the sludge well or hopper. The difference in pressure head forces sludge from the bottom of the clarifier to flow through pipes to the sludge well or hopper. What type of sludge removal system is this? a. b. c. d.

9. The removal of colloids and emulsions from clarified effluent is desirable because a. they can cause the plant to exceed the permit limit for total suspended solids. b. they are always toxic to aquatic organisms. c. they exert a high oxygen demand. d. they increase nutrient levels in the effluent.

10. Emulsions and colloids can be removed by a floatation process by pumping air into the mixture to cause suspended material to float to the surface and be skimmed off. What are two commonly used flotation processes? a. Coagulation and flocculation flotation b. Pressure flotation and vacuum flotation c. Primary flotation and secondary flotation d. Vertical or horizontal flotation Answers on page 78

Reference used for this quiz: â&#x20AC;˘ Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, 7th Edition, California State University, Sacramento.

Force pressure system Gravity system Hydrostatic system Vacuum system

8. The three types of solids that will neither settle nor float to the surface of a clarifier and therefore remain in the clarifier effluent are a. colloids, dissolved solids, and emulsions.

February 2019 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

b. colloids, total solids, and volatile solids. c. colloids, emulsions, and volatile solids. d. dissolved solids, emulsions, and total suspended solids.

Send Us Your Questions Readers are welcome to submit questions or exercises on water or wastewater treatment plant operations for publication in Test Yourself. Send your question (with the answer) or your exercise (with the solution) by email to: donna@h2owriting.com

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;¢ February 2019

F W R J

Toho Water Authority’s Unique Approach to Pricing Irrigation Water Andrew Burnham, David Hyder, and Patrick Luce ver the past decade water providers across the United States have been dealing with a tremendous number of challenges, including unprecedented capital reinvestment needs, increasing regulatory requirements, and changing climate patterns. In response to these issues, water utilities have been forced to become more efficient and nimble in their operations, as well as more sophisticated in terms of how revenues are generated from water sales. The pricing of water service has been, and will continue to be, a key factor in the success of today's water utilities. This article presents a case study example of a water utility in Florida that took a unique approach in pricing its irrigation water service. Specifically, the presentation of the case study provides an overview of how the Toho Water Authority (authority), located in central Florida, developed and implemented customized water budgets for its larger commercial irrigation customers. The authority currently provides potable and reclaimed water to commercial accounts for irrigation purposes. In 2017, the authority engaged Stantec Consulting Services (Stantec) to assist in the development of water budgets

for its nonresidential irrigation accounts. Historically, the authority utilized an inclining block rate structure, with progressively more expensive units of water within each tier. Based on a review of water usage patterns, the authority realized that the rate structure was not appropriate in light of the significant variations in irrigation needs among various commercial accounts. In this scenario, accounts with two acres of irrigable area and accounts with a quarter-acre lot were placed in the same tiers, despite the fact that the irrigation needs differ significantly. To provide a more equitable structure, Stantec worked with the authority to define specific water budgets for each individual irrigation account. The individual water budgets were developed based on irrigable area, crop type, soil type, beneficial rainfall, evapotranspiration data, and irrigation efficiency for each irrigation account. The budgets developed for the authority recognize the unique weather patterns experienced in the state of Florida, which demonstrates distinct seasonal variations in rainfall. The authority’s approach, key considerations, and outcomes are discussed.

Table 1. Current Reclaimed Water Volumetric Rates

Andrew Burnham is vice president–financial services, David Hyder is a principal, and Patrick Luce is a consultant with Stantec Consulting Services Inc. in Tampa.

Background At the beginning of Fiscal Year 2017 (Oct. 1, 2016), the authority adopted a new reclaimed water rate based on a cost of service and rate study completed in 2016. The adopted reclaimed water rate structure consists of inclining block usage rates, with the rate tier widths defined by the size of the customer meter. Table 1 presents the then-current reclaimed water rate structure for commercial reclaimed customers with meter sizes greater than 2 in. As shown in the table, under the authority’s current rate structure, the larger the reclaimed customer’s meter, the more reclaimed water that is provided at each tier. This approach is consistent with industry practice and, in general, the size of the customer meter serves as a reasonable proxy for the amount of reclaimed water allocated to an individual customer; however, the authority has received feedback from its commercial reclaimed customers that the current structure may require modification due to impacts the structure is having on their monthly bills.

Methodology

Figure 1. Irrigation Allocation Amount

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Stantec was tasked with developing a rate structure that provides individual reclaimed water allocations for each customer based on the specific attributes of the property receiving service. The goal of this type of structure is to encourage efficient reclaimed water usage on an individual customer basis recognizing the specific attributes of the property served. This approach essentially establishes a monthly irrigation budget for each customer based on the water required to sustain the vegetation on the property. The development of allocation-based rates is outlined in the American Water Works Association Manual of Practice M1, “Principals of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges.” The approach

outlined in the manual for the development of irrigation allocation amounts takes into consideration the landscaped (irrigable) area of the property, the water requirements (based on soil type, climate conditions, and crop type), and the efficiency of the irrigation system. The specific formula used for developing the allocations is outlined in Figure 1. Irrigation Allocation Amount = Figure The specific components of the irrigation allocation formula are as follows: S Landscaped Area – The area identified on the property that requires watering (area with vegetation). S Evapotranspiration (ET) – The amount of water that transpires through plant leaves combined with the amount that evaporates from the soil. The ET data define how much water is required to sustain the vegetation. S Beneficial Rainfall – The amount of rainfall that is considered beneficial for watering vegetation. This is defined as rainfall that is stored in the root zone of the landscaped area, and excludes rainfall that contributes to runoff or drainage. The analysis includes the type of underlying soil for each property that impacts that amount of rainfall that is considered beneficial, given the ability of the soul to retain water. S Crop Type – The specific water needs based on the type of crop irrigated and defined by the crop coefficient (Kc)1. S Irrigation System Efficiency – Assumed efficiency/effectiveness of the irrigation system. In typical water budget rate structures, the monthly irrigation allocations developed for each account reflects that account’s water budget for each month; however, a key component of the analysis was to synthesize these allocations into a simpler rate structure with tiers. As such, once the irrigation allocations are developed, it's necessary to define the specific tiers of water usage within the rate structure for each customer. Rather than the tier widths being defined by the size of the meter (current approach), the widths can be set based on the irrigation allocations calculated for each customer, such that each customer has specifically defined tiers. The development of the tier widths in this manner allows for pricing of the reclaimed water to encourage efficient usage on a customer-by-customer basis. It should be noted that, based on discussions with authority staff, the actual pricing of the tiers (the specific rates per 1,000 gal) are currently appropriate, as they were developed based on a recent cost of service analysis. Therefore, the analysis does not

Figure 2. Calculated Monthly Allocations

assume any change in the actual rates; it simply examines the amount of reclaimed water that is provided to each customer at each of the tiered rates.

Analysis The approach previously outlined was used to develop reclaimed water allocation rates for all of the authority’s commercial reclaimed customers with meters 2 in. or larger (which represents approximately 300 accounts). The specific analysis is outlined in this section. Data Analysis To develop the irrigation allocations, a significant amount of data were collected and analyzed. The analysis included review of data and development of monthly irrigation allocations for a three-year period (calendar years 2013 to 2015). This period was selected to address any unusual weather patterns that may occur in any one year and was based on the availability of complete data for this period of time. The specific data requirements for the analysis include those identified in the irrigation allocation formula described in the previous section. The authority provided Stantec with the landscaped area for each of its 2-in.-and-larger reclaimed water customers. The data were collected from the authority’s geographical information system (GIS). Along with the landscaped area, the authority was able to provide the specific type of soil associated with each account.

The soil data were collected by the authority from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and an analysis of each soil type was conducted using the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey (WSS). The authority also provided daily rainfall amounts at each of its wastewater treatment plants for 2013 through 2015 and was able to collect daily ET data for this same time period from the USGS for Osceola County2. Finally, data were collected from the University Of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences pertaining to the Kc for primary turf grass species utilized in Florida and the efficiency of typical commercial irrigation systems in the state. Assumptions To complete the analysis several assumptions were made, including the following: S The landscaped area identified by the authority is representative of the area that requires irrigation. The analysis did not reduce the area for vegetation, such as shrubs and trees, that may require lower watering requirements as compared to turf grass. S The crop type for all properties is assumed to be Bermuda/St. Augustine and the associated monthly crop coefficient as defined by the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences was utilized. S A standard irrigation system efficiency of 75 percent was used in the analysis (comparable to the average efficiency of solid-set sprinkler systems). Continued on page 58

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

Continued from page 57 While these assumptions are based on industry standards and the knowledge of the typical attributes of the properties served by the authority, it will conduct on-going monitoring of the assumptions to ensure that they remain appropriate. Irrigation Allocations Once the data were collected, the authority utilized the irrigation allocation formula and described assumptions to develop monthly irrigation allocation amounts for each of the reclaimed water customers over the period of 2013 to 2015. The monthly results over the three-year period were then averaged to develop a set of monthly allocations for each customer. While the allocations for each individual customer differ, given their specific property attributes, January was identified as the month with the lowest calculated allocation and May was consistently the month with the highest allocation. These results are in alignment with weather patterns in Florida and are consistent with irrigation needs during the year. The calculated monthly allocations for a sample reclaimed customer are shown in Figure 2, demonstrating the seasonal fluctuation in irrigation needs in Florida given the consistent seasonal weather patterns in the state. Tier Development Once the monthly irrigation allocation analysis was completed for each customer, the next step was to determine how to implement

the allocations for each commercial customer within the tiered rate structure. Discussions with authority staff identified that the current three-tier structure is appropriate, provides administrative advantages, and allows for the normalization of weather trends. During these discussions, it was determined that the first tier should be set at the month with the lowest allocation (January). This tier represents a base quantity of water required to meet watering needs for any given month. The development of the second tier was guided by balancing the dual objectives of maintaining appropriate water conservation efforts of the “one water” resource and providing sufficient irrigation to sustain each property’s vegetation. The development of this second tier reflects a collaborative effort that partnered the analysis of this study with the authority’s conservation specialists. Discussions with authority staff and guidance from the South Florida Water Management District’s methodology on its commercial property annual irrigation allotments resulted in a second tier set at roughly double the first tier, which is equivalent to the water needs in March. This second tier reflects the approximate annual average allocation developed in the study of 50 cu in. of total annual irrigation. Any usage above the allocation for March would fall into the third tier. It should be noted that this would be a portion of the likely water usage in April, May, and October. This structure was developed to encourage the efficient use of water, while providing sufficient water to meet

irrigation needs. Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of the tiers for a sample reclaimed customer. While the figure represents the actual tiers for a sample customer, each respective customer tier would be set based on the allocations occurring in January and March. While the tier allocations differ for each customer, the amount of water per sq ft of landscaped area by tier is the same for all customers. The Tier 1 allocation will provide each customer with 27.4 cu in. of water per sq ft of landscaped area per year and the Tier 2 allocation provides up to 50 cu in. per sq ft per year.

Customer Impacts The analysis included the determination of monthly reclaimed water bills for all of the larger commercial reclaimed customers under the current rates and the change in bills under the allocation-based rate structure. The results demonstrate that the vast majority of the customers will experience reductions in their bills as a result of the new structure, with a typical reduction being in the 10 to 15 percent range, reflecting in an overall reduction in revenue collection for the system. The magnitude of the reductions, however, varies based on the specific attributes of the property and the meter size associated with each customer. Since the current rate structure is tied to meter size, reclaimed customers with a small meter and a large landscaped area would experience a reduction in their monthly bills; conversely, a customer with a large meter and small landscaped area could potentially experience an increase. Figure 4 presents the monthly bill impacts for a sample customer using the current reclaimed rate and the allocation-based rate structures. The monthly bills are based on actual billed volumes since October 2016 and reflect the yearto-date comparisons as of the completion of the study.

Fiscal Impact

Figure 3. Tiers for a Sample Reclaimed Customer

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

As mentioned, the new rate structure will result in reductions in monthly reclaimed water bills. As a result, the revenue that the authority receives from these customers will also be reduced. Based on the analysis, it is estimated that the annual reduction in revenues would be approximately $400,000 to $450,000, which would be in the range of a 10 to 15 percent reduction in total revenues from this class of customers. It should be noted that the authority collects approximately $97 million in annual revenues3 and the resulting loss of rev-

enue would reflect a very small portion of total system revenue. Moreover, no assumed increases in use were made in response to the reductions in price, which may offset the impact.

Conclusions and Recommendations During the course of the study, the following conclusions and recommendations were developed regarding the allocation-based rate structure for the authority: S The current rate structure for commercial reclaimed customers is not necessarily aligned with actual water requirements and efficient use. Based on the analysis, there are commercial reclaimed customers with relatively small meters serving large landscaped areas, and conversely, large meters serving relatively small landscaped areas. S The adoption of an allocation-based rate structure for the authority’s commercial reclaimed customers would provide a tailored structure for each individual customer. This structure would align irrigation needs with pricing for the reclaimed water. S The allocation-based rate structure would additionally benefit commercial reclaimed customers who took steps to improve their efficiency by planting a turf grass, such as Bahia, which has a lower crop coefficient than the one assumed in the analysis, or improving their irrigation system efficiency above 75 percent. These improvements would reduce their water requirements and reduce their demands on the reclaimed system. S Based on experience, the adoption of allocation-based rates needs to be accompanied with a significant amount of public outreach and engagement. While the calculated rates will result in reduced monthly bills for most customers, it’s important for customers to understand the basis for their charges, and as a result, how they can potentially modify their usage patterns to conform to allocations identified based on their property characteristics. S Should the authority adopt the allocationbased rates, the assumptions utilized in the analysis should be reviewed over time to ensure that they are appropriate and reflect typical property attributes. S The allocations developed in the analysis are highly dependent on the landscaped area for each commercial reclaimed customer served by the authority. Should it adopt the structure, there is a potential that commercial customers may question their specific landscaped area and, as such, the authority

should consider developing a review process to address these specific inquiries.

Implementation and Results Based on the recommendations developed during the course of the study, the authority board adopted the allocation-based rates for commercial reclaimed customers effective the beginning of Fiscal Year 2018 (Oct. 1, 2017). To support the implementation of the rates, materials were developed to communicate the new rate structure with the authority’s commercial reclaimed customers. The authority has been collecting feedback resulting from the updated rate structure with the intent to make any necessary adjustments, but believes that the rollout of the new rate structure has been successful. Based on discussions with authority staff, the key challenges faced since implementation of the structure include the following: 1) Communication with key stakeholders. S There have been a number of ongoing dialogues with the governing board and staff: What are we doing? Why are we doing it? What are the benefits to the authority and its customers? S Reclaimed customers have reached out to the authority with questions: How is this structure better than the existing structure? What are the economic effects/benefits to me? S Overall, the authority believes that an emphasis on a good communication plan that is both transparent and understood by cus-

tomers, board, and staff helped to build some goodwill. 2) The new rate structure requires additional administrative effort, which has required the authority to re-engineer workflows. Some of the key workflow efforts include: S Gathering irrigation data for the formula for new customers to set up a billing account. S Creating a new role for GIS in determining previous area and crop types. S Developing a rotation to make periodic site visits once every two or three years to validate GIS data. S Developing an appeal process. S In the future, testing the use of drones as a means to capture, validate, and/or update GIS data.

References 1

The value of the crop coefficient represents a multiplier that is applied to the general watering needs derived using the difference between the evapotranspiration and beneficial rainfall. This multiplier reflects the unique properties of plants and their resistance to being underwatered. 2 Aggregation of 1,070 reads per day throughout various geographic latitudes and longitudes in Osceola County. 3 The Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position on page 12 of the FY 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report reflects total operating revenues of $97,140,000. S

Figure 4. Monthly Bill Impacts for a Sample Customer Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

AWWA Section Services provides sections with content for their publications. These articles contain brand new information and will cover a variety of topics.

Water Equation and AWWA Sections Positively Impact Water Heroes! n 2018, 25 water and wastewater operators received a One AWWA Operator Scholarship through the generosity of AWWA sections and Water Equation donors. Recipients receive up to $1000 from each entity for tuition, certification, webinars, and conference attendance. In just three years, the program has awarded over $78,000 in continuing education and training funds. Water operators from across North America have benefited this year from this philanthropy. Atlantic Canada, Intermountain, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pacific Northwest, Pennsylvania and Rocky Mountain sections of AWWA have each awarded one scholarship in 2018. Some recipients are profile here.

Dara Dorman _________________ Dara Dorman worked at the Baltimore Department of Public Works (BDPW) for over 18 years before being promoted to a water operator treatment apprentice. During this time, she cared for her aging mother, who passed away three years ago. Her new position at BDPW led to her application for a scholarship through the AWWA Chesapeake Section. Said Dara, “I never thought in a million years that I could be an operator.” She has a passion to protect the “health and safety of drinking water for millions of people” and her goal is to receive her T4 certification.

Brad Ebinger_________________ The AWWA Kansas Section awarded two scholarships this year, for a total of $2,000. Brad Ebinger is an operations technician for WaterOne and credits the scholarship for his ability to take AWWA E-learning courses to further supplement his education. This

award from the section will also fund his attendance at the state’s Governor's Conference on the Future of Water. The conference brings together scientists, water managers, state and federal officials, Brad Eppinger legislators, city and county administrators, environmental organizations, and citizens who share an interest in Kansas water resources. As a scholarship recipient, Brad receives free membership to AWWA and says that he has found several benefits as a member. “I have attended our section's annual conference and networked with other professionals there. I used my membership to receive discounted registration for my Elearning courses.”

knowledgeable, and in return, more involved and useful in the field of water.”

Davin Clark ___________________ The California-Nevada Section awarded two scholarships in 2018, with one going to Davin Clark, a recently certified water operator. Having finished a water resources management program at Gavilan Davin Clark College, Davin is transferring to a university to pursue a bachelor of science degree in business management. He takes his operator 2 license very seriously, and says he is making a lifelong commitment to the industry, the environment, and the public. “I’ve been very blessed having worked with my mentors who have made a life-changing impact on me,” said Davin. “Their level of commitment has manifested in me as I carry on the legacy that saves lives.”

Luke Haase _________________ As a water equipment operator for the Kenosha Water Utility, Luke Haase applied to the Wisconsin Section for his scholarship. With 11 years of experience, Luke had decided that it’s time to pursue an associate degree in civil engineering technology– fresh waters program at Gateway Technical College. Although he Luke Haase wanted to return to school, Luke wasn’t sure of his career path. Now that he has experienced the water industry, he says, “Knowing the impact water as a resource has on our everyday life has given me the desire to learn more so I can be

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

These scholarship applicants have many things in common: they have mentors who helped them apply for their scholarship, they have a passion for public safety, and they come from utilities that appreciate their dedication to the industry. One hundred percent of any donations to the One AWWA Operator Scholarship are distributed to water and wastewater operators in North America. These operators are on the front line in their utilities and have elected to continue their education to become the next generation of leaders in the water industry. For more information about the Water Equation or One AWWA Operator Scholarship, contact Michelle Hektor, senior manager of donor relations, at mhektor@awwa.org or 303734-3613. S

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;¢ February 2019

F W R J

A Unique Alternative Water Supply in the Central Florida Water Initiative Area: The Judge Farms Project A. Dale Helms, Saurabh Srivastava, David MacIntyre, and Deborah Beatty stablished in October 2003 by a special act of the Florida Legislature, Toho Water Authority (TWA) is the largest provider of water, wastewater, and reclaimed water services in Osceola County (county) and was established for the sole purpose of providing regional stewardship over its water resources. Currently, TWA serves approximately 106,000 water, 100,000 wastewater, and 18,000 reclaimed water customers in Kissimmee, Poinciana, and unincorporated areas of the county. In the county, and throughout central Florida, the majority of public water supply needs have historically been met by fresh groundwater withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer. With significant future population growth expected in the region, however, traditional groundwater sources may be unable to satisfy all future needs without contributing to undesirable impacts to water resources and associated natural systems. As a regional utility provider, TWA seeks to diversify its supplies and to develop sustainable alternative sources of water.

Central Florida Water Initiative Water supply in central Florida is regulated by three water management districts: St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). These three districts worked in close collaboration, along with other agencies and key stakeholders, to prepare a regional water supply plan (RWSP) in 2015 for the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) planning area. The planning area includes all of Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Polk counties and southern Lake County. Seeking an integrated and consistent plan for water resources in the region, the goals of the CFWI process (SJRWMD, SFWMD, and SWFWMD, 2015a) include: S Identifying sustainable quantities of traditional groundwater sources available for supply.

S Developing strategies to meet water demands that exceed the sustainable yield of existing traditional groundwater sources. S Establishing consistent rules and regulations in the CFWI planning area. The CFWI groundwater availability analysis determined that the continuing increased use of traditional groundwater for water supply in the central Florida region would not be sustainable without creating unacceptable impacts to natural systems. Total water use in the CFWI planning area was projected to increase from approximately 800 mil gal per day (mgd) in 2015 to about 1,100 mgd by 2035, while the yield analysis concluded that only approximately 850 mgd in traditional fresh groundwater supply would be sustainable (SJRWMD, SFWMD, and SWFWMD, 2015a). The CFWI 2015 RWSP also identified 150 alternative water supply (AWS) project options that could be developed to supplement traditional groundwater supplies and help satisfy future water demands. Prudent water suppliers in the region are already planning ahead to identify and develop new AWS sources.

Lake Tohopekaliga Restoration/ Alternative Water Supply Project (Judge Farms Project) Various AWS project alternatives were investigated by TWA to diversify its future array of water supply sources. One unique project originally identified years ago by TWA, in collaboration with the county and other stakeholders, is the Lake Tohopekaliga (Toho) restoration/AWS reservoir project, also known as the Judge Farms Project, located at the former Judge Farms property on the northern shore of Lake Toho in the county. The Judge Farms reservoir project (hereinafter referred to as the “project”) was one of the sustainable alternatives included in the CFWI 2015 RWSP (SJRWMD, SFWMD, and SWFWMD, 2015b). The plan for the project involves diver-

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

A. Dale Helms, P.E., is a senior supervising engineer and Saurabh Srivastava, P.E., is a supervising engineer at WSP USA in Orlando. David MacIntyre, P.E., D.WRE, is a principal engineer at AquaSciTech Consulting in Ocoee. Deborah Beatty, P.E., is a senior engineer with Toho Water Authority in Kissimmee.

sion of a portion of the surface water from Mill Slough (a small creek channelized for stormwater drainage) and East City Ditch (a manmade drainage facility), along with collection of stormwater runoff from the county’s NeoCity property development and surrounding area, into an approximately 470mil-gal (MG) stormwater pond/AWS reservoir located on the former Judge Farms property. Due to its location, natural low topography, and significant size, the western half of the former Judge Farms property was considered highly suitable for use as a reservoir, while the higher-elevation eastern half of the property was identified for use by the county for commercial development. Once completed, the project will provide multiple benefits, including alternative water supply, regional flood control, stormwater treatment, nutrient reduction, and aesthetic and recreational benefits. Surface water from Mill Slough and East City Ditch, two tributaries of Lake Toho, will be captured during periods of high stage/flow and diverted into the planned reservoir, where this water will be commingled with stormwater collected from the site. The captured surface water/stormwater will be used as an AWS source for augmentation of TWA’s nonpotable reuse system, reducing the future use of traditional groundwater for irrigation. In addition to reuse supplementation, water from the reservoir may be used by TWA to increase beneficial aquifer recharge via a series of rapid infiltration basins located along the Lake Wales Ridge in the northwestern part of the county. Additionally, by diverting

stormwater before it enters Lake Toho, the reservoir and AWS use will help reduce pollutant (e.g., nutrient) loading into Lake Toho and downstream surface waterbodies. After investigating various alternative layouts, TWA and its water resource consultants developed a preferred conceptual design for the various components of the AWS project. The conceptual layout of the project includes various key infrastructure components (Figure 1): S Surface water intake pump stations on Mill Slough and East City Ditch, at 6,000 gal per minute (gpm) peak capacity each, with raw water delivery pipelines to the reservoir. S Approximately 470-MG water storage reservoir, covering 130 acres on the project property, with excess stormwater outfalls to Lake Toho. S Onsite TWA water treatment facility, providing filtration and disinfection of water withdrawn from the reservoir. S Treated water storage tanks, high-service pump station, and distribution pipelines to store and deliver finished water to supplement TWA’s nonpotable reuse system.

Figure 1. Lake Toho Restoration/AWS (Judge Farms) Project Conceptual Layout

Water Use Permitting Analysis Based on the conceptual design, TWA applied to SFWMD for a new water use permit (WUP) for the project. The county, TWA’s project collaborator, is managing land development on the project site and concurrently applied for an environmental resource permit (ERP). The water use permitting process for the project involved unique challenges. The SFWMD and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have invested decades and roughly a billion dollars in the ongoing Kissimmee River Restoration (KRR) effort. The SFWMD and the Corps have made enormous strides to restore the Kissimmee River, which was channelized in the 1960s, into a more natural, meandering stream that better supports a healthy floodplain ecosystem. Improving the hydrology of the Upper Kissimmee Chain of Lakes, including Lake Toho, is a related component of the KRR project. It was critical to SFWMD that the new Judge Farms AWS project be compatible with the KRR project objectives. As part of the WUP application review, TWA was required to demonstrate that the proposed AWS project will not cause harm to water resources or natural systems and will not interfere with existing legal uses of water. Based on decades of hydrologic and environmental studies, SFWMD intends to adopt a

future water reservation rule to protect the restored Kissimmee system, limiting the amount and timing of water that may be available for additional consumptive use. Although a water reservation rule has not yet been adopted, in the spirit of cooperation and in line with its tradition of sustainable environmental stewardship, TWA adapted its proposed surface water withdrawal schedule for the Judge Farms project for consistency with SFWMD’s KRR project goals. As described, various technical methods were used to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed TWA water diversion project will not cause unacceptable impacts to water resources, natural systems, or existing legal users. System Operation Water Budget Modeling Surface water and stormwater supplies available to fill the Judge Farms reservoir are expected to be greatest during periods of high rainfall. In contrast, TWA reuse system irrigation demands typically will peak during periods of low rainfall (e.g., in May). A mismatch in timing therefore exists between demand and supply. Due to this, a 26-year continuous simulation daily water budget model was created to study the long-term operation of the AWS system, including the diversion of surface water from the two Lake Toho tributaries and operation of the reser-

voir between assumed minimum and maximum design levels, while aiming to meet predicted TWA nonpotable demand needs. This system operation model was used to estimate, under long-term transient conditions, the potential daily variation of inflows, outflows, and water levels for the reservoir, and the estimated reliability of the reservoir in meeting projected TWA demands. The system operation water budget model uses the basic continuity equation:

S Inflows - S Outflows = D Storage Using this relationship, the model predicts the daily volume of supply available from the reservoir for reuse supplementation, after accounting for the different inflows and outflows to the reservoir for each simulation day. The model also calculates the change in reservoir storage volume for each simulation day and estimates the corresponding stage in the reservoir. The inflows to the proposed reservoir include rainfall, diversions of surface water from adjacent tributaries Mill Slough and East City Ditch, and onsite stormwater runoff from the proposed county NeoCity property development and nearby contributing drainage area. Outflows from the proposed Continued on page 64

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

Continued from page 63 reservoir include evaporation, withdrawals to meet TWA reuse system supplementation needs, and overflows to Lake Toho. Surficial aquifer groundwater seepage is also included in the water budget continuity equation as either an inflow or outflow for the reservoir, depending on the relative difference between reservoir and Lake Toho water levels. Surface Water Diversion Inflow For the modeling analysis, two key constraints were placed on the potential daily diversion of water from the Lake Toho tributaries:

S Lake Toho stage must be above a protective water level schedule. S Reservoir stage must be below its planned maximum operational level at 55 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Through the project WUP negotiations, SFWMD staff members recommended a water level withdrawal schedule for Lake Toho (Figure 2) that they believed would be protective of water resources, and fish and wildlife species in the lake, consistent with KRR project goals. The withdrawal schedule sets a threshold water level for direct (lake) or

indirect (tributary) withdrawals from the lake for each calendar day, consequently allowing diversions from Mill Slough and East City Ditch only on days when the stage of Lake Toho is above the daily scheduled water level. In addition, diversions of surface water into the reservoir were assumed to occur only when the reservoir stage was below its maximum operating water level, to help minimize overflows from the reservoir back into Lake Toho. Based on agreement with the county, the planned active storage zone for the reservoir ranged from a minimum operating level of 43 ft NGVD to a maximum of 55 ft NGVD. On days when both the Lake Toho water level withdrawal schedule and reservoir maximum stage constraints are met, surface water was assumed to be diverted from the two tributaries at a planned combined intake pumping rate of 15 mgd. Stormwater Management Inflow Daily inflow of stormwater collected on site—from the county’s NeoCity development and surrounding areas—was also included in the water budget model. The daily amount of this stormwater inflow was estimated using a hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) model developed for the contributing area based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) software (USEPA, 2015).

Figure 2. Proposed Lake Toho Water Level Withdrawal Schedule

Table 1. Long-Term Average Flows Predicted by System Operation Water Budget Model

Toho Water Authority Reuse System Augmentation Withdrawal A targeted daily withdrawal rate from the reservoir was assumed based on a seasonal analysis of TWA’s future nonpotable water system demand deficits. The water budget model extracted this daily withdrawal amount from the reservoir whenever sufficient storage volume remained in the reservoir above the assumed minimum operating stage of 43 ft NGVD. The reservoir was predicted to be depleted during extended dry periods. The system water budget model was therefore used to estimate the reliability of the reservoir in being able to meet the targeted TWA daily demands. Groundwater Seepage A groundwater flow model using the U.S. Geological Survey MODFLOW code was developed for the project to simulate the operation of the reservoir. This groundwater model was used to quantify an estimated relationship between relative head difference (i.e., difference in water levels between the reservoir and Lake Toho) and predicted groundwater seepage into or out of the reservoir. Continued on page 66

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

News Beat Shea Dunifon, education coordinator with South Cross Bayou Water Reclamation Facility in Pinellas County, has received a 2018 Water Environment Federation award for education. Her award was in the individual category for public communication and outreach programs.

Dunifon

Pinellas County has named Adnan “Addie” Javed as director of public works. He assumed his new responsibilities when Rahim Harji was promoted to assistant county administrator. Javed is a licensed professional engineer with a master’s degree in environJaved mental engineering from Michigan State University and a doctorate in public works and administration from the University of Florida. He was most recently the public works director for Haines City, overseeing the city’s transportation, stormwater, sanitation, fleet, building, engineering, and geographic information systems (GIS) divisions. Before that, he worked for Sarasota County and advanced in the organization to become an engineering section supervisor. “I am grateful for the amazing opportunity to be part of a progressive organization, and look forward to contributing to the future successes of the public works team, and continuing the tradition of strategically collaborating with our partners,” Javed said. His expertise has led to his appointment to several committees in organizations such as the Florida League of Cities, American Society of Civil Engineers, and Florida Stormwater Association. Among his many awards and achievements, his team in Haines City received the 2018 Transportation Project of the Year Award from the American Public Works Association.

1.5 feet lower, draining the freshwater swamp and allowing saltwater intrusion. "We are thrilled to have these carefully designed and constructed renovations on the Loxahatchee River honored," said Melanie Peterson, the district’s governing board vice chair, and a Palm Beach County resident and former member of the Loxahatchee River Management Coordinating Council. "One of the district's primary missions is the protection of natural systems and these dam renovations are crucial to ensuring the future of the Loxahatchee River. These dams are not only living parts of Palm Beach County's history, but are essential to protecting the cypress swamp floodplain that makes the Loxahatchee so unique." In February 2017, the governing board approved $2.5 million worth of restoration work for the two historic dams. Work began in March 2017 and was completed in January 2018, approximately six months ahead of schedule. The repairs, which came after extensive public input and thorough review, minimize any impact to the river's natural resources and preserve the historical integrity of the dams. Areas of the dam that have decayed were repaired and soil under and around the dams were stabilized to reduce seepage. In addition to protecting the unique river ecosystem of the Loxahatchee River, the dam restoration work also included reconstructing the canoe and kayak portages to improve recreational access for all users.

The members of the Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association (WWEMA) elected new officers and directors

during its 110th annual meeting on Nov. 7-9, 2018, in Manalapan (West Palm Beach). The 2019 WWEMA Executive Committee members are: S Chair John Dyson, product channel managerAquaPrime, Aqua-Aerobic Systems Inc. (Loves Park, Ill.) S Chair-Elect Michael Dimitriou, president, WRT LLC (Arvada, Colo.) S Vice-Chair John Collins, chief executive officer, JCM Industries Inc. (Nash, Texas) S Treasurer Vince Baldasare, sales manager, Gorman-Rupp Company (Mansfield, Ohio) S Immediate Past Chair Thacher Worthen, president and chief executive officer, Schreiber LLC (Trussville, Ala.) Five members were newly elected to the WWEMA 2019 board of directors: S Mark Handzel, vice president of product regulatory affairs and compliance, Xylem Inc. (Morton Grove, Ill.) S Sergio Pino-Jelcic, sales manager, Evoqua Water Technologies LLC (Waukesha, Wis.) S Paul Ravelli, sales manager, Suez Treatment Technologies and Solutions (Haddonfield, N.J.) S Nick Peyton, vice president and general manager, Specialty Valves, Mueller Water Products (Atlanta, Ga.) S Henk-Jan van Ettekoven, president, Huber Technology Inc. (Huntsville, N.C.) In addition, the membership re-elected Marwan Nesicolaci, global senior vice president, De Nora Water (Colmar, Penn.) for a second threeyear term. S

The Treasure Coast Chapter of the Florida Association of Environmental Professionals gave its annual Environmental Excellence Award to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for its completed Lainhart and Masten Dams Refurbishment Project. The dams, first built in the 1930s by local families, control and regulate upstream flow stages of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, the state's first designated "wild and scenic" river. The dams also maintain the hydrology of the riverine floodplain ecosystem. Modeling has shown that, without the two dams in place, the upstream water levels would be about Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

Continued from page 64 Simulation Results Long-term average flows predicted by the system operation model over a 26-year simulation period (1990-2015 climatic conditions) are summarized in Table 1. With the assumed withdrawal constraints, diversions from Mill Slough and East City Ditch were predicted to occur only approximately 32 percent of the time. This simulation also assumed that the county NeoCity property was fully developed and contributing a maximum future volume of stormwater inflow to the reservoir, at an estimated average of 1.5 mgd. On a long-term average, 6 mgd was simulated to be withdrawn from the reservoir for reuse system supplementation and daily targeted demands were predicted to be met with greater than 90 percent reliability. The model also predicted the daily time series of reservoir water levels during the continuous simulation period (Figure 3). Constrained between the assumed minimum operating level of 43 ft NGVD and maximum of 55 ft NGVD, the long-term mean reservoir water level was estimated at approximately 51.8 ft NGVD during the assumed 26-year continuous simulation period. Stormwater Management Model Hydraulic Modeling of Project Withdrawals The proposed intakes for both Mill Slough and East City Ditch would be installed within the respective channel of each tributary at locations approximately 0.5 mi upstream of

where each tributary discharges into Lake Toho (Figure 1). From these intake locations southward to the lake, the two tributaries flow past a large area of emergent wetlands, which may derive, in some part, water from the tributaries to maintain their hydroperiod. Some additional wetlands exist adjacent to Mill Slough farther upstream along its watercourse, primarily near its headwaters in Orange County. In the upstream direction, East City Ditch is an urban stormwater conveyance primarily surrounded by developed land. At the withdrawal locations, the two tributaries are heavily influenced by the water in Lake Toho and are essentially in a backwater condition; thus, the proposed withdrawals are not expected to significantly impact water levels in the two tributaries, as their stages will be sustained by the water in nearby Lake Toho. In support of the WUP process, hydraulic modeling was used to demonstrate that the proposed withdrawals are not anticipated to cause impacts to stream or wetland water levels upstream along the two tributaries. This analysis was performed using the SWMM model developed for the project, which represented the hydrologic behavior of the Mill Slough, East City Ditch, and Judge Farms drainage areas, and the hydraulic behavior of the stream channels and existing and future stormwater management infrastructure. Two scenarios were analyzed using the SWMM model, for a 26-year simulation period with daily time steps, to evaluate the potential for impact due to the proposed withdrawals:

Figure 3. Daily Reservoir Stages Predicted by System Operation Water Budget Model

February 2019 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

S Existing-condition scenario, which simulated existing flows and stages in Mill Slough and East City Ditch. S Withdrawal-condition scenario, which included a 7.5-mgd constant daily withdrawal applied to each tributary at the respective proposed intake locations. The assumed withdrawal simulation was a very conservative (worst-case) assumption, as each 7.5-mgd withdrawal is only predicted to occur about one-third of the time. To determine the potential impact of the proposed tributary withdrawals, daily stages were simulated at all SWMM model nodes along both the Mill Slough and East City Ditch hydraulic channels for the 26-year simulation period for both scenarios. For each node in the two tributaries, the simulated daily stage from the withdrawal condition scenario was compared to the simulated daily stage from the existing condition (baseline) scenario. Based on the SWMM hydraulic modeling results, the proposed peak withdrawals were predicted to have no significant effect on the stages in Mill Slough or East City Ditch for the entire lengths of the channels. The long-term average decline in modeled stages due to the proposed withdrawal was less than 0.002 ft for all nodes along Mill Slough and East City Ditch. The maximum simulated single-day stage difference, for any day in the 26year simulation, was computed at 0.17 ft in Mill Slough and 0.05 ft in East City Ditch. As expected, because the proposed withdrawals are near the outfalls, the Lake Toho stage tends to control the water levels in the two channels at the points of withdrawal, and upstream nodes are therefore also not affected. These SWMM model results indicated that the proposed withdrawals would have no measurable impact on the surface water stages of Mill Slough or East City Ditch. Consequently, wetlands adjacent to the two tributaries likewise should not be affected by the proposed surface water withdrawals. Groundwater Modeling of Proposed Reservoir Operation Numerical groundwater flow modeling was performed to simulate the operation of the reservoir and its predicted effects on groundwater levels at the Judge Farms site and in the surrounding area. The primary objective of the groundwater flow modeling was to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed operation of the reservoir would not cause unacceptable impacts to wetland systems near the proposed project site. As mentioned, the groundwater model was also used

to develop estimates of groundwater seepage into and out of the Judge Farms reservoir, across a broad range of anticipated operating conditions, for use in the water budget modeling. The groundwater model setup was based in part on information derived from the East Central Florida Transient (ECFT) groundwater model developed during the CFWI planning process (SFWMD, SJRWMD, and SWFWMD, 2015b). The new groundwater model was designed to actively represent the surficial aquifer system (SAS), which was subdivided into five horizontal layers for improved accuracy of simulation. The intermediate confining unit (ICU) was represented beneath the SAS in the model as a virtual layer, with assigned leakance values derived from the calibrated thickness and vertical hydraulic conductivity values in the ECFT model. The bottom layer of the model represented the Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA), assigned as a fixed-head boundary condition, with head values derived from SFWMD records. A key input parameter expected to affect predicted model results was the hydraulic conductivity of the local SAS soils near the project site. Because some uncertainty existed regarding the most appropriate values, and due to the limited amount of field data available for calibration, the groundwater model was run with both high and low values of SAS hydraulic conductivity. This allowed for an assessment of the sensitivity of model results across a realistic expected range of hydraulic conductivity values. For a high hydraulic conductivity condition, the local site soils were assumed to have a horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh) of 20 ft per day (ft/day) and a vertical hydraulic conductivity (K v) of 10 ft/day. For a low hydraulic conductivity condition, the local soils were assumed to have values of Kh = 2 ft/day and Kv = 1 ft/day. For both assumed SAS hydraulic conductivity conditions (high and low), the groundwater flow model was used to simulate both the existing baseline condition and a predicted future condition when the project site is developed and the AWS reservoir is under active operation. The differences in predicted model heads from the two scenarios were then compared to estimate the change in groundwater levels due to the proposed project. The future project condition scenario was originally investigated for an anticipated long-term average reservoir stage of 52 ft NGVD, and then later re-analyzed at a more conservative assumed average reservoir stage of 51 ft NGVD. In both cases, the model-sim-

Figure 4. Projected Average Drawdown in Wetland Water Levels for Alternative With Judge Farms Reservoir at 51 ft NGVD and Local Soils Kh = 2 ft/d

Figure 5. Upper Kissimmee Operations Screening Model Graphical User Interface

ulated changes in groundwater levels were determined to pose no significant risk of impact to wetlands near the project site. Also, the results were found to be not very sensitive to the assumption of high or low local SAS hydraulic conductivity. Figure 4 shows the predicted SAS water table head change results for the 51-ft-NGVD average reservoir stage condition using the more conservative low SAS hydraulic conductivity assumption. The western portion of

the site shows predicted groundwater level drawdowns associated with future operation of the proposed reservoir. The central portion of the site shows a rebound/recovery (i.e., higher future water table elevations), because the average reservoir operating level is higher than the current water table elevations that have occurred with long-term dewatering operations from the Judge Farms pump station. In the eastern part of the Judge Farms propContinued on page 68

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ February 2019

Continued from page 67 erty, an area of minor future drawdown is predicted, caused by the reduction of recharge rates that results from converting agricultural land to commercial land use. Wetland areas shown in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database are also displayed in Figure 4. The long-term average drawdown effects of the project reservoir on the wetlands surrounding the Judge Farms property appeared to be very minor, regardless of which SAS hydraulic conductivity values were assumed. Furthermore, wetlands located on the Judge Farms property are planned to be developed and any changes to those wetlands are already accounted for in the ERP issued for the project. The model was also used to run a very conservative simulation estimating the predicted change in SAS and wetland water levels under a long-term steady-state condition when the reservoir stage is at its minimum operating level of 43 ft NGVD. Even in this extreme case, the predicted results did not appear to indicate areas of projected significant impacts to offsite wetlands. Upper Kissimmee System Water Budget Modeling of Project Withdrawals The WUP effort also required an analysis of the potential for impacts to water resources and existing legal users on Lake Toho or along additional downstream surface water systems due to the proposed surface water withdrawals. For this analysis, a modified version of SFWMD’s Upper Kissimmee Operations Screening (UK-OPS) Model, version 3.04, was selected as an available and appropriate tool. The UK-OPS is a water budget model that represents Lake Toho and the other interconnected major surface waterbodies of the Upper Kissimmee Chain of Lakes via a 49year, continuous daily simulation of system stages and flows (Figure 5). An additional module was added to the UK-OPS model to explicitly represent the operation and water budget of the proposed Judge Farms reservoir. This module was based on the previous system operation water budget model developed for the project, integrated into the UK-OPS model, and applied across the 49-year UK-OPS simulation period. The UK-OPS hydrologic continuous simulation modeling was used to: S Analyze the expected effect that the proposed Judge Farms project withdrawals (with assumed constraints) would have on Lake Toho and Upper Kissimmee stages and flows.

S Estimate an appropriate peak annual allocation amount for the WUP. Two scenarios were simulated with the UK-OPS model, and the stage and flow results from the two simulations were directly compared to estimate the potential net effect of the proposed project withdrawals on the water resource system: S Baseline model scenario (ALT0), which simulated current operations for the Upper Kissimmee Basin. S Project withdrawal model scenario (ALT1), which simulated a combined 15-mgd withdrawal from the Lake Toho tributaries on days when both the Lake Toho stage was above the recommended water level schedule and the Judge Farms reservoir was below its maximum operating level of 55 ft NGVD. The results of the modeling showed that the proposed consumptive withdrawal of surface water was predicted to result in a longterm reduction of only 0.006 ft in the average stage of Lake Toho. Furthermore, the UKOPS model predicted only minor reductions of 2.2 percent in the flow out of Structure S61 at the southern outlet of Lake Toho, and 0.9 percent in the flow through Structure S65 at the southern outlet of Lake Kissimmee, on average, for the proposed withdrawal scenario (ALT1). The predicted 0.9 percent flow reduction at Structure S-65 is much smaller than the 5 percent reduction threshold suggested by SFWMD staff as environmentally acceptable for the Kissimmee system. These predicted levels of change to system stages and flows were not expected to significantly impact downstream water resources or existing legal users. With the assumed operational constraints, the results of the 49-year continuous daily modeling also indicated that surface water withdrawals from the tributaries would occur approximately 38 percent of the time, which was slightly greater than estimated by the previous 26-year water budget modeling. Also, the 49-year simulation predicted that the rolling annual average withdrawal from the surface water tributaries, when targeting a 6-mgd annual average daily flow (ADF) reuse water demand, may range from below 1 mgd ADF to above 8 mgd ADF under longterm variable climatic/ hydrologic conditions. Based on these simulation results, a maximum annual average allocation limit of 3,000 MG per year, or 8.22 mgd ADF, was proposed as an appropriate value for the WUP in order to most efficiently meet a reuse supplementation demand of 6 mgd ADF in any given year.

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Conclusion The Judge Farms project is a unique AWS initiative that will utilize surface water that’s diverted only a limited portion of the time, combined with stormwater, for reservoir storage and subsequent beneficial use to supplement TWA’s nonpotable reuse system. The water use permitting process for the project involved significant complexities, as TWA had to balance the various interests and requirements of project collaborators and regulators. Although a Kissimmee water reservation rule has not yet been adopted, in the spirit of cooperation and environmental stewardship, TWA adapted its proposed surface water withdrawal schedule for the Judge Farms project to be consistent with SFWMD’s KRR project goals. Following extended coordination with SFWMD staff, and based on the various supporting analyses described herein, TWA was issued a 30-year-duration WUP in October 2017 for a maximum annual allocation of 8.22 mgd of surface water diverted from the Lake Toho tributaries. The county also completed the ERP process in September 2017 and is proceeding with development of the former Judge Farms property, starting with active construction of the large onsite reservoir for stormwater management and future surface water AWS storage. Future project phases for TWA will involve the design and construction of the AWS facilities.

References • SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Management District), SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District), and SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District), 2015a. “Central Florida Water Initiative Regional Water Supply Plan 2015, Volume I, Planning Document.” November 2015 Final. 200 pp. • SJRWMD, SFWMD, and SWFWMD, 2015b. “Central Florida Water Initiative Regional Water Supply Plan 2015,” Volume IA, Appendices. November 2015 Final. 328 pp. • USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2015. “Stormwater Management Model User’s Manual.” Version 5.1. EPA/600/R14/413b. Revised September 2015. S

FSAWWA SPEAKING OUT

FSAWWA Utility Council Working for You! Michael F. Bailey, P.E. Chair, FSAWWA

s you probably know, FSAWWA has seven councils that focus on specific topics or services that are of particular interest to its members. This month, I’d like to shine a spotlight on the Utility Council. The primary purpose of the Utility Council is to monitor legislative and regulatory actions, at both the state and federal levels, that may affect water and wastewater utilities in the state, and advocate on behalf of those utilities. The council consists of 130 member utilities, providing drinking water to more than 21 million residents.

An east view of both the historic and current Florida State Capitol buildings in Tallahassee. (photo: wikipedia)

Membership in the council is separate from an AWWA utility or individual membership and council members pay separate annual dues. The primary purpose of these dues is to retain professional firms to help provide a recognized and unified voice in Tallahassee when presenting the position of FSAWWA utility members before legislative and regulatory agencies. As a current utility director, and having worked for water and sewer utilities for more than 30 years, I have found the work of the council to be invaluable, and I highly encourage all of our Florida water utilities to consider membership. This year, the council is expertly led by Chair Lisa Wilson-Davis, and she provided the following report.

2018 Legislative Session The Florida Legislature concluded its work for the 2018 regular session on March 11, with a vote on the $88.7 billion budget and ceremonial drop of the handkerchief. Similar to 2017, the House and Senate were forced to Lisa extend the regular session by Wilson-Davis several days in order to vote on the budget, conforming bills, and a tax package that the members failed to complete in time for the session's scheduled end on March 9. Despite a difficult year, with Hurricane Irma battering the state, the horrific shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and sexual harassment and resignation scandals, the Republican-led Senate and House seemed to work better with one another this year. Over 3,000 bills were filed this session, but only about 200 passed both the Senate and House and moved on to be considered by Gov. Rick Scott. The Legislature took action on a number of hot topics, including the opioid epidemic, responding to the school shooting, expanding Bright Futures scholarships and increasing university funding to hire elite faculty (Senate President Negron’s priority), emergency power sources for nursing homes

and assisted-living facilities, tax cuts, and scholarships for K-12 students who are victims of bullying to enroll in private schools (House Speaker Corcoran’s top priority). Gov. Scott ultimately vetoed two bills, the first dealing with the Palm Beach County Housing Authority and the second an omnibus environmental regulation bill supported by the FSAWWA Utility Council (FSAWWAUC), along with the FWEA Utility Council (FWEAUC), and detailed in this report. In 2018, which is an election year, all seats in the Florida House of Representatives, half of the Florida Senate, all cabinet offices, and the governor’s office are up for grabs, in addition to local and federal races. Regardless of the outcome of the races, there will be a number of new members serving throughout the various levels of government, and building relationships with these future elected officials is critical. HB 5001 - General Appropriations Act This year saw the passing of the largest budget in state history, passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Scott on March 16 (see sidebar for highlights). In approving the budget, the governor vetoed approximately $64 million from the budget, his lowest veto amount during his entire tenure, of which only one item, valued at $750,000, was in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) budget. HB 1149 - Environmental Regulation (Payne) This is a multisubject, general environmental bill touching on environmental resource permits (ERPs), reuse and aquifer recharge, recycling, and domestic wastewater collection system operation and maintenance. The bill sets forth criteria by which an expired individual ERP can be reissued upon request by the applicant, allows the repair or replacement of a dock within 5 feet of the original location and of the same shape and size to be reconstructed, and allows a mitigation area, which is created by a local government and scored using a uniform mitigation assessment method (UMAM), to be used when no other mitigation bank is available. Continued on page 70

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

Continued from page 69 The bill encourages use of reclaimed water by providing examples of types of reuse that can be used for impact offset credits for water use, and provides direction to the department and water management districts to enter into an agreement to provide coordinated reviews “of any reclaimed water project requiring a reclaimed water facility permit, an underground injection control permit, and a consumptive use permit.” Regarding recycling, this bill requires local governments to address contamination of recyclable materials to be collected by contract operators. In south Florida, the bill directs the South Florida Water Management District to use the C-51 Reservoir to reduce impacts of Lake Okeechobee releases to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries “to the extent practicable.” Finally, the bill creates the Blue Star certification program for domestic wastewater collection systems. Systems that apply for and receive certification according

to the standards in the bill will have a presumption of compliance for quality standards for pathogens in total maximum daily loads and receive reduced penalties for sanitary sewer overflows, which may be used on investment in assessment and maintenance activities to address the cause of the overflow. Certified systems can also receive 10-year operating permits. Gov. Scott vetoed HB 1149 on April 6, the same day he announced his intention to run for the U.S. Senate. His veto came after immense public outcry, which was due to a serious misinformation campaign about the aquifer recharge sections of the bill from several extreme environmental groups. HB 7043 - State Assumption of Federal Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permitting Authority (Natural Resources and Public Lands Subcommittee) This legislation authorizes FDEP to assume “Assumption” (delegation) of the Clean Water Act § 404 (“Federal Dredge and

Selected Budget Highlights Program Description

2018 Proposed Funding

Agricultural Nonpoint Sources BMP Implementation

$35,497,449

Conservation and Rural Land Protection

$5,807,500

Water Management District MFLs

$3,446,000

SFWMD Dispersed Water Storage

$5,000,000

Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern

$5,000,000

Everglades Restoration

$213,204,985

Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection

$31,000,000

St. Johns River and Keystone Heights Lake Region Projects

$20,000,000

Restore Act/Deepwater Horizon

$200,000

Beach Recovery – Hurricanes Hermine/Matthew

$11,198,282

Springs Restoration

$50,000,000

Water Projects (95 projects)

$30,123,311

Nonpoint Source Management Planning Grants

$13,500,000

Beach Projects

$50,000,000

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program

$127,976,016

Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program

$175,018,887

Small County Wastewater Treatment Grants

$15,000,000

Total Maximum Daily Loads

$1,210,000

Underground Storage Tank Cleanup

$76,578

Dry Cleaning Solvent Contaminated Site Cleanup

$8,500,000

Petroleum Tanks Cleanup

$110,000,000

Hazardous Waste Contaminated Site Cleanup

$5,000,000

Total FDEP Positions

$2,888.5 (-0.4% from 2017)

Total FDEP Budget Total Budget

$1,776,879,901 (+24.0% from 2017) $88,663,483,657 (+7.6% from 2017)

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Fill”) Program, which is currently administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The FDEP’s approach is to take over the Corps program “as is” by adopting the applicable Corps and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations into state rule by reference. The FDEP contemplates implementing the federal permitting program using current ERP staff and budget. This legislation confirms that FDEP has specific authority to pursue delegation and adopt the federal rules by reference and ensures that no conflicts between state and federal law prevent final approval by EPA. The FDEP’s implementation of the program implicates other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and jurisdiction over federal versus state waters. The FDEP is optimistic that these issues will be resolved through negotiated agreements with the requisite federal agencies and receive final program approval from the EPA by the end of 2018. The governor signed this bill on March 23 and it was effective upon his signature. HB 7087 – Tax Package (Renner) The bill provides for a wide range of tax reductions designed to directly impact both families and businesses. For sales tax purposes, the bill provides a tax-rate reduction for: tax on commercial rentals (business rent tax) and includes new, extended, or expanded sales tax exemptions for certain generators for nursing homes and assisted living facilities; certain purchases of agriculture-related fencing materials and building materials for repair of damage from Hurricane Irma; and certain equipment and electricity used in aquaculture. The bill provides for a three-day "back to school" holiday for clothing and school supplies and a seven-day "disaster preparedness" holiday for specified disaster preparedness items. For property tax purposes, the bill provides tax relief for certain property damaged by hurricanes or tropical storms for certain citrus processing equipment idled due to citrus greening or Hurricane Irma, and for certain surviving spouses of disabled exservice members. The bill also updates the list of military operations for which deployed service members may receive property tax relief, clarifies the taxexempt status of entities created under the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, and clarifies the property tax treatment of multipleparcel buildings. For corporate income tax purposes, the bill provides an additional $8.5 million for tax credits for Fiscal Year (FY) 201819 for voluntary brownfields cleanup and an

additional $5 million for community contribution tax credits spread over the next two fiscal years (may also be taken against sales tax). Further changes include: a 9 percent reduction in certain traffic fines if the driver attends a driver improvement course, exemptions from documentary stamp taxes for certain transfers of property between spouses and for certain notes given for loans made in connection with local housing finance authorities and certain disaster recovery related loans, reduction in the tax rate on certain aviation fuel uses, exemption from fuel taxes for certain purchases of fuel for export and agricultural-related uses, a delay in the beginning date for a natural gas fuel tax, a provision that "marketplace contractors" are not considered employees under state and local law, a provision that "security funds" are a preempted imposition or levy in ch. 202, F.S., and a requirement that a performance audit of a school board or county program intended to be funded by a sales surtax precedes a referendum to enact such local sales surtax. The total state and local government revenue impact of the bill in FY 2018-2019 is -$121.5 million (-$73.8 million recurring).

Of special note is language included in the tax package that was a stand-alone bill by Rep. Randy Fine dealing with how local tourist development taxes can be spent. This language allows such taxes to be spent on infrastructure projects that would directly grow tourism, such as roads, sidewalks, bike paths, boardwalks, drainage projects, solid waste facilities, and other capital projects. The bill was approved by the governor on March 23 and became effective July 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided. SB 324/HB 697 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Impact Fees (Young/Miller) The impact fee bills require that the collection of an impact fee be no earlier than the issuance of the building permit for the property that is subject to the fee. The bill also codifies the dual rational nexus test. It requires impact fees to have a rational nexus with the need for additional capital facilities and the expenditures of the funds collected. The local government would have been required to specifically earmark funds collected by the impact fees for use in acquiring, constructing, or improving capital

facilities to benefit the new users. The bill also prohibits the use of impact-fee revenues to pay existing debt unless certain conditions are met. Both FSAWWAUC and FWEAUC, along with other concerned entities, like the League of Cities and Association of Counties, worked to convince the bill sponsors to amend the bills to include language that explicitly stated that the statutory provisions related to impact fees do not apply to water and sewer connection fees. The bill would have been effective on July 1, 2018. The amended bill was voted out of the full House, but died on the calendar in the Senate. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s expected that similar language will be filed again next year.

I want to thank Lisa for this great report and all of the members of the Utility Council for their service to the section. As you can see, the council is working hard to help Florida utilities better serve their employees, customers, and the environment. S

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ February 2019

ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

Tank Engineering And Management

Consultants, Inc.

Engineering • Inspection Aboveground Storage Tank Specialists Mulberry, Florida • Since 1983

863-354-9010

www.tankteam.com

ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY

Motor & Utility Services, LLC

Showcase Your Company in the Engineering or Equipment & Services Directory Contact Mike Delaney at

352-241-6006 ads@fwrj.com

CEC Motor & Utility Services, LLC 1751 12th Street East Palmetto, FL. 34221 Phone - 941-845-1030 Fax – 941-845-1049 prademaker@cecmotoru.com • Motor & Pump Services Test Loaded up to 4000HP, 4160-Volts • Premier Distributor for Worldwide Hyundai Motors up to 35,000HP • Specialists in rebuilding motors, pumps, blowers, & drives • UL 508A Panel Shop, engineer/design/build/install/commission • Lift Station Rehabilitation Services, GC License # CGC1520078 • Predictive Maintenance Services, vibration, IR, oil sampling • Authorized Sales & Service for Aurora Vertical Hollow Shaft Motors

CLASSIFIEDS CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING RATES - Classified ads are $20 per line for a 60 character line (including spaces and punctuation), $60 minimum. The price includes publication in both the magazine and our Web site. Short positions wanted ads are run one time for no charge and are subject to editing. ads@fwrj.com

Engineering Inspector II & Senior Engineering Inspector Reiss Engineering delivers highly technical water and wastewater planning, design, and construction management services for public agencies throughout Florida. Reiss Engineering is seeking top-notch talent to join our team! Available Positions Include: Business Development Leader – Tampa Area Client Services Manager Water Process Discipline Leader Senior Water/Wastewater Project Manager Wastewater Process Senior Engineer Project Engineer (Multiple Openings, 0-15 yrs. exp.) To view position details and submit your resume: www.reisseng.com

CITY OF WINTER GARDEN – POSITIONS AVAILABLE The City of Winter Garden is currently accepting applications for the following positions: EXPERIENCED & TRAINEES/LABORERS - Solid Waste Worker I, II & III - Collection Field Tech – I, II, & III - Distribution Field Tech – I, II, & III - Public Service Worker II - Stormwater Please visit our website at www.cwgdn.com for complete job descriptions and to apply. Applications may be submitted online, in person or faxed to 407-877-2795.

City of St. Petersburg Civil Engineer III IRC46063 City of St. Petersburg - Civil Engineer III (IRC46063). Advanced professional civil/environmental engineering work in the Water Resources Department, involving the planning, investigation, design and construction of engineering, water/wastewater and public works projects. Requirements: Bachelor's in environmental or civil engineering or a related subject; 5 years as a registered Professional Engineer (PE); considerable knowledge of modern engineering for water/wastewater, utility, drainage, infrastructure, cost analysis, and project scheduling. Close Date: Open Until Filled; $65,371 - $105,790 DOQ; See details at www.stpete.org/jobs EEO-AA-Employer-Vet-Disabled-DFWP-Vets' Pref

Involves highly technical work in the field of civil engineering construction inspection including responsibility for inspecting a variety of construction projects for conformance with engineering plans and specifications. Projects involve roadways, stormwater facilities, portable water distribution systems, sanitary pump stations, gravity sewer collection systems, reclaimed water distribution systems, portable water treatment and wastewater treatment facilities. Salary is DOQ. The City of Winter Garden is an EOE/DFWP that encourages and promotes a diverse workforce. Please apply at http://www.cwgdn.com. Position Requirements: Possession of the following or the ability to obtain within 6 months of hire: (1) Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Stormwater Certification and an (2) Orange County Underground Utility Competency Card. A valid Florida Driver’s License is required. • Inspector II: High School Diploma or equivalent and 7 years of progressively responsible experience in construction inspection or testing of capital improvement and private development projects. • Senior Inspector: Associate’s Degree in Civil Engineering Technology or Construction Management and 10 years of progressively responsible experience, of which 5 years are in at a supervisory level.

Water/Wastewater Operator Technical work in the operation and maintenance of Water Treatment Facilities and associated equipment. Pay range $13.81-$21.98. Please apply online at www.ClermontFL.org

Greater Pine Island Water Association Water Plant Operator Class C or B Florida License starting at $18.88 - $20.38 hour based on license & experience. Second shift differential extra 5% Greater Pine Island Water Association. 3.2 MGD RO plant. Member owned association. 401k w/ match. Position open until filled. Send resume to ladams@pineislandwater.com

City of Wildwood Water Treatment Plant Operator: Looking for a licensed operator to join our professional team at one of the fastest growing cities in Florida. Must hold at least a Class “C” license. Valid Driver’s license a must. Pay Range: $27,000 - $37,000/yr DOE Open Until Filled. Applications online www.wildwood-fl.gov or City Hall, 100 N. Main St, Wildwood, FL 34785 Attn: Melissa Tuck. EEO/AA/V/H/MF/DFWP.

City of Tarpon Springs Water Treatment Operator B ($36,219 - $58,349/ yr.)”

The Coral Springs Improvement District A GREAT place to further your career and enhance your life!

CSID offers…

Wastewater Treatment Plant Chief Operator City of Clearwater - Public Utilities Department City of Clearwater Government is hiring now for a Wastewater Treatment Plant-Chief Operator! Salary: $55,000 - $66,773 - DOQ (depending on qualifications) Annually Qualified candidates must have a minimum 5 years industry experience, plus supervisory experience. APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE FILED ONLINE AT: http://www.myclearwater.com MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Possession of a FDEP “A” Wastewater license required.

Orange County, Florida is an employer of choice and is perennially recognized on the Orlando Sentinel’s list of the Top 100 Companies for Working Families. Orange County shines as a place to both live and work, with an abundance of world class golf courses, lakes, miles of trails and year-round sunshine - all with the sparkling backdrop of nightly fireworks from world-famous tourist attractions. Make Orange County Your Home for Life. Orange County Utilities is one of the largest utility providers in Florida and has been recognized nationally and locally for outstanding operations, efficiencies, innovations, education programs and customer focus. As one of the largest departments in Orange County Government, we provide water and wastewater services to a population of over 500,000 citizens and 72 million annual guests; operate the largest publicly owned landfill in the state; and manage in excess of a billion dollars of infrastructure assets. Our focus is on excellent quality, customer service, sustainability, and a commitment to employee development. Join us to find more than a job – find a career. We are currently looking for knowledgeable and motivated individuals to join our team, who take great pride in public service, aspire to create a lasting value within their community, and appreciate being immersed in meaningful work. We are currently recruiting actively for the following positions: Project Manager, Water Reclamation Annual Salary $73,344 Min, $94,263 Mid, $115,182 Max Starting salary of external candidates is customarily below the midpoint based on qualifications. Apply online at: http://www.ocfl.net/careers Positions are open until filled.

City of Titusville – Senior Utility Engineer

Salary levels are at the top of the industry Health Insurance that is unmatched when compared to like sized Districts Promotions from within for qualified employees Continuing education courses to develop your skills and further your growth Retirement plans where an employee can earn 18% of their salary by contributing toward their future The Coral Springs Improvement District is seeking qualified employees in the following fields Chief Wastewater Plant Operator: Applicants must have a valid Class A Wastewater Treatment license and a minimum of five (5) years supervisory experience in the wastewater treatment facility. The Chief Wastewater Operator oversees and directs the operation of the District’s wastewater treatment plant. Employees in this category possess comprehensive understanding of wastewater treatment plant operations, and are responsible for ensuring compliance with state and federal regulatory standards. Responsible for enforcement of all applicable District policies, rules and regulations, budget preparations, capital improvements planning, staffing and training of personnel, including performance appraisals, and personnel selection as well as ensuring all safety procedures and policies are followed. Salary range $73,292. - $91,083. Salary to commensurate relative to level of experience in this field. Wastewater Plant Lead Operator: Applicants must have a valid Class A Wastewater Treatment license and a minimum of 3 years supervisory experience. The lead operator operates the Districts wastewater plant; assists in ensuring plant compliance with all state and federal regulatory criteria and all safety policies and procedures. Reports directly to the WTTP Chief Operator. Provides instruction and leadership to subordinate operators and trainees as assigned. This is a highly responsible, technical, and supervisory position requiring 24 hour availability. Exercise of initiative and independent judgment is required in providing guidance and supervision for continuous operation. Salary range: $63,000 - $76,956. Salary to commensurate relative to level of experience in this field. Water Plant Lead Operator: Applicants must have a valid Class A Water Treatment license and a minimum of 3 years supervisory experience. The Lead Water Operator operates the Districts water plant, assists in ensuring plant compliance with all state and federal regulatory criteria and all safety policies and procedures. This position reports directly to the WTP Chief Operator. Provides instruction and leadership to subordinate operators and trainees as assigned. This position requires experience in nano filtration/reverse osmosis. This is a highly responsible, technical, and supervisory position requiring 24 hour availability. Exercise of initiative and independent judgment is required in providing guidance and supervision for continuous operation. Salary range: $63,000 - $76,959. Salary to commensurate relative to level of experience in this field.

Competitive salaries. Great Team. www.titusville.com Benefits: Excellent benefits which include health, life, disability, dental, vison and

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

a retirement plan which includes a 6% non-contributory defined benefit and matching 457b plan with a 100% match up to 6%. EOE. All positions require a valid Florida Drivers license, high school diploma or GED equivalent and must pass a pre-employment drug screen test Salaries for the above position based on level of licensing and years of experience. Applications may be obtained by visiting our website at www.csidfl.org/resources/employment.html and fax resume to 954-7536328, attention Jan Zilmer, Director of Human Resources

MAINTENANCE TECHNICIANS U.S. Water Services Corporation is now accepting applications for maintenance technicians in the water and wastewater industry. All applicants must have 1+ years experience in performing mechanical, electrical, and/or pluming abilities and a valid DL. Background check and drug screen required. -Apply at http://www.uswatercorp.com/careers or to obtain further information call (866) 753-8292. EOE/m/f/v/d

LOOKING FOR A JOB? WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORS U.S. Water Services Corporation is now accepting applications for state certified water and wastewater treatment plant operators. All applicants must hold at least minimum “C” operator’s certificate. Background check and drug screen required. –Apply at http://www.uswatercorp.com/careers or to obtain further information call (866) 753-8292. EOE/m/f/v/d

The FWPCOA Job Placement Committee Can Help! Contact Joan E. Stokes at 407-293-9465 or fax 407-293-9943 for more information.

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2019

Test Yourself Answer Key From page 54 January 2016

Editorial Calendar January..........Wastewater Treatment February ........Water Supply; Alternative Sources March ............Energy Efficiency; Environmental Stewardship April ..............Conservation and Reuse; Florida Water Resources Conference May ................Operations and Utilities Management June ..............Biosolids Management and Bioenergy Production July ..................Stormwater Management; Emerging Technologies; FWRC Review August ..........Disinfection; Water Quality September......Emerging Issues; Water Resources Management October..........New Facilities, Expansions, and Upgrades November ......Water Treatment December ......Distribution and Collection

Technical articles are usually scheduled several months in advance and are due 60 days before the issue month (for example, January 1 for the March issue). The closing date for display ad and directory card reservations, notices, announcements, upcoming events, and everything else including classified ads, is 30 days before the issue month (for example, September 1 for the October issue). For further information on submittal requirements, guidelines for writers, advertising rates and conditions, and ad dimensions, as well as the most recent notices, announcements, and classified advertisements, go to www.fwrj.com or call 352-241-6006.

Display Advertiser Index AWWA/WEF Utility Management Conference........................................43 Blue Planet ............................................................................................79 CEU Challenge ........................................................................................45 FSAWWA Call for Papers........................................................................39 FSAWWA Drop Savers Contest ..............................................................55 FSAWWA Roy Likins Scholarship ..........................................................77 2018 FSAWWA Awards ..........................................................................71 FWPCOA Online Training ........................................................................32 FWPCOA Spring State Short School ......................................................17 FWPCOA Training....................................................................................51 FWRC ........................................................................................................9 FWRC Attendee Registration..................................................................12 FWRC Exhibit Registration ....................................................................15 FWRC Facility Technical Tour ................................................................14 FWRC FSAWWA Operators Initiative......................................................13 FWRC Information ..................................................................................10 FWRC Network Opportunities ................................................................11 Grundfos ................................................................................................41 Heyward HIVENT ....................................................................................65 Hudson Pump ........................................................................................33 Hydro International ..................................................................................5 Lakeside Construction ............................................................................7 Stacon ......................................................................................................2 UF Treeo Center ......................................................................................61 Xylem......................................................................................................80

February 2019 • Florida Water Resources Journal

1. D) remove settleable and floatable materials. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Chapter 5.0, Purpose of Sedimentation and Flotation, “The function of a primary clarifier is to remove settleable and floatable solids. The reason for having a secondary clarifier is that other types of treatment following the primary clarifier convert more solids to settleable form and they have to be removed from the treated wastewater.”

2. C) Primary clarifier sludge is denser than that from secondary clarifiers. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Chapter 5.0, “The main difference between primary and secondary clarifiers is in the density of sludge handled. Primary sludges are usually denser than secondary sludges. Effluent from a secondary clarifier is normally clearer than primary effluent.”

3. A) Detention time and surface loading Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Chapter 5.14 Operational Strategy, “The factor most often reported as influencing clarifier performance is the flow into the plant. Both the surface loading and detention time are directly related to flow.”

4. D) Short-circuiting Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Chapter 5.51, Principles of Operation, “As wastewater enters the settling tank, it should be evenly dispersed across the entire cross section of the tank and should flow at the same velocity in all areas toward the discharge end. When the velocity is greater in some sections than in others, serious short-circuiting may occur. The high velocity area may decrease the detention time in that area and particles may be held in suspension and pass through the discharge end of the tank . . . if velocity is too low, undesirable septic conditions may occur.”

5. B) Gasification Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Chapter 5.23, Typical Clarifier Efficiencies, “Clarifier efficiencies are affected by many factors, including . . . 5. Proper sludge withdrawal. If sludge is allowed to remain in the tank, it tends to gasify and the entire sludge blanket (depth) may rise to the water surface in the clarifier.”

6. C) Sludge blanket level Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Chapter 5.621, Activated Sludge Clarifiers, “To help the operator regulate clarifier operation, instrumentation is capable of monitoring: 1. Levels of sludge blanket in the clarifier 2. Concentration of suspended solids in the clarifier effluent 3. Control and pacing of the return sludge flows 4. Level of turbidity in the clarifier effluent 5. Concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the clarifier effluent 6. Level of pH”

7. C) Hydrostatic system Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Words, “Hydrostatic System – In a hydrostatic sludge removal system, the surface of the water in the clarifier is higher than the surface of the water in the sludge well or hopper. This difference in pressure head forces sludge from the bottom of the clarifier to flow through pipes to the sludge well or hopper.”

8. A) colloids, dissolved solids, and emulsions. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Chapter 5.8, Flotation Processes, “After primary sedimentation, wastewater always contains some suspended solids that neither settle nor float to the surface and therefore remain in the liquid as it passes through the clarifier. Dissolved solids will, of course, travel through the clarifiers because they are unaffected by these units. Colloids and emulsions are two other forms of solids that are very difficult to remove.”

9. C) they exert a high oxygen demand. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Chapter 5.8, Flotation Processes, “Colloids are less than 200 millimicrons in size, and generally will not settle readily. Organic colloids exert a high oxygen demand, so their removal is desirable . . . An emulsion is a liquid mixture of two or more substances not normally dissolved in one another, but one liquid held in suspension in the other. It usually contains suspended globules of one or more of the substances. The globules usually consist of grease, oil, fat, or resinous substances. This material also exerts a high oxygen demand.”

10. B) Pressure flotation and vacuum flotation Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Chapter 5.8, Flotation Processes, “There are two common flotation processes in practice today: 1. Vacuum flotation. The wastewater is aerated for a short time in a tank, where it becomes saturated with dissolved air. The air supply is then cut off and large air bubbles pass to the surface and into the atmosphere. The wastewater then flows to a vacuum chamber, which pulls out dissolved air in the form of tiny air bubbles. The bubbles then float the solids to the top. 2. Pressure flotation. Air is forced into the wastewater in a pressure chamber where the air becomes dissolved in the liquid. The pressure is then released from the wastewater, and the wastewater is returned to atmospheric pressure. Because of the change in pressure, the dissolved air is released from solution in the form of tiny air bubbles. These air bubbles rise to the surface and, as they rise, carry solids to the surface.