Business Office: 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711
Web: www.fwrj.com
General Manager: Michael Delaney
Editor: Rick Harmon
Graphic Design Manager: Patrick Delaney
Mailing Coordinator: 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: Joe Paterniti (FWEA) Clay County Utility Authority
Treasurer: Rim Bishop (FWPCOA) Seacoast Utility Authority
Secretary: Mish Clark Mish Agency
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 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: Laura Cooley, 407-574-3318, admin@fwea.org
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
FDEP 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, oho@fwpcoa.org
FWEA: Laura Cooley, 407-574-3318, admin@fwea.org
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
News and Features
Impacting Customers
Floridians Prefer Natural Shorelines Over Armored Ones Says UF/IFAS Study
Walk Raises Money for AWWA Water Equation
Contractors Roundup:
Information Modeling: Visualizing the Project—Justin Quary
Focused Site Visits Build Water Savings and Customer Goodwill—Phoenix McKinney and Sandra Anderson
42 Florida Governor and Cabinet Expand Protected Lands With Major Conservation Investment
47 State of the Water Industry Survey
Technical Articles
8 How Safe is Potable Reuse Based on Comparative Assessment Municipal Wastewater Disposal Methods in Southeast Florida?—Kelley Conboy, Frederick Bloetscher, Daniel E. Meeroff, James D. Englehardt, Chi Ho Sham, Robert Fergen, Richard Gallant, James Hart, Albert Muniz, Tomoyuki Shibata, and Mary Ellen Tuccillo
44 Conserving Wildlife and Water: Zoo Miami Water Resource Recovery Facility Evaluation for Water Reuse—Lee Kimbell, Fabrizio Sabba, Gary Hunter, Nelson Perez-Jacome, and Lucas Botero
Education and Training
22 Florida Water Resources Conference
30 CEU Challenge
38 AWWA Water Equation
39 FSAWWA Fall Conference Call for Papers
40 FSAWWA Roy Likins Scholarship Fund
41 AWWA 2025 Annual Conference and Exposition
43 TREEO Center Training
51 FWPCOA Training Calendar
Columns
26 FWEA Focus—Joe Paterniti
34 Speaking Out—Lisa Wilson-Davis
37 Test Yourself—Charles Lee Martin Jr.
42 Reader Profile—Elizabeth Keddy
48 FWEA Chapter Corner: South Florida Chapter Holds a Sold-Out Technical Seminar on PFAS Solutions—Ignacio Lizama, Juan Aceituno, and Lilian Marrero
50 C Factor—Kevin G. Shropshire
Departments
49 New Products
Classifieds
Display Advertiser Index ON THE COVER: Giraffes at Zoo Miami. The zoo partnered with Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department and Black & Veatch to design a water resource recovery facility to provide
(photo: Black & Veatch)
US Water and Sewer Bills Continue to Increase, Raising Affordability Concerns
The combined water and sewer bill for a typical household in the United States has increased by 4.6 percent from 2023 to 2024, according to Bluefield Research, a leading provider of global water market data and insights. This rise is being fueled by mounting operational costs, inflation, and necessary capital investments. Bluefield’s latest report, “U.S. Municipal Utility Water Rates Index 2024: Drinking Water and Sewer,” benchmarks a core set of water and wastewater utilities over the past five years (2019-2024) and reveals a 24.1 percent increase in combined drinking water and sewer bills, reflecting the mounting cost pressures impacting U.S. households.
“The cost of maintaining and upgrading water infrastructure continues to rise, and these costs are being passed down to ratepayers,” notes Megan Bondar, an analyst at Bluefield Research. “Sewer charges, in particular, represent a significant portion of monthly bills, highlighting the growing costs associated with wastewater treatment and regulatory compliance.” Over the past five years, sewer costs have consistently accounted for the largest portion of household utility bills, representing approximately 59 percent. Since 2019, sewer expenses have exceeded the costs of water by an average of $19.33 per month.
Various factors, such as infrastructure age, localized climate risks, and respective state policies, influence regional water rate disparities. Monthly water bills vary significantly across the U.S., with prices as low as $21.76 in Phoenix and as high as $122.94 in San Francisco, illustrating extreme regional disparities.
In 2024, the Northeast had the highest average combined water and sewer bills, totaling $141.53 per month. This is in contrast to the South, where the average was $118.21 per month. An underlying factor in this difference is the older utility assets and systems in New England, which require costly upgrades.
“These regional cost variations not only highlight operational and infrastructure differences across cities, but also raise concerns about the affordability of water and sewer services for households, particularly in lower-income communities,” emphasizes Bondar.
Affordability challenges continue to grow. In cities like Birmingham, Ala., and Cleveland, Ohio, combined water and sewer bills now exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s affordability threshold of 4.5 percent of median household income. The analysis reveals that minimum-wage earners in select cities must work as much as 20 hours per month to cover their water and sewer bills. “The data highlight the affordability crisis many communities face and the difficult trade-offs that need to be made in balancing a utility’s financial sustainability with household affordability,” says Bondar.
Water utilities are employing various strategies to manage costs and ensure service delivery in response to these challenges. Common measures include tiered pricing models, seasonal rate structures, and low-income assistance programs. The fragmented nature of water and wastewater service providers in the U.S., however, leads to varying levels of implementation and effectiveness. “Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all solution,” Bondar adds. “At this point, long-term planning and innovative approaches at the local level will be critical to sustaining water and sewer services.”
Bluefield’s year-over-year analysis underscores the mounting financial challenges for water utilities. New concerns about water quality, operating costs, and workforce shortages will continue to influence future rate structures. Other rising household costs, such as electricity, natural gas, and broadband access, exacerbate the financial impact of rising household water rates on consumers.
Access the complimentary report at bluefieldresearch.com. S
Household water and sewer bills for 50 cities in the United States, 2019–2024. (source: Bluefield Research)
Floridians Prefer Natural Shorelines Over Armored Ones Says UF/IFAS Study
Savanna Barry
When it comes to waterfront property, coastal Floridians are significantly more satisfied with natural solutions compared to artificial ones, according to a new study helmed by University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) researchers.
Although the finding specifically relates to nature-created shorelines, like beaches and wetlands, it’s an encouraging sign for the adoption of living shorelines. Unlike armored shorelines, like seawalls or bulkheads, living shorelines offer flood and erosion protection without disrupting water flow and marine life. Consisting of natural materials, such as plants, rocks and oyster shells, they provide fortification at a fraction of the cost.
“If we can leave shorelines natural in the first place, that’s best, but living shorelines can be a way to move the needle in the right direction,” said Savanna Barry, the study’s lead researcher and a regional specialized agent with Florida Sea Grant based at the Nature Coast Biological Station in Cedar Key.
Barry’s study gauged perceptions of four types of shorelines: armored, living, natural, and hybrid, the last of which mixes artificial and natural elements. She and her colleagues surveyed owners of waterfront, single-family
homes in the Panhandle, Indian River Lagoon, and Tampa Bay regions through emails and postcard mailers. Among 322 respondents, 54.9 percent had armored shorelines, 9.3 percent had living shorelines, 16.7 percent had natural shorelines, and 18.9 percent had hybrid shorelines.
Overall, respondents expressed satisfaction with whatever shoreline they had; on a scale of 0 to 10, the overall mean satisfaction score was a 7.5. The satisfaction score for natural shorelines, however, was 8.22, which compares to 7.38 for armored shorelines, 7.29 for living shorelines, and 7.42 for hybrid shorelines.
Asked to describe their decisionmaking process, respondents indicated durability, effectiveness, and cost were their top considerations—no matter which type of shoreline they owned. Overall, they considered armored shorelines the most durable and effective at shoreline protection, but they also considered them the least attractive and least environmentally friendly options.
“Shoreline property owners may be making decisions that lead to less favorable personal and environmental outcomes based on the generally erroneous perception that nature-based shorelines are not durable or effective at preventing erosion,” according to the study.
Unlike armored structures, which are known to fail during significant weather
events, living shorelines mimic natural shorelines in their ability to trap material, repair themselves, and even increase in size, Barry said.
“It’s human nature to trust walls and rocks that look to be more robust and discount the fact that these natural habitats, like mangroves, marshes, oyster reefs, and beaches, have persisted in this coastal zone long before we were here,” Barry said. “Naturebased shorelines are adapted to the pressures of those coastal zones, and even if they do get damaged, they’re much cheaper to repair.”
While respondents ranked cost as their top decision-making factor, data they provided indicate living shorelines were 8.5 times cheaper to install and 2.7 times cheaper to maintain than armored ones.
When it comes to dynamics between neighbors, homeowners generally fail to recognize that they influence each other’s shoreline decisions, according to the study’s findings. Those with armored shorelines also don’t realize the potential negative effects their chosen shoreline may have for their neighbors, including erosion acceleration and biodiversity reduction.
Of all the study’s findings, Barry said she was most surprised to learn people prefer natural shorelines.
“That’s a really nice bright spot that we can focus on, because people really are happier being around nature,” she said. S
LOOKING FOR A SCREW PUMP UPGRADE THAT’S BABA-COMPLIANT?
LAKESIDE REPLACES ALL BRANDS & TYPES… AND
MEETS REQUIREMENTS.
Lakeside’s screw pumps offer the ideal and cost-effective “drop in” replacements for less reliable designs. Improve pumping performance and reduce maintenance costs with our superior dual upper bearing design and heavy-duty self-aligning lower bearing designs. For decades we’ve been the go-to source for replacing all screw pump brands. Replacements typically require little or no structural modifications. It’s what you expect from Lakeside Equipment—known for nearly a century for efficient and dependable operation in all wastewater, drainage and industrial applications.
Cleaner Water for a Brighter Future®
Speak to one of our experts at 630.837.5640, email us at sales@lakeside-equipment.com, or visit www.lakeside-equipment.com for more product information.
How Safe is Potable Reuse Based on Comparative Assessment Municipal Wastewater Disposal Methods in Southeast Florida?
Kelley Conboy, Frederick Bloetscher, Daniel E. Meeroff, James D. Englehardt, Chi Ho Sham, Robert Fergen, Richard Gallant, James Hart, Albert Muniz, Tomoyuki Shibata, and Mary Ellen Tuccillo
This article is a 2023 FSAWWA Best Paper Award winner.
The term “toilet to tap” is a disparaging phase that often discourages political leaders and utilities from considering wastewater as a potential water supply option, despite the fact that most rivers and lakes are downstream of wastewater discharges. As a result, most rivers and large lakes may be indirect potable reuse (IPR) systems—they just are not recognized as such by the public.
The lack of any form of risk assessment concerning the risks of potable reuse in comparison to other options in the United States frustrates the efforts to use sustainable wastewater as a water supply solution, assuming the proper treatment is maintained. Risk analysis applications comparing disposal options are limited because multiple options are rarely pursued in the same area. Instead, most risk assessments focus on one issue, as opposed to a comparison between risk pathways (Munoz et al., 2009; Link et al., 2017; Kostich et al., 2014; Escher et al., 2011; DiazGarduno et al., 2017; Muriuki et al., 2020; Compagni et al., 2020; Hernando et al., 2006; Amoueyan et al., 2017; Salgot et al., 2006; Soller et al., 2018; Purnell et al., 2020; Zhitnenva et al., 2021; Choudri and Charabi, 2017; CH2MHill, 1993; Reynolds, 2000; Patryka and Bond, 2022; Tuser and Oulehlova, 2021; Cabelli et al., 1979; Garcia-Bengochea, 1983; Kent and Bentle, 1985).
Twenty years ago, two comparative studies were conducted, one by the University of Miami (UM) and the other by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning three disposal options in Florida, with reuse not considered at the time. The three options considered were:
S Ocean outfalls
S Injection wells
S Surface water discharges
Ocean outfalls were constructed in the early 1970s. They were used in southeast
Florida because of proximity to the Florida Current, a thermal ocean current that flows from the Straits of Florida around the Florida Peninsula and along the southeastern coast of the U.S. before joining the Gulf Stream. Surface water discharges were discontinued in the late 1970s due to pollution. Haile et al. (1999) is one of many studies that reviewed the health effects of sewage-tainted surface waters. Injection well construction started after 1977 because southeast Florida is underlain by a geologically isolated formation suitable for waste disposal. As a result, injection wells and ocean outfalls were attractive given that the seven million residents of southeast Florida need largescale wastewater disposal options from large treatment facilities.
Reuse has not generally been implemented in southeast Florida because the lot sizes are usually small, limiting the amount of reclaimed water that can be disposed of relative to other, less densely developed areas of the state; however, the high chloride concentrations in the wastewater in southeast Florida make irrigation problematic without salt removal. In addition, the present regulations (Rule 62610, Florida Administrative Code) require that reclaimed water systems have a backup disposal system capable of disposing of 100 percent of the reclaimed water in the event of water quality concerns, wet weather, or other adverse weather conditions. The backup disposal systems would include injection wells and/or ocean outfalls, making the capital investment redundant.
In addition, the cost of retrofitting large residential areas with a reuse distribution system, as was done by the City of St. Petersburg in the 1980s (with 80 percent federal matching grants), has been considered cost prohibitive. The Tampa Bay/St. Petersburg area does not, however, have deep aquifers with the same degree of geologic isolation as southeast Florida, nor is there access to large ocean currents needed for outfall disposal.
In the mid-1990s, challenges to the use of injection wells were filed in the courts in
Kelley Conboy, E.I., is a project engineer with Holtz Consulting Engineers Inc. in Stuart. Frederick Bloetscher, Ph.D., P.E., is associate dean for undergraduate studies and community outreach in the department of civil, environmental, and geomatics engineering at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. Daniel E. Meeroff, Ph.D., E.I., is professor and dean of undergraduate studies in the department of civil, environmental, and geomatics engineering at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. James D. Englehardt, Ph.D., P.E. (deceased), was a professor of environmental engineering at the University of Miami in Coral Gables. Chi Ho Sham, Ph.D., is a former president of the American Water Works Association. Robert Fergen, P.E., is retired from MiamiDade County. Richard J. Gallant, E.I., is public works director at Town of Loxahatchee Groves. James Hart, P.E., is a senior project manager at Calvin, Giordano and Associates in Fort Lauderdale. Albert Muniz, P.E., is a vice president at Hazen and Sawyer in Boca Raton. Tomoyuki Shibata, Ph.D., is a professor at the University of Northern Illinois in DeKalb, Ill. Mary Ellen Tuccillo is a senior environmental scientist at Eastern Research Group in Watertown, Mass.
Florida, suggesting that upward migration of the wastewater posed a risk to drinking water supplies. Elevated ammonia and total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations, and depressed salinity relative to native water in the Floridan aquifer, were reported in monitoring wells in zones overlying the injection zone in MiamiDade County (Englehardt et al., 2001). These findings raised concerns for EPA and others regarding the extent of migration of injected water. At the time, no risk assessments of wastewater disposal options had been undertaken, so the Southeast Florida Utility Council engaged UM to conduct such a study in 2020.
Continued on page 10
1. POLYMER REDUCTION: P6 PolyMix® Systems reduce polymer consumption by providing complete polymer/sludge mixing in a shear-sensitive manner. This patented mixing process allows long-strand polymer chains to remain intact and unbroken and wastewater floc to remain intact and unsheared. Typical applications result in a 25-50% REDUCTION IN POLYMER CONSUMPTION, thus saving the customer thousands of dollars in polymer expenses. By not breaking up the polymer chains, the dewatering equipment will experience less fouling, providing more reliability and reducing equipment cleaning costs.
2. DRIER CAKE SOLIDS: P6 PolyMix® technology optimizes the polymer and sludge mixing process, allowing INCREASE DEWATERED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION and INCREASED PERCENT SOLIDS CAPTURED. This unique mixing process results in more efficient sludge hauling, allowing customers to transport less water and more dewatered cake off-site.
3. ELIMINATION OF PUMP MAINTENANCE: P6 PolyMix® technology reduces pump parts and maintenance by utilizing the abrasion-resistant Discflo pumping principles of Boundary Layer/Viscous Drag. This principle can save the customer thousands of dollars in parts and maintenance over the lifetime of the equipment. All P6 PolyMix® systems in the municipal market include a 10-YEAR (extendable to 20 years) 100% WET END WEAR WARRANTY, No other pump manufacturer in the industry provides a wear warranty, let alone a 20-year wear warranty!
4. PUMPS & MIXES: P6 PolyMix® technology uses the unique principles of Boundary Layer/Viscous Drag for mixing polymer versus a mixer/check valve; this, paired with its unique InjeX™ polymer injection mixing chamber, is designed for MINIMAL POLYMER DEGRIDATION, allowing for maximum polymer savings. The hydraulic shear forces within the mixing pump provide a complete homogeneous wastewater polymer slurry fed to the dewatering equipment without breaking the long chain polymers or reducing floc size.
5. LOWER OPERATING PRESSURE AND INSTALLED HORESPOWER: P6 PolyMix® technology dramatically reduces the operating pressure by reducing back pressure within the piping system due to eliminating mixer/check valves. In some applications, customers have had a 75% REDUCTION IN PRESSURE Lower pressure allows the feed pump to operate at lower horsepower. HORSEPOWER SAVINGS OF UP TO 50% OR MORE are possible by installing a P6 PolyMix® system. Customers can see substantial long-term energy savings and reduced upfront capital costs associated with lower installed horsepower.
6. HOW IS IT APPLIED: P6 PolyMix® systems entirely replace bulky, expensive, outdated traditional sludge feed pumps. You can now replace thousands of dollars in equipment and regain valuable real estate space by switching to P6 PolyMix® and utilizing its unique compact design, patented process for eliminating mixer/check valves, and ultra-efficient polymer mixing process. Contact us to learn how P6 PolyMix® can revolutionize the efficiency of your BELT FILTER PRESSES, GRAVITY BELT THICKENERS, ROTARY THICKENERS, SCREW PRESSES, AND CRENTIFUGES.
!"#$%&'%(&)*+#,-"%.&'"
?--3,EDL@FAEATDMB.CF B.EBLCEDL@FO3
!"#ABCDEF*+,"-E.
*+,"LB.MF 1O3BCFBDMF4B.35
S3T."MBDF*+,"-E.
eAUf
*+,"LB.MF 1UED#EFOB.9TDBLE#5F
eAUf gFeDME.h.T,DMFAT,.AE#FT-FU."Di"DhFfBLE. OM gFOb3T."DBL"TD
Figure 3. Injection well disposal method route diagram.
Continued from page 8
The analysis was a comparative assessment of the risks of three effluent disposal alternatives available to wastewater utilities in southeast Florida: ocean discharges, deep well discharges, and surface water discharges (although the practice was abandoned in the 1970s in south Florida), which was conducted as reported by Englehardt et al. (2001) and Bloetscher et al. (2002, 2003, 2005). Data were analyzed using predictive Bayesian methods (Englehardt et al., 2001; Bloetscher et al., 2005), yielding the following conclusions:
S Deep wells provide the greatest separation between human contact and the treated effluent.
S Health risks for injection wells are generally lower than for other alternatives.
S Even in a theoretical worst-case scenario, deep well injection is the lowest-risk alternative.
The EPA study in 2001 had performed the same type of study using the Cadmus Group, which, while extended to all deep wells in Florida, concluded that injection wells were the lowest-risk alternative, but noted upward migration (in shallow wells) in the Tampa Bay area (Bloetscher et al., 2023).
Rule changes affect both options today. Ocean outfalls were banned by the Florida Legislature starting in 2025. In 2003, an agreement among EPA, Florida Department of Environmental (FDEP), and the litigants determined that all new injection well projects would follow reuse guidelines for treated wastewater. The result was that all new wells would require the effluent to be filtered and receive high-level disinfection (biochemical oxygen demand [BOD] and total suspended solids [TSS] <5 mg/L, with a chlorine residual above 1 mg/L). This was a response in part to a FDEP goal to increase reuse in southeast Florida. Nutrients were not regulated because reuse recipients desire the nutrients to reduce fertilizer use.
South Florida Condition
Unlike the rest of the U.S., south Florida has multiple options for wastewater disposal. Class I injection wells are currently used to dispose of over 300 mil gal per day (mgd) of secondary treated wastewater in southeast Florida. The injection zone is generally 2,600 to 3,500 ft deep. Due to clastic clay layers that are 800 to 1000 ft thick, the injection zone is effectively sealed from the surficial aquifer system (Bloetscher, 2005). In general, the rocks comprising the Floridan aquifer system resemble a layer cake composed of numerous
zones of alternating high and low permeability (Meyer, 1989). As of 2020, there were over 100 active Class I injection wells and 74 upper and 78 lower monitoring wells in zones above the injection horizon in southeast Florida; the upper monitoring wells are generally above the underground source of drinking water. Most of the injection wells are constructed with a 24-in.-diameter final casing string to the top the injection zone.
There are six outfalls in southeast Florida that disposed of over 300 mgd among them at their peak. Two of the outfalls, Miami-Central and Miami-North outfalls, have multiport diffusers. All are in at least 28 meters of water and located at least 1.5 mi offshore, within the western boundary of the Florida Current tributary of the Gulf Stream. The Florida Current is strong, and maximum current speeds often occur in the Florida Strait between southeast Florida and the Bahamas. The southeast Florida outfalls are near the Florida Current, which rapidly advects and disperses outfall plumes (Pire-Schmidt et al., 2012).
Since 2000, wastewater from the two smallest outfalls (South Central in Delray Beach and the Boca Raton facility) has been diverted to reuse and injection wells. Broward County has diverted some portion of its flows to reuse in Palm Beach County, while the rest are disposed of via injection wells. The raw wastewater in both Hollywood and MiamiDade County have chloride concentrations over 1,000 mg/L, which precludes the use of the effluent for irrigation without reverse osmosis (RO) treatment, so injection wells and cooling water (Miami-Dade) have been preferred options.
Potable reuse options have been studied to mitigate Florida’s water supply issues. The IPR entails discharge to groundwater or a surface water body, and direct potable reuse (DPR) involves discharge to the headworks of a drinking water treatment plant. Seven projects evaluated IPR in southeast Florida, and nearly a dozen such studies are currently ongoing in central Florida.
With aquifer recharge, the water released into the aquifer must be of higher quality than the native water. The chosen approach in south Florida has been to treat wastewater designed for potable reuse of any type to high standards, including RO treatment, before injection via a recharge well based on the Orange County groundwater recharge project model (originally the Water Factory 21) or to a water plant, as was done in Texas. Advanced oxidation and ultraviolet (UV) light have been added to the treatment regime because
Figure 5. Surface water disposal method route diagram.
Figure 6. Surface water risk tree diagram.
ABCCCLTa4
of concerns in removal of viruses; emerging contaminants, like pharmaceutically active compounds; and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances/perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFAS/ PFOS) as noted in the Pembroke Pines pilot test (Bloetscher et al., 2012). Orange County’s Water Factory 21 was also part of one of the most important epidemiological studies on the health effects of recharging an aquifer with reclaimed wastewater. Sloss et al. (1996) found no measurable differences in the incidence of diseases between Orange County, Calif., and the Los Angeles basin where the water supply is not recharged with reclaimed water.
Figure 8. Reuse irrigation risk tree diagram. Continued from page 11
Water Quality Data Analysis
For this project, data on wastewater treatment plant effluent water quality and receiving water quality were obtained from utilities with various discharge options and regulatory agencies. In addition, local and regional geologic data were collected. Data analysis was aimed at evaluating potential health concerns associated with various disposal alternatives and included comparison of water quality data against surface water standards. Drinking water standards were used in the absence of surface water standards.
Because there are no southeast Florida inland surface discharges, the west coast of
Florida discharge regulations were used as a surrogate. These discharges require advanced wastewater treatment (AWT), which entails a greater degree of treatment than is typically done for reclaimed water. The following must be attained: S
The effluent concentrations of most constituents were lower than concentrations in the receiving waters. The constituents that were found in higher concentrations in the effluent included cyanide, nitrogen, phosphorous, color, odor, foaming agents, total trihalomethanes, BOD, and total coliform count. In addition, treated effluents were somewhat higher in temperature and lower in pH, on average, than the receiving waters.
Indicators of human health risk that were selected for evaluation included rotavirus, PFAS/PFOS, TP, and estrogenicity. The PFAS/ PFOS are the current set of compounds of interest to utilities because of the most recent EPA regulations (2023). Likewise, concentrations of pharmaceutically active compounds (PACs), like estrogens, in the environment are low compared to conventional priority pollutants (in the µg/L or ng/L range), but higher than needed to create health risks in wastewater. Noticeable environmental response can be elicited from aquatic organisms in the 1 ng/L (10-12) range, and questions exist about the cumulative effects of the hundreds of PACs that may be present in wastewater (Daughton and Ternes, 1999). Neither water nor conventional wastewater plants are designed to remove these compounds, although the Pembroke Pines potable reuse study demonstrated that RO and UV/advanced oxidation processes (AOP) could remove three logs of these contaminants (Bloetscher et al., 2014).
Project Goal
Generally, risk assessments for comparing water and wastewater management plans are hindered by variability among sites and the lack of general data and other information needed to compare technologies; however, no comparison data have been generated since the UM and EPA studies 20 years ago. This work builds upon previous efforts evaluating the risks posed by wastewater disposal practices (Englehardt et al., 2001; Bloetscher et al., 2005; USEPA, 2001) and follows the methods of Engelhardt et al. (2001). Model development included new data gathered in the past 20
Continued on page 14
ABCCCLTa4
Continued from page 12
years and the experience of the researchers. Applicability is limited to southeast Florida (Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties) because the regional geology differs from that found farther north, and different assumptions would apply.
Methods
The comparative (relative) risk assessment was based on the predictive Bayesian compound Poisson model proposed previously by Englehardt (1997). A conceptual model of the operating environment was developed for each
disposal option, including slight modifications to the UM study options (Bloetscher et al., 2005). Elements of the conceptual models included regulatory constraints, treatment requirements for each option, hydrogeological and hydrological considerations, dilution and mixing characteristics to create potential pathways of health, and ecological exposure.
The following are the options and assumed treatment:
S Injection wells (secondary, and secondary, filtration, and disinfection)
Figure 10. Indirect potable reuse aquifer injection risk tree diagram.
public space (secondary, filtration, and high-level disinfection)
S IPR (full treatment using RO and UV/AOP, plus withdrawal and treatment at water plant)
S Potable reuse (full treatment using RO and UV/AOP, plus treatment at water plant)
The following public health exposure triggers were proposed:
S Rotavirus – Zero colony-forming units (CFU)/mL (based on Bloetscher, 2001 and team microbiologists)
S PFAS – 5 parts per mil (per California law; study was conducted before the new EPA standards)
S TP – 10 mg/L environmental exposure (as used in both prior studies)
S 17b estradiol – 0.5 ng/L based on the known impact of this concentration on fish (Stumpf et al., 1999 among others)
Expert opinion was elicited for inputting the model developed using a modified Delphi method for each of the nodes/pathways identified in Figures 1 through 12 (from Bloetscher et al., 2023). Englehardt (2001) proposed a modification to the traditional Delphi method to evaluate and compare the risks related to the different alternatives for treated wastewater disposal addressed in the UM study. The solicitation method used in this study is the same as that described in Bloetscher et al. (2005). The questionnaire was prepared as a Microsoft Excel® workbook corresponding tree diagram (Figures 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12). For additional support in evaluating the disposal methods, several pages of information on water quality and treatment were provided to the experts, along with a collection of 325 reports, articles, and water quality spreadsheets. For each node and each discharge alternative, the research team was asked four questions:
S How many times in 30 years will the regulatory standard be exceeded at the receiving node? (One such exceedance event may last any number of days.)
S What is your confidence in the numbers of exceedance events you entered? Please select low (L), medium (M) or high (H).
S How many days will exceedance events last (minimum, mean, maximum)?
S What is your confidence in the event sizes you entered? Please select from low (L), medium (M) or high (H).
Note that the experts had different levels of understanding of the various technologies and disposal options, which is reflected in the level of confidence they assigned to
their answers (some were experts in certain options versus others). From these responses, a probabilistic conceptual computer model was developed using the programming software package Matlab® Version 21, for computation of believed mean days of regulatory water quality violations in 30 years. Two distributions were used for the analysis. The Poisson distribution is known to predict the number of incidents over a period (Ross 1985) and the Pareto distribution is known to predict incident size (Englehardt, 1995). Probability distributions, termed “prior distributions,” can then be assigned to the parameters of the sampling distributions. This uncertainty in the parameters can be integrated into the sampling distributions according to predictive Bayesian methods. Resulting “predictive distributions” for risks are broader to account for concerning uncertainty in parameter estimates. Geomeans were used so as not to create extremely small values (or zeros). As with the Engelhardt et al. (2001) study, the smallest value accepted for a response was 10-9
For each node, the results were added for each option to get a risk of the option. The response rate was higher than the 2000 study (11 versus six); the breadth of expertise was wider as well. No attempt was made to get similar answers across the experts (outlying answers were not discarded) and no attempt was made to change responses.
Results
Given that the goal was to do a comparative risk study, as the numerical values lack context in the real world, Table 1 outlines how, for each constituent, the relative risk will be presented. For each box in the table, a ratio is provided. For example, in box 2:2, “IW/OO” is the ratio of the injection well number of days exceeding the standard versus the ocean outfall number of days exceeding the standard. A number less than 1 indicates that the numerator (number of days exceeding the standard for an injection well scenario) is the smaller value (and vice versa).
Negative exponents indicate the relative risk. Table 2 shows the results for rotavirus; the injection wells and DPR have the least risk of all of the alternatives by up to a factor of 20. Ocean outfalls, IPR, surface waters, and irrigation reuse were of the same magnitude, which is unsurprising since disinfection is effective in removing rotavirus.
With respect to PFAS, one issue noted by several respondents was that the treatment efficiency is still developing, making exceedances slightly harder to estimate. For PFAS, injection wells posed the least relative risk
11. Potable reuse disposal method route
Figure 12. Potable reuse risk tree diagram.
compared to all other options, mostly because there is little to no potential for human contact (see Table 3). The DPR and IPR options were a factor of 4 higher risk, which is a magnitude less than the other options. One respondent noted that they were unsure that any of the proposed treatments would achieve three logs of removal
Table 1. Format of the Table of Results for Comparative Risk Assessment Continued on page
for potable reuse, so injection wells provided a lower risk of exposure.
More data are needed for the injection option, especially with respect to the removal capabilities of RO/UV/AOP systems. Outfalls were considered the highest relative risk due to !"#A%!CDEF*+C%"E,+-%#-+E,.+F,
Figure
Table 2. Comparative Risk for Rotavirus
Table 3. Comparative Risk for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
Table 4. Comparative Risk for Total Phosphorous
Continued from page 15
less treatment employed, and therefore, more potential human exposure.
Table 4 outlines the comparisons for TP. Note that phosphorus does not have a drinking water standard and most utilities add zinc orthophosphate or some similar chemical to their water to reduce the potential for corrosion (necessitated by the 1989 Lead and Copper Rule). For TP, DPR presents no obvious environmental pathways and was the lowest exposure (TP is easily removed by RO membranes risk from injection wells and was at least a magnitude better than the other options, although they were all within one magnitude). Irrigation reuse has the highest relative risk because this process is not designed to remove phosphorous. Surface water disposal posed the greatest relative risk, despite treatment to remove phosphorous; ocean outfalls presented the second worst exposure risk.
Table 5 shows the results for estrogens. In this case, concerns about the three log removal were noted as a concern for DPR systems, mostly from an operations/equipment perspective. The DPR presents the lowest risk; injection wells were next. The other options were up to two magnitudes higher. The IPR and injection wells presented the same magnitude of risk and ocean outfall disposal represented the highest comparative risk.
Ultimately, the injection wells and DPR options were the lowest risk alternatives. The similar risk from these two options was unanticipated, but these low relative risks are likely due to the advanced treatment used for DPR and the lack of public exposure from injection wells.
Conclusions
For over 20 years, the only risk assessments conducted to look at wastewater disposal options were the 2000 UM and EPA studies. Three of the participants from those studies were involved in this study. During the past 20 years, there have been discussions about how reuse options might compare to the prior, assessed disposal options given the interest in reuse of wastewater. There are currently seven potable reuse studies that have been completed in southeast Florida and another 11 in central Florida. Given this increased interest, study of the risks associated with these disposal/reuse options is timely. The project presented here used the modified Delphi process that was used in Engelhardt et al. (2001). Results indicated that DPR and injection wells were the lowest risk alternatives in terms of human exposure. There are several caveats to this study. First,
Continued on page 18
Continued from page 16
the results are limited to southeast Florida, with areas outside not considered, and the results should not be extended beyond this area without further study. A larger, more expansive effort should be undertaken because in many areas, injection wells and ocean outfalls are not viable options, but potable reuse and irrigation may be.
This study was a surveyed assessment of comparative risk; field evaluation and actual risk values were not evaluated. In this study, and the study performed in 2000 (Englehardt et al., 2001; Bloetscher et al., 2005), it appears that ocean outfalls are not a high-risk disposal method, but the state of Florida will discontinue use of ocean outfalls by 2025 per a legislative directive.
An issue many of the respondents raised was reliability of equipment. There was little concern about the fact that the equipment could treat the water, but there were questions about the reliability and longevity of the equipment,
monitoring systems, and operational attentiveness. While most advanced systems are computer-monitored, the modified Delphi survey also noted that automation in wastewater monitoring can fail periodically; such failures can reduce the reliability of automated processes and could be a potential avenue to miss a violation. How long treatment equipment will last, what happens to a piece of equipment as it reaches its useful life, and longterm degradation were concerns. An example consideration is whether membranes degrade slowly or quickly at the end of their life.
Questions were also raised about monitoring. Probes exist for measuring many water constituents/contaminants; however, estrogens, PFAS, and pathogens are not currently measurable via field probe. New probes will be developed over time, but ongoing monitoring of the contaminant removal efficiency is currently uncertain.
This study included more responses than the prior efforts, which should produce
Table 5. Comparative Risk for Synthetic Estrogen
more-robust results. Additionally, heavily counting the responses from those with deepest expertise for each disposal option is helpful to the analysis because it strengthens knowledge while not eliminating perception.
This study also did not include risks associated with issues in the water distribution system as such problems are not related to the wastewater disposal option. The study did not delete low-impact risk nodes; many of the nodes received responses indicating no real potential for exposure. This would simplify the analysis if a subsequent iteration was done to remove nodes presenting minimal risk.
A cost analysis for each disposal method was not developed in this study; such an analysis would be valuable because the cost of membrane operations continues to go down. Table 6 shows that costs for the ultimate processes discussed here are not as disparate as the initial costs estimates might indicate. Such factors as capital costs for installation, and operation and maintenance costs over the useful life of the equipment, and capital returns from customers using reclaimed water, can all affect the selection of disposal methods. The water supply benefit is the avoided costs of new wells that the option provides (i.e., new water or replacing the need for new water). The DPR does well in this analysis.
The public’s perception of wastewater treatment and reclaimed water was not weighed in this study and the perception of the “toilet to tap” initiative to create a new water source has not been positive. There is a lack of understanding about the level of treatment and monitoring that wastewater effluent receives when it is in a DPR or IPR system. The perception of wastewater as it intersects with drinking water is challenging, as evidenced when the plants have to discharge within permitted emergency conditions. Local newspapers post about the events and have used incorrect adjectives, such as sewage or stormwater, to describe discharges. The articles do not discuss whether releases are untreated or treated sewage, intentional or accidental, if the wastewater was treated, and the level of treatment received; however, the results developed here suggest that the true risk associated with potable reuse is less than other options (except deep injection wells, which are not available everywhere) due to the extensive treatment used.
The information developed in this study should be used to support potable reuse efforts in water-limited communities, like many in California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Florida—all states where reuse is already a major industry. The results of this study, coupled with the need for appropriate risk assessment
Table 6. Added Costs for Treatment
the U.S. and better communication with the public, indicate the need for a national study of the relative risks of wastewater disposal options.
Dedication
This article is dedicated to the memory of James D. Englehardt, Ph.D., P.E., professor, University of Miami, who passed away July 26, 2023, at the conclusion of this project. His insight, guidance, and approach to data-limited problems will be missed.
References
• Aitchison, J.; and Dunsmore I.R. (1975). Statistical Prediction Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
• Amoueyan, E.; Ahmad, S.; Eisenberg, J. N. S.; Pecson, B.; and Gerrity, D. (2017). “Quantifying pathogen risks associated with potable reuse: A risk assessment case study for cryptosporidium.” Water Research, 119, 252–266.
• Apostolakis, G. (1990), “The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems,” Science, Dec. 7, 1990, Vol. 250. no. 4986, pp. 1359 – 1364.
• Bloetscher, F. (1996). “Aquifer Storage and Recovery to Meet Peak Water Demands in Southwest Florida,” CONSERV96 Conference Proceedings, AWWA, Denver, Colo.
• Bloetscher, F. (2001). A Risk Management Model for Finding Minimum Distance Requirements to Meet Reasonable Assurance of no Negative Impacts on Potable Water Supply Wells From Alternative Injection Well Programs. Dissertation for completion of the requirements for a Ph.D. in civil, architectural, and environmental engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla.
• Bloetscher, F. (2001). “Does the Current Knowledge of ASR Answer all the Necessary Questions?” Groundwater Protection Council Annual Conference Proceedings –Reno, Nev., GWPC, Oklahoma City, Okla.
• Bloetscher, F. (2002). The Risk Impact of Class 1 Injection Wells on ASR Wells,” Annual Forum of the Groundwater Protection Council Proceedings – San Francisco, Calif., Oklahoma City, Okla.
• Bloetscher, F. (2003). “The Impact of Location of ASR Wells on Deep Well Risk Assessment,” AWWA Source Water Protection Conference – Albuquerque, N.M., AWWA, Denver, Colo.
• Bloetscher, F. (2019). Public Infrastructure Management: Tracking Inevitable Asset
Challenges and Increasing System Resiliency, JRoss, Plantation, Fla.
• Bloetscher, F. (2019). Using predictive Bayesian Monte Carlo-Markov Chain methods to provide a probablistic solution for the Drake equation. Acta Astronautica, Volume 155, p. 118-130.
• Bloetscher, F.; Englehardt, J.D.; Chin, D.A.; Rose, J.B.; Tchobanoglous, G.; Amy, V.P.; and Gokgoz, S. (2005). “Comparative Assessment Municipal Wastewater Disposal Methods in Southeast Florida,” Water Environment Research, Vol. 77, No. , pp. 480-490.
• Bloetscher, F.; and Fergen, R. E. (2002). “The Next Generation of Regulations: Pharmaceuticals as Endocrine Disruptors,” ERWI Annual Conference Proceedings, ASCE, Reston, Va.
• Bloetscher, F.; and Muniz, A. (2005), Summary of Class I Injection Wells in South Florida.” GWPC Annual Meeting Proceedings, GWPC, Oklahoma, Okla.
• Bloetscher, F.; Pleitez, F.; Hart, J.; Stambaugh, D.; Cooper, J.; Kennedy, K.; and Sher Burack, L. (2014). Comparing Contaminant Removal Costs for Aquifer Recharge With Wastewater With Water Supply Benefits. JAWRA, Volume 50, Issue 2, pages 324–333, April 2014.
• Bloetscher, F.; and Plummer, J.D. (2011). Evaluating the Significance of Certain Pharmaceuticals and Emerging Pathogens in Raw Water Supplies, Environmental Practice 13 (9).
• Bloetscher, F.; Stambaugh, D.; Hart, J.; Cooper, J.; Kennedy, K. Burack, L.S.; Ruffini, A.P.; Cicala, A.J.; and Simenello, S. (2011). Evaluating Membrane Options for Aquifer Recharge in Southeast Florida, IDA Journal 2(4).
• Cabelli, V.J.; DuFour, A.P.; Levin, M.A.; McCabe, L.J.; and Haberman, P.W. (1979). “Relationship of Microbial Indicators to Health Effects at Marine Bathing Beaches,” Am. J. Public Health, Vol. 69.
• CH2MHill (1993), Environmental Risk and Geochemcial Analysis Related to the City of St. Petersburg’s Underground Injection and Monitoring System.CH2MHill, Tampa, Fla.
• Choudri, B. S.; Charabi, Y.; and Ahmed, M. (2018). “Health Effects Associated With Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Disposal.” Water Environment Research, 90(10), 1759–1776.
• Daughton, C.G.; and Ternes, T.A. (1999). “Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment: Agents of Subtle Change?” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 107, Suppl. 6, pp. 907-938.
• Delli Compagni, R.; Gabrielli, M.; Polesel, F.; Turolla, A.; Trapp, S.; Vezzaro, L.; and Antonelli, M. (2020). “Risk Assessment of
Contaminants of Emerging Concern in the Context of Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation: An Integrated Modelling Approach.” Chemosphere, 242, 125185.
• Díaz-Garduño, B.; Pintado-Herrera, M. G.; Biel-Maeso, M.; Rueda-Márquez, J. J.; LaraMartín, P. A.; Perales, J. A.; Manzano, M. A.; Garrido-Pérez, C.; and Martín-Díaz, M. L. (2017). “Environmental Risk Assessment of Effluents as a Whole Emerging Contaminant: Efficiency of Alternative Tertiary Treatments for Wastewater Depuration.” Water Research, 119, 136–149.
• Dickin, S. K.; Schuster-Wallace, C. J.; Qadir, M.; and Pizzacalla, K. (2016). “A Review of Health Risks and Pathways for Exposure to Wastewater Use in Agriculture.” Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(7), 900–909.
• Englehardt, J. (1995). “Predicting Incident Size From Limited Information.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 121(6) 455-464.
• Englehardt, J.D. (1997). Bayesian BenefitRisk Analysis for Sustainable Process Design. Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 123: 71-78.
• Englehardt, J., Principal Investigator (2001). Development of an Information-Theoretic, Predictive Bayesian Dose Response Model for Assessing Microbiological Health Risks from Available Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, $24,600.
• Englehardt, J.D.; Amy, V.P.; Bloetscher, F.; Chin, D.A.; Fleming, L.E.; Gokgoz, S.; SoloGabriele, H.; Rose, J.B.; and Tchobanoglous, G. (2001). Comparative Assessment of Human and Ecological Impacts for Municipal Wastewater Disposal Methods in Southeast Florida: Deep Wells, Ocean Outfalls, and Canal Discharges, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla.
• Englehardt, J.D.; and Lund, J. (1993). Information Theory in Risk Analysis. Journal of Environmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 118, No. 6, pp. 890-904. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)07339372(1992)118:6(890).
• Englehardt, J.D.; and Swartout, P. (2006). Predictive Bayesian Microbial DoseResponse Assessment Based on Suggested Self-Organization in Primary Illness Response: Cryptosporidium parvum, Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, No. 2, DOI: 10.1111/j.15396924.2006.00745.x.
• Escher, B. I.; Baumgartner, R.; Koller, M.; Treyer, K.; Lienert, J.; and McArdell, C. S. (2011). “Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment of Pharmaceuticals From Continued on page 20
Continued from page 19
Hospital Wastewater.” Water Research, 45(1), 75–92.
• Fergen, Robert; Cooke, J. Phillip; and Huang, Hening (1994). “An Overview of the Southeast Florida Ocean Outfall Experiment (SEFLOE) Phase II Study.” MTS 94 Proceedings, Marine Technology Society, Washington D.C., pp. 748-754.
• Garcia-Bengochea, J.I. (1983), “Protecting Water Supply Aquifers in Areas Using Deep- Well Wastewater Disposal,” Journal –American Water Works Association, Vol. 75, No. 6, pp. 288-291.
• Gerba, C.P. and Rose, J. (1983), “Estimating Viral Disease Risk from Drinking Water,” In Comparative Environmental Risk Assessment, C.R. Cothern (Ed.), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
• Haight, Frank A. (1967). Handbook of the Poisson Distribution. New York, N.Y., USA: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-339328.
• Haile, Robert W.; Witte, John S.; Gold, Mark; Cressey, Ron; McGee, Charles; Millikan, Robert C.; Glasser, Alice; Harawa, Nina; Ervin, Carolyn; Harmon, Patricia; Harper, Janice; Dermand, John; Alamillo, James; Barrett, Kevin; Nides, Mitchell; and Wang, Guang-yu (1999). “The Health Effects of Swimming in Ocean Water Contaminated by Storm Darin Run-off, Epidemiology.” Vol. 10, pp. 355-363.
• Harries, J.E.; Sheahan, D.A.; Jobling, S.; Matthiessen, P.; Neall, P.; Sumpter, J.P; Tylor, T.; and Zaman, N. (1997). “Estrogenic Activity in Five United Kingdom Rivers Detected by Measurement of Vitellogenisis in Caged Male Trout.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 534-542.
• Hazen; Sawyer. (1994). SEFLOE II Final Report: Broward County Office of Environmental Services North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant; City of Hollywood Utilities Department Southern Region Wastewater Treatment Plant; Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department North District Wastewater Treatment Plant; Miami-Date Water and Sewer Department Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant. Hollywood, Fla. Submitted to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1994.
• Hernando, M.; Mezcua, M.; Fernandez-Alba, A.; And Barcelo, D. (2005). “Environmental
Risk Assessment of Pharmaceutical Residues in Wastewater Effluents, Surface Waters and Sediments.” Talanta, 69(2), 334–342.
• Hutzler and Boyle (1982). “Risk Assessment in Water Reuse.” In Water Reuse. E.J. Middlebrooks (Ed.), Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Mich.
• Hutzler and Boyle (1980).”Wastewater Risk Assessment.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 106, EE5, p. 919.
• Jarabek, A.; and Hasselblad, V. (1990). “Inhalation Reference Concentration Methodology: Impact of Domestic Adjustments and Future Directions Using the Confidence Profile Methods.” Presented at 84th Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Association, June, 1984, Vancouver B.C., Air and Waste Management Association Proceedings, paper no. 91- 173.3.
• Kahout, F.A.; Meisler, H.; Meyer, F.W.; Johnston, R.H.; Leve, G.W.; and Wait, R.L. (1988). “Chapter 23 - Hydrogeology of the Atlantic Continental Margin.” The Geology of North America, Volumes 1-2, The Geological Society of America, p. 463-479.
• Kaufman, Matthew I. (1973). “Surface Wastewater Injection, Florida.” Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. IRI, pp. 53-70.
• Kent, Robert T. and Bentley, Michael E. (1985). “Risk Assessment of Deep Well Injection Systems.” Proceedings: Second Canadian/ American Conference on Hydrogeology - Hitchon, Brian, and Trudell, Mark R., editors. National Water Well Association, Dublin Ohio.
• Kostich, M. S.; Batt, A. L.; and Lazorchak, J. M. (2013). “Concentrations of Prioritized Pharmaceuticals in Effluents From 50 Large Wastewater Treatment Plants in the U.S. and Implications for Risk Estimation.” Environmental Pollution, 184, 354–359.
• Link, M.; von der Ohe, P. C.; Voß, K.; and Schäfer, R. B. (2017). “Comparison of Dilution Factors for German Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluents in Receiving Streams to the Fixed Dilution Factor From Chemical Risk Assessment.” Science of The Total Environment, 598, 805–813.
• Linstone. H.A. (1984). Multiple Perspectives for Decision Making. North-Holland: New York, N.Y.
• Meyer, F.W. (1989). “Hydrogeology, Groundwater Movement and Subsurface Storage in the Floridan Aquifer System in Southern Florida, Regional Aquifer-System Analysis – Floridan Aquifer System.” United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-G.
• Miller, J.A. (1986). “Hydrogeologic
Framework of the Floridan Aquifer System in Florida, and in parts of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina.” United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-B.
• Muñoz, I.; Gómez-Ramos, M. J.; Agüera, A.; Fernández-Alba, A. R.; García-Reyes, J. F.; and Molina-Díaz, A. (2009). “Chemical Evaluation of Contaminants in Wastewater Effluents and the Environmental Risk of Reusing Effluents in Agriculture.” TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 28(6), 676–694.
• Muriuki, C. W.; Home, P. G.; Raude, J. M.; Ngumba, E. K.; Munala, G. K.; Kairigo, P. K.; Gachanja, A. N.; and Tuhkanen, T. A. (2020). “Occurrence, Distribution, and Risk Assessment of Pharmaceuticals in Wastewater and Open Surface Drains pf Peri-Urban Areas: Case Study of Juja Town, Kenya.” Environmental Pollution, 267, 115503.
• Parker, G.G., Ferguson, G.E., Love, S.K., and others (1955). “Water Resources of Southeastern Florida, With Special Reference to Geology and Groundwater of the Miami Area.” United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1255.
• Partyka, M. L.; and Bond, R. F. (2022). “Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation Of Produce: A Review of Research, Regulations, and Risks.” Science of the Total Environment, 828, 154385.
• Pire-Schmidt, J.; Bloetscher, F.; Meeroff, D.M.; Carsey, T.; Stamates, J.; Sullivan, K.; and Proni, J.R. (2012). Farfield Modeling of the Boynton Inlet Plume, Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, 2012, Vol. 1, No.2.
• Press, S. J. (1989). Bayesian Statistics: Principles, Models and Applications, John 377 Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
• Purnell, S.; Halliday, A.; Newman, F.; Sinclair, C.; and Ebdon, J. (2020). “Pathogen Infection Risk to Recreational Water Users, Associated With Surface Waters Impacted by De Facto and Indirect Potable Reuse Activities.” Science of The Total Environment, 722, 137799.
• Regli, S., Pore, J.B.; Haas, C.N.: and Gerba, C.P. (1991). “Modeling the Risk From Giardia and Viruses in Drinking Water.” Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 83, No. 11, pp76+.
• Reynolds, Kelly A. (2000). “Human Viruses Found in Groundwater Recharge Sites.” Water Conditioning and Purification, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 148-150.
• Rish, W. R. (2005). “A Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Class I Hazardous Waste Injection Wells.” Underground Injection Science and Technology, 93–135.
• Sackman, H. (1975). Delphi Critique: Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass.
• Salgot, M.; Huertas, E.; Weber, S.; Dott, W.; and Hollender, J. (2006). “Wastewater Reuse and Risk: Definition of Key Objectives.” Desalination, 187(1-3), 29–40.
• Sloss, E.M; Geschwind, S.A.; McCaffrey; and Ritz, B.R. (1996). Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Water: An Epidemiologic Assessment in Los Angeles County, 1987 –1991, RAND, Santa Monica, Calif.
• Soller, J. A.; Eftim, S. E.; and Nappier, S. P. (2018). “Direct Potable Reuse Microbial Risk Assessment Methodology: Sensitivity Analysis and Application to State Log Credit Allocations.” Water Research, 128, 286–292.
• Shannon, C. E. (1949). “The Mathematical Theory of Communication.” The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, lll.
• Stumpf, M.; Ternes, T.A.; Wilken, R-D.; Rodrigues, S.V.; and Baumann, W. (1999). “Polar Drug Residues in Sewage and Natural Waters in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.” The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 225, pp. 135-141.
• Tanaka, H.; Takashi, A.; Schroeder, E.D., and Tchobanoglous, G. (1998). “Estimating the Safety of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Using Enteric Virus Monitoring Data. Water Environment Research, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 3951.
• Teutsch, G.; Herbold-Paschke, K.; Tougianidou, P.; Hahn, T.; and Botzenhart, K. (1991). “Transport of Microorganisms in the Underground – Processes, Experiments and Simulation Models.” Water Science and Technology, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 309-315.
• Tušer, I.; and Oulehlová, A. (2021). “Risk Assessment and Sustainability of Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation.” Sustainability, 13(9), 5120.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CERP, 1999). C&SF Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Impact Statement (PEIS). ACOE, Washington, D.C..
• United States Geological Survey, 2002. Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida. Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4036, USGS, Tallahassee, Fla.
• USEPA (2001), Class I Underground Injection Control Program: Study of the Risks Associated with Class I Underground Injection Wells. EPA 816-R-01-007, http:// www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/classi.html.
• USEPA (2003). “Relative Risk Assessment of Management Options for Treated Wastewater in South Florida.”
• USEPA (2006), Class I Municipal Disposal Wells in Florida. http://www.epa.gov/ region4/water/uic/class1_flrule.htm.
• Zhiteneva, V.; Carvajal, G.; Shehata, O.; Hübner, U.; and Drewes, J. E. (2021). “Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment of a Nonmembrane-Based Indirect Potable Water Reuse System Using Bayesian Networks.” Science of the Total Environment, 780, 146462. S
REGISTER ATTENDEES
Prices increased April 1, 2025. Avoid the on-site lines, purchase today on fwrc.org.
Don’t forget to register in advance. Also, reminder, all Booth Staff tickets must be registered in advance or on-site. Note, only credit cards accepted on-site.
FREE FOR GOV’T / UTILITY STAFF
Free Exhibit Hall passes for all Government and Utility employees. Registration required. Simply go to fwrc org Please note, if you want to earn CEU or PDH, you must register for Full or 1-day registration!
BOOK HOTEL ROOMS
Additional hotels have been contracted. Use the discounted hotel links on fwrc.org
fwrc.org
WEST PALM BEACH CONVENTION CENTER
SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES ARE STILL AVAILABLE!
Platinum Plus Sponsorship: App ($9,500)
Platinum Sponsorship: Staircases (4 available @ $8,000 each)
Platinum Sponsorship: Wifi ($8,000) MAY 4 - 7, 2025
Bronze Sponsorship: Tour Bus to Water Plant ($1,750 each)
Bronze Sponsorship: Water Stations (2 available @ $1,750 each)
Supporting Sponsor(s): $1,250 each (6 available)
Digital Signage: $1,250 each (8 available)
Individual Technical Track(s): $500 each (22 available)
Register online at FWRC org
Application must have both form and fee remitted to be accepted
One logo per sponsor allowed, sponsorship includes one company
Logos can't include products or multiple companies
Final placement of all logos and signage at FWRC's discretion As of 3/12/25
MAY
4 - 7, 2025
WEST PALM BEACH CONVENTION CENTER
Network at the President’s Party in the Exhibit Hall
Sunday, May 4th from 5:00 PM - 7:30 PM
Explore the Exhibit Hall, have a drink and meet new colleagues!
Don’t miss the fun at the Lawn Party
Monday, May 5th from 5:30 PM - 9:00 PM!
Live Band, Dancing, Ping Pong, Corn Hole & much more!
A Review of FWEA’s Progress This Year
AJoe Paterniti, P.E. President, FWEA
s my FWEA presidency winds down, I’d like to look in the rearview mirror and share a few items our FWEA team (board, chapters, and committees) has initiated and accomplished this year.
I had the rare opportunity to select three new directors at large: Randy Brown, Mike Demko, and Nicole Cohen. If you know these individuals, you know they bring great experience and leadership to our board.
We are having a busy and productive year. With our board’s support we have moved the association forward in several areas.
Events and Activities
The FWEA chapters and committees continue to provide unparalleled events. As of Feb. 27, 2025, we have conducted 87 events with over 3,625 registered attendees. Our technical committees have conducted 24 training seminars (some hybrid) and issued over 1890 professional development hours (PDHs). We have 15 more events planned for March and April.
On-Demand Training Initiative
With assistance from Suzette Blanton, Laura Cooley, our executive manager, continues to develop FWEA on-demand seminar content on the member resources section of our website. We are also developing member pricing and determining the best way to issue certificates. The first session is the recently conducted wastewater collection lunchtime webinar for one PDH credit. This will be followed by the Air Quality
Committee’s all-day February 2025 workshop, which will feature four one-PDH sessions.
Google Workspace
We implemented a central database platform, Google Workspace, which has a suite of applications that allows our association to collaborate and serves as a central repository for our FWEA documents and correspondence. Laura Cooley was instrumental in setting up the applications and shared folders that work for everyone.
FWEA Student and Young Professionals Committee
The Student and Young Professionals (S&YP) Committee members have been very active. They recently published their second podcast, which features the views of senior water resource professionals on the state of our industry and related current events. They intend to release six episodes leading up to the Florida Water Resources Conference (FWRC) in May using the Spotify platform. I’d recommend you visit the link (shown bottom left) and subscribe as we explore the forefront of the water environment and highlight the impactful initiatives of FWEA’s clean water professionals. Discover the transformative power of making waves together through compelling storytelling and expert insights.
Each year, the committee conducts the Student Design Competition and Poster Competition at FWRC. For more information and guidelines for participation, please visit https://
scholarship programs for young professionals. The Introducing Future Leaders to Opportunities in Water (InFlow) and Utility Workers programs allow students to attend FWRC at no cost. Participants will have meaningful conversations with program supporters, mentors, and future employers and learn more about the water industry by attending technical sessions and touring the exhibit hall.
The committee also spearheads Florida’s Stockholm Junior Water Prize (SJWP) competition. It’s the most prestigious international award for high school students researching water sciences. Established by the Stockholm Water Foundation, the prize is under the patronage of Her Royal Highness, Crown Princess Victoria. Each state selects a winning project to represent at the United States competition, with state winners announced online each year on May 5.
One national winner is chosen to compete against participants from nearly 40 countries in Stockholm, Sweden. Open to students in grades 9-12 who have completed a water-related science project and are at least 15 years old by August 1 of the competition year, thousands enter annually, but only one can win.
The FWEA awards cash prizes of $1,000 for first place, $500 for second, and $250 for third. The state winner also receives a certificate and medallion from the Water Environment Federation (WEF), a paid trip to the national competition, and recognition in this magazine. The U.S. national winner earns a $10,000 scholarship, a national trophy, a framed certificate, and an all-expenses-paid trip to Stockholm for the international competition during World Water Week, Aug. 24-28, 2025.
All 2025 SJWP entries are due by April 15, 2025. In recent years, Florida has had one of the nation’s highest participation rates; this year, we anticipate 30 or more submissions.
Extended Water Stories: Workforce Development Videos
The FWEA recognizes that the utility
workforce is aging, and a large portion of utility staff is nearing retirement. The association received a grant to share the cost of producing workforce videos and contracted with Omni Productions to conduct onsite video interviews with utility staff at Orange County Utilities, Toho Water Authority, and Groveland Utilities. These enhanced video productions will showcase and promote careers in public utilities. The videos will show the different career opportunities from the utility staff’s perspective.
We intend to share these videos on social media and at FWEA chapter events.
Public Communication and Outreach
And speaking of videos, our Public Communication and Outreach Committee (PCOC), led by Arpita Meher, Debbie Sponsler, and Samar Al Mashrafi, is currently conducting the “To Flush or Not to Flush” video contest in high schools and middle schools.
This year, 21 different schools participated and 48 high school and 34 middle school teams (up to four students per team) submitted their videos. The winning teams and teachers will receive cash prizes for first, second, and third place.
We will provide the videos to these schools and will share them at the FWRC awards luncheon on May 6, 2025.
Utility Management Committee
The FWEA Utility Management Committee (UMC), led by Elizabeth Keddy, has also been very active. Its 2025 workshop, “Effective Utility Management: Your Pathway to Sustainability,” is scheduled for April 2, 2025, in Pompano Beach at the Emma Lou Olson Center. In addition to the annual utility management workshop, the committee teamed with the Emerging Water Technology Committee to plan an artificial intelligence (AI) workshop this summer. It will also conduct a UMC roundtable discussion on
hurricane response and recovery at FWRC. For more information about this committee, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Elizabeth at ekeddy@hazenandsawyer.com.
FWEA Utility Council
The FWEA Utility Council continues to rock under the leadership of Kevin Carter of Broward County. The council, consisting of executives, directors, and regulatory experts from utilities around Florida, provided valuable science-based input to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in the development of Chapter 62-565, F.A.C., to establish procedures to obtain a permit, construct, modify, operate, and maintain an advanced treatment water facility. The council also continues to monitor progress on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) biosolids rulemaking. We can all be proud of its efforts to make our voices heard.
Water Professional Mentoring Program
A mentoring program has been initiated by FWEA to grow the next generation of water professionals. Association mentors share the vision, mission, structure, and strategic goals of FWEA and WEF. They emphasize the importance of being active in a professional organization and provide guidance for achieving short- and long-term career goals. They also identify personal strengths and how they align with FWEA leadership opportunities. This year, we have 16 mentor-mentee pairings, with mentoring meetings currently underway.
These are just a few examples of FWEA’s accomplishments this year. Needless to say, I am very proud to be associated with this excellent group of professionals who have made this year a tremendous success.
I can’t wait to see what FWEA does next. S
Video contact prizes list.
2024 Utility Management Committee Workshop.
Walk Raises Money for AWWA Water Equation
Ken Broome is leading our Water Equation (WE) Walk team, which this year kicks off April 1! No joke, folks! This once-a-year opportunity is our chance to boost success for water in the United States. By participating, you’re directly supporting the next generation of water professionals through science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) initiatives; young professionals programs; academic and operation scholarships; Community Engineering Corps projects; and grants. And the best part? 100 percent of your donation goes toward our essential causes.
Florida’s Fun ‘n Sun Advantage
While our friends in the New England Section brave the chill in wool hats and the Pacific Northwest Section splashes through puddles, we in Florida are gearing up for some serious fun ‘n sun! We’re inviting all AWWA members to c’mon down! We want to share the
chance to rack up walking, running, biking, and swimming miles on our world-famous beaches and other outdoor splendors!
Each FSAWWA region offers great sights and shelling, calm waters, vibrant nightlife, and natural beauty. Please make sure to share your fun ‘n sun photos. It’s the perfect backdrop for our WE Walk efforts!
How WE Walk, How WE Win
To ensure a future where clean water flows freely for all, we’re aiming to win on three counts:
S Money Raised. The big kahuna of metrics, determining our main entry into the WE pool.
S Social Media Splash. We’re not just walking; we’re talking! Let’s create a tidal wave of awareness with posts, shares, and likes.
S Volunteer Tribe Size. The more FSAWWA members who join our teams, the stronger our human whirlpool of goodwill!
Florida’s Winning Streak: A Family Affair
Let’s leverage our not-so-secret weapon: Florida’s competitive spirit. We’re not just
basking in the sun; we’re basking in the glory of consistently topping the charts in the WE Walk. And our rivalry with the Pacific Northwest Section? We’re bringing the heat to their rain parade!
Join the Fun, Make a Splash, Invite Your Family; Our Numbers Will Jump With Delight!
Whether you’re a seasoned water professional or just someone who enjoys a good walk (or run, bike, or swim), the FSAWWA WE Walk is your chance to dive in. Involving your family, friends, and coworkers can make this volunteer effort even more rewarding:
S Ari Copeland, our Florida champion who lives in Nevada: How about bringing your fiancé along for the walk?
S Mark Lehigh, our cross-state cyclist: Consider riding a tandem with your wife to double the miles!
S Terri Holcomb: Why not swim laps with your husband and contribute to our cause?
Every step, pedal, or stroke counts from the day you join. Walk, run, bike, swim, or even ride a pony—it all adds up to our collective success!
Let’s Make Waves Together
By participating in the WE Walk, you’re not just having fun in the Florida sun—you’re taking strides toward a sustainable water future. Join FSAWWA in our mission to lead the nation in supporting Water Equation.
Let’s show them how we turn fun ‘n sun into funds for the future of water! Together, WE Walk, and together, WE Win! S
Ken Broome
Keeli Carlton hiking with her son in Colorado.
Jennifer Briggs in a triathlon.
Kim Kowalski and her husband hiking at Arches National Park in Utah.
Mark Lehigh.
Ari Copeland. Terri Holcomb.
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 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 Conservation and Reuse. 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. 33420-3119, or scan and email a copy to memfwpcoa@gmail.com. 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! 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.
Conserving Wildlife and Water: Zoo Miami Water Resource Recovery Facility Evaluation for Water Reuse
Lee K. Kimbell, Fabrizio Sabba, Gary Hunter, Nelson Perez-Jacome, and Lucas Botero (Article 1: CEU = 0.1 WW02015450)
1. What was the average five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of the Zoo Miami wastewater?
a) 31.7 mg/L b) 200 mg/L
c) 18.3 mg/L d) 50 mg/L
2. What is the main health concern related to water reuse?
a) Chemical contaminants
b) Pathogenic microorganisms
c) High salinity levels
d) Nutrient imbalance
3. Which treatment technology was considered for removal of BOD5, total suspended solids, and nutrients?
a) Reverse osmosis b) Membrane bioreactors
c) Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection d) Ozone disinfection
4. Which pathogens were the focus of the quantitative microbial risk assessment analysis?
a) E. coli and Salmonella
b) Adenovirus, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and enteric viruses
c) Staphylococcus and Streptococcus
d) Hepatitis A and Norovirus
5. Which advanced oxidation process was included in the evaluation for pathogen treatment needs?
a) UV/hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) b) Chlorine/ H2O2
c) Ozone/UV d) Ozone/chlorine
How Safe is Potable Water Reuse Based on a Comparative Assessment of Municipal Wastewater Disposal Methods in Southeast Florida?
Kelley Conboy, Frederick Bloetscher, Daniel E. Meeroff, James D. Englehardt, Chi Ho Sham, Robert Fergen, Richard Gallant, James Hart, Albert Muniz, T. Shibata, and Mary Ellen Tuccillo (Article 2: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW/WW 02015451)
1. What is the main concern with injection wells in central Florida?
a) High cost
b) Upward migration of wastewater
c) Lack of suitable geological formations
d) Public opposition
2. Which disposal method provides the greatest separation between human contact and treated effluent?
a) Ocean outfalls
b) Surface water discharges
c) Deep wells d) Irrigation reuse
3. What is the main advantage of direct potable reuse compared to other disposal options?
a) Lower cost
b) Extensive treatment and lower public exposure
c) Easier implementation
d) Higher public acceptance
4. Which disposal method was banned by the Florida Legislature starting in 2025?
a) Injection wells
b) Ocean outfalls
c) Surface water discharges d) Irrigation reuse
5. What is the main concern with the reliability of advanced treatment equipment?
a) High cost
b) Longevity and operational attentiveness
c) Public opposition d) Lack of technology
Building Information Modeling: Visualizing the Project
Justin Quary
In today’s world, the complexity of design and construction of water infrastructure projects has continued to grow in order to comply with stringent regulations, solve unique challenges, and continue providing clients with high-quality projects. Along with evolving technology, engineers and contractors have turned to tools to help visualize and coordinate delivery of those projects. A key tool in the modern toolbox is building information modeling (BIM) software, which digitally represents the physical and functional characteristics of a facility.
A 3D modeling software, BIM is used throughout the industry to aid in planning, design, and construction of building water infrastructure projects. It plays a crucial role in the construction of a project, allowing the engineer, contractor, and owner to visualize the finished product months before they are able to touch it. This is especially essential when it comes to water infrastructure projects as there are tons of moving parts, such as existing versus new utilities that play into the strength of using BIM. It takes time and effort to build the model and use the software to its highest capabilities for a project.
Software Functions
There are many functions that BIM can bring to a project, but here are three of the top functions from a contractor’s perspective:
S Clash Detection
S Scope Coordination Assistance
S Virtual Reality
Clash Detection
A key feature to using BIM in a water infrastructure project is clash detection, which is essentially defined in its name. As a model is developed and all the mechanical features are incorporated, the software is able to point out areas of contention in instances where piping may be running too close together, or intersecting, and can be revised in the design before any work even starts.
With many water infrastructure projects being rehabilitation and expansion work of existing facilities, conflicts between existing and new yard piping and other underground utilities are common. When paired with record drawings and subsurface utility engineering investigations, BIM can help detect those conflicts in the early stages of a project, avoiding delays and the rush to find a fix when workers are in the middle of digging a trench. Similarly, using BIM to model existing utilities can also help reduce the risk of utility
strikes that can impact the schedule, budget, and trust with the client.
Scope Coordination Assistance
Coordination between mechanical equipment and different scopes of work, such as structural and electrical design, is a critical piece to the puzzle, as one inch in the wrong direction could be a big impact to a project. In the early stages of a project, most vendors and subcontractors can provide 3D models of mechanical equipment along with their submittals. This allows the contractor to import the exact specifications and dimensions into the BIM model and verify there are no conflicts with clearances or auxiliary equipment in the area. This also simplifies the process of verifying wall pipes and penetrations required. Lift drawings used by field crews during construction of a structure can be pulled from a model and reviewed, which saves time compared to the traditional process where project staff must overlay or transpose connection locations and flange sizes from approved submittals onto the contract documents to create lift drawings for use in the field. This not only saves time in the planning process, but provides greater confidence in the details of the work plan when it comes time to build.
Virtual Reality
One of the newest facets to BIM modeling is virtual reality (VR). The use of VR and BIM allows engineers, contractors, and stakeholders on the project to view the finished product early before the work is constructed. Being able to view a project site and see where things will be located in its final stage, rather than just on a computer screen or printed plans, can be a valuable tool for end users.
The VR can allow operators and maintenance staff to “walk” through buildings and selective work areas before they are completed—or even started—to provide their valuable input on constraints, such as workspace based on their experience and how they use the space on a day-to-day basis. This capability can bring huge value to all stakeholders on a project.
Conclusion
The BIM can be an asset to any water project, giving new viewing aspects to project components and bringing a new channel of collaboration between all parts of a project team. The ability to see conflicts and work through them in the early stages of a project, simplify coordination efforts during construction, and
bring the project to life before it’s finished can lead to potential cost savings, avoidance of schedule delays, and ultimately deliver a successful project.
If you are interested in learning more about the Contractors Council or would like to request support, please visit the FSAWWA website at www.fsawwa.org.
Quary is a project
Justin
engineer for Archer Western’s Florida Water Group based in Tampa. S
AEvery Great Story Starts With a Single Letter
Lisa Wilson-Davis Chair, FSAWWA
t the annual business and award luncheon during the 2024 Fall Conference, I shared my plan to embark on a creative journey for my columns here—one that brings our industry to life through letters, both in words and in writing.
Here’s a quick recap, and my approach is twofold:
S In odd months, I’ll shine a spotlight on our remarkable regions and volunteers, recognizing the dedication and impact of those who keep our industry moving forward.
S In even months, I’ll take on a unique challenge—crafting an article using industry-related words that start with each vowel: A, E, I, O, and U.
To make this even more engaging, I put our luncheon attendees to work! Using Mentimeter, they submitted industry words
that start with each vowel, giving me the raw materials to craft a meaningful narrative.
So, with that in mind, here’s my take on the letter “E.” I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed shaping it!
Essential, Evolve, and Efficiency: The Essence of Our Industry
Water is an essential resource— that’s a fact. Whether it’s ensuring safe drinking water, maintaining wastewater infrastructure, or protecting human health and our environment, our industry plays a critical role in everyday life. Thanks to the dedicated professionals working behind the scenes, the systems we rely on to provide our essential services function as seamlessly as they do.
To stay ahead of challenges, we must constantly evolve: regulations change, technology advances, and customer expectations shift. From embracing smart infrastructure to refining best practices, adaptation is a necessity. Our industry is dynamic, innovative, and always looking forward.
Of course, this only happens with a focus on efficiency, which is the bridge between progress and sustainability. Whether it’s optimizing treatment processes, reducing energy consumption, or improving water system operations, every innovation moves us closer to a future where we do more with less—delivering reliable, high-quality services, while protecting the resources we rely on.
Expanding Our Impact: The Power of “E” in the Water Industry
Water is at the heart of life on Earth, and our industry plays a crucial role in
maintaining its quality and accessibility. Through ecology and ecosystem management, we protect natural resources while ensuring safe, sustainable water systems for all; however, challenges like potential E. coli contamination and emerging contaminants require constant vigilance and innovation.
This is where science steps in. Both electrochemical oxidation and electrochemistry play significant roles in modern drinking water treatment, particularly in advanced purification and disinfection processes. These technologies enhance water treatment by removing contaminants, reducing chemical dependency, and improving overall water quality—ensuring our water sources remain clean and safe.
Effluent management in drinking water treatment is crucial for sustainability, ensuring that all water, whether for distribution or discharge, meets environmental and public health standards. As we refine processes, we continue to find ways to elevate treatment efficiency while reducing energy demands and chemical use.
Beyond treatment, emergency response is a cornerstone of our industry. With robust response plans in place and the strength of the Florida Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (FlaWARN)—known as “friends helping friends”—we ensure that communities have rapid support when it matters most. From early warning detection systems to proactive disaster planning, we are always preparing for the unexpected.
Empowered Individuals: The Essence of Progress
Technology is a powerful tool, but people are the heart of our industry. Through education, we empower employees and communities with the knowledge to safeguard our most valuable resource— water. Our work is encompassing, requiring empathy, engagement, and the dedication of environmental engineers who envision sustainable solutions. Whether researching endocrine disruptors in water supplies or improving energy efficiency in treatment plants, we are committed to innovation and progress.
Striking a balance between progress and sustainability means ensuring equitable access to clean water and upholding equality in environmental protection efforts. From mitigating eutrophication to accounting for evaporation, our goal is to create an everlasting impact—one that extends everywhere.
Elevating the Industry
Our work is necessary—and it’s exciting. As we strive for excellence, we continue to elevate the water industry, embracing new technologies, empowering people, and preserving our most precious resource for generations to come.
As we focus on what’s essential, embrace the need to evolve, and strive for greater efficiency, we strengthen the foundation of our industry and the communities we serve. Every
challenge we face is an opportunity to envision new solutions, engage with our mission, and elevate the future of water resources.
The power of “E” reminds us that our industry is built on essentials, driven by evolution, and fueled by efficiency. As we continue through this journey, let’s embrace every opportunity to educate, empower, and elevate.
The next vowel awaits—until then, let’s keep energizing, elevating, and excelling in the world of water! S
Taylor Creek Reservoir.
Focused Site Visits Build Water Savings and Customer Goodwill
Phoenix McKinney and Sandra Anderson
Pasco County (county) is a beautiful, sprawling, rural county abutting the Gulf of America, with Florida-sized hills, fields, and pastures rolling eastward toward the Green Swamp. Between 2010 and 2022, the county’s population steadily increased for 12 consecutive years, and growth is not expected to slow down in the immediate future. By 2045, the population is projected to increased by as much as 40 percent since the 2010 count.
Pasco County Utilities (Pasco) has the honor of providing any combination of water, wastewater, or reclaimed water services to approximately half of the county, with nearly 200,000 metered connections. Approximately 90 percent of those connections are for singlefamily residential homes and that number continues to climb as the population continues to increase. As a result of the ongoing growth, the profile of Pasco’s customer has—and continues to—change; the customer base is now more diverse than ever.
Changing Homeowners
First-time homebuyers with limited home maintenance skills are replacing many of our more experienced homeowners. Residents are coming from other than subtropical climates without knowledge of the irrigation management practices necessary to maintain a Florida landscape. Additionally, many reside within communities where landscape and irrigation is managed by third-party providers. This results in residents having limited ability to correctly advise Pasco’s call center team about when irrigation is in operation at their home, for how long, or whether system leaks are present. Lastly, Pasco has many residents who do not have the mobility to look for leaks or other issues that may be contributing to their high water use, whether they are aware of them or not.
As a result, Pasco offers focused site visit assistance for customers who either are physically unable to identify/repair causes contibuting to high use, or who, after consultation and recommendations for self-identification of the cause(s) for high use, continue to dispute reads or decline to take accountability for excessive water use on their property.
The goals of Pasco’s focused assistance site visit program directly align with the overall objectives of its water conservation program, which includes four overarching outcomes:
S Build and sustain customer awareness of the ongoing need to conserve our water resources.
S Increase customer access to information that enables them to practice efficient water use.
S Identify and address the issue that has sparked the immediate concern of the customer.
S Increase goodwill and credibility among Pasco’s customer base.
Of course, at the end of the program year, Pasco wants the program to achieve a sustained reduction in water demand at all site visit locations.
Site Visit Components
The site visits are available to Pasco’s residential customers via call center referral, billing adjustment review, or supervisory referral. As resources allow, customers also have the option to request onsite assistance. Unless the customer has mobility issues, we request that they accompany us throughout the visit so that they may observe and concur with what controller setting, or other changes, are made.
Each site visit is logged and annotated directly within the customer’s account, with specific notes to include the following information (at a minimum):
Phoenix McKinney Sandra Anderson
An estimated 95 percent of the focused site visits performed require irrigation controller resets. The primary issues seen are wrong day or wrong time settings, multiple start times, rain sensors in bypass mode, and excessive run times. (photo: Vanesa Shook)
During the focused site visits, customers are asked to actively participate. All settings on the controller are explained, the reasons for recommended changes are discussed, and changes are made only with the customer’s agreement. (photo: Vanesa Shook)
S What prompted the need for the assistance visit.
S What conditions are found onsite at arrival.
S What steps were taken onsite during the visit.
S Follow-up advice provided to the customer.
Following the focused assistance site visit, customers are provided with an email that details the following:
S What devices were looked at during the visit.
S Resulting outcomes, such as toilet leak detected or irrigation controller errors.
S Any adjustments made while onsite, such as irrigation controller updates.
S Follow-up recommendations provided to the customer.
S Link to review and/or apply for applicable rebates.
Water Savings Achieved
For the first six months of fiscal year 2024, achieved savings per household ranged from 1,000 to 30,000 gallons per month and per household. The total savings achieved during that same period is an estimated 313,500 gallons a month, based on site visits for 41 homeowners. This value compares favorably with a savings of 125,000 gallons per month achieved during fiscal year 2023 following visits to 85 homeowners.
Experience has demonstrated that when customers have an increased understanding of water use metrics and measures they can take to effectively manage their use, their utility costs can be reduced and sustained water demand savings may be achieved.
During fiscal year 2025, Pasco is budgeted for an additional water conservation specialist to assist with extending the reach of focusedattention customer assistance, along with other related conservation activities. This additional resource will also enable the conservation team to increase outreach to high-use communities and their HOAs to offer community-focused education with an eye toward providing the needed assistance and education as a proactive, as opposed to a reactive, measure.
Copies of worksheets and other tools used to complete the onsite evaluations and provide feedback to participating customers are available by emailing SaveH2O@MyPasco. net. Please use “Site Visit Materials Request” as the subject line.
Phoenix McKinney, APR, is water conservation and efficiency coordinator and Sandra Anderson, MPA, CPM, APR, is customer information and service director at Pasco County Utilities. S
What Do You Know About Grit Removal? Test Yourself
Charlie Lee Martin Jr., Ph.D.
1. Grit is comprised of
a. cinders.
b. eggshells.
c. sand.
d. all of the above.
2. The recommended flow velocity to remove grit from wastewater when passing it through a channel is
a. 0.5 to 0.8 feet/second.
b. 0.7 to 1.9 feet/second.
c. 2.0 to 2.4 feet/second.
d. 0.7 to 1.4 feet/second.
3. The recommended flow velocity within grit channels is to prevent the settling of
a. aerobic sludge.
b. lime sludge.
c. light organic solids.
d. none of the above.
4. The part by which the flow velocity is controlled within the grit channel is the
a. center wall.
b. proportional weir.
c. slide gate.
d. grit storage.
5. The introduction of air to wastewater
a. prevents the settling of grit.
b. prevents the settling of sludge.
c. enhances the settling of grit.
d. none of the above.
6. The mixture of grit and organic material is called
a. organic grit.
b. grit sludge.
c. detritus.
d. none of the above.
7. Organic matter is washed from grit in order to prevent
a. odors.
b. septicity.
c. complaints.
d. all of the above.
8. The proper disposal of grit removed from grit removal systems within wastewater treatment facilities is
a. burial with 1 inch of soil.
b. burial with 2 inches of soil.
c. burial with 6 inches of soil.
d. none of the above.
9. Grit is removed from the wastewater prior to primary treatment to prevent the
a. reduction of the capacity of digesters.
b. excessive wear of pumps.
c. reduction of the capacity of aerators.
d. all of the above.
10. The part of the cyclone grit separator that remove organics from grit washing is the
a. cyclone grit separator.
b. grit pump.
c. grit storage bin.
d. grit classifier.
Answers on page 54
References used for this quiz:
• Operation Wastewater Treatment Plants Volume I, Seventh Edition
The ACE25 educational program will cover current and emerging topics, including:
•Water quality and treatment – Addressing PFAS, lead, and regulatory advancements
•Water resilience – Strategies for sustainability and the future of the Colorado River
• Utility management – Workforce development, financial planning, and DEI initiatives
• Infrastructure and innovation – Exploring intelligent water systems and cutting-edge technologies
• New to ACE25 is an expanded Leadership and Executive Forum
Elizabeth Keddy, P.E., LEED AP Hazen and Sawyer, Tampa
Work title and years of service.
I’m a senior associate at Hazen and Sawyer, with 17 years of experience in the water industry.
What does your job entail?
I serve as Hazen’s southeast region utility management solutions and energy management services leader. I specialize in the planning, design, permitting, construction, and operation and maintenance of water, wastewater, stormwater, water reuse, energy, sustainability, and resiliency projects. I help water and wastewater utilities with
FWRJ READER PROFILE
strategic organizational planning, digital strategy, workforce initiatives, enterprise risk management, asset management, energy management, data analytics, funding, financing, and capital planning.
What education and training have you had?
I have bachelor’s and master’s degrees in environmental engineering from the University of Florida.
What do you like best about your job?
I love helping water utilities become leaders in their communities by bringing industry best practices and innovation to utility planning, design, construction, and operation and maintenance to provide the highest quality public health and environmental protection.
What professional organizations do you belong to?
I belong to Florida Water Environment Association, where I’m chair of the Utility Management Committee, and Florida Section AWWA, serving as chair of the Region IV Technical and Education Committee. I’m also a member of the Water Environment Federation and the American Water Works Association.
How have the organizations helped your career?
Our water industry is built on strong relationships that last a lifetime and our industry organizations are one of the most important ways to stay in touch with colleagues. I have been involved with FWEA and FSAWWA since college (including winning the 2007 Florida Water Resources Conference Student Design Competition while attending the University of Florida) and I still stay in touch with many of my colleagues I met through FWEA and FSAWWA nearly 20 years ago.
What do you like best about the industry?
I wake up every morning knowing I am helping to provide clean drinking water and a clean water environment for my community locally and nationally.
What do you do when you’re not working?
I love spending time with my daughters (6 and 7 years old), volunteering at beach and lake cleanups, running triathlons, paddleboarding, watching movies, traveling, and having a conversation over a glass of wine with my man on the front porch. S
Florida Governor and Cabinet Expand Protected Lands With Major Conservation Investment
Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet have approved the protection of 34,595 acres of critical conservation lands through the Florida Forever Program and legislative appropriations, marking a significant step in preserving the state’s natural heritage. This investment includes five acquisitions, all located within the Florida Wildlife Corridor, securing habitat for Florida’s iconic wildlife and enhancing landscape connectivity. Two of these properties are within the CaloosahatcheeBig Cypress Corridor, reinforcing critical Everglades and Florida panther habitat, while another expands protection within the Ocalato-Osceola Wildlife Corridor.
“The natural beauty of Florida enriches the lives of all who visit and call it home, and I thank the governor and the Florida Cabinet for their leadership in protecting our state’s environment for future generations,” said Alexis A. Lambert, Florida Department of Environmental Protection secretary.
The recent land acquisitions include: S A 21,625-acre acquisition within the Waccasassa Watershed Florida Forever Project in Levy County that will protect working forests, safeguard the Waccasassa
River and Bay, and provide an upland buffer for Waccasassa Bay State Preserve and the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve. Home to wildlife such as bald eagles, gopher tortoises, Florida black bears, and swallow-tailed kites, this site also contains historic remnants from Florida’s once-thriving turpentine industry. It’s within the Florida Wildlife Corridor.
S A 7,548-acre conservation easement within the Ranch Reserve Forest Florida Forever Project in Osceola County that will preserve pastures, pine flatwoods, and wetland corridors, linking existing conservation lands such as Wolf Creek Ranch and Escape Ranch. The land provides habitat for endangered species including the arogos skipper butterfly, eastern indigo snake, Florida burrowing owl, and red-cockaded woodpecker. It’s also within the Florida Wildlife Corridor.
S A combined 3,881-acre acquisition within the Caloosahatchee-Big Cypress Corridor in Collier and Hendry counties to enhance connectivity among the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Big Cypress National Preserve, and Dinner Island Wildlife Management Area. Protecting these ecologically significant habitats and
agricultural lands will prevent habitat fragmentation and ensure safe passage for imperiled species, including the federally endangered Florida panther. It, too, is within the Florida Wildlife Corridor.
S A 1,541-acre acquisition within the EtoniahCross Florida Greenway Florida Forever Project in Putnam County that connects the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway with other conservation lands and protects key surface water and aquifer recharge areas flowing into the Ocklawaha and St. Johns rivers. It provides habitat for Florida black bears, gopher tortoises, sandhill cranes, and swallow-tailed kites. The property is also within the Florida Wildlife Corridor and the Ocala-to-Osceola Wildlife Corridor.
Gov. DeSantis and the Cabinet also approved the acquisition of permanent agricultural land conservation easements over more than 6,000 acres within the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, ensuring that working lands remain undeveloped while continuing to support Florida’s agricultural economy. S
View all courses and register online at go.ufl.edu/TREEOFWRJ
Instructor Highlight
ROBB WOLF
Lead Instructor for Backflow programs at the University of Florida TREEO Center
Robb Wolf is a seasoned professional in the plumbing trade. He has held a Master Plumber State License since 1990 and brings over four decades of industry experience. For nearly 20 years, Robb has shared his expertise by teaching at the technical college level. A certified backflow tester since 1989, he has been a dedicated satellite trainer for the UF TREEO Center since 2015 and frequently participates in backflow training events to stay current with industry standards.
Since joining the TREEO Center full time in 2024, Robb has become an integral part of its fast-paced and dynamic training environment. His hands-on approach and depth of knowledge have contributed to the development and delivery of high-quality educational programs. Robb has played a key role in enhancing the center’s training facilities, including the demolition and rebuilding of the asbestos lab, the renovation of the wet lab for backflow training, and the ongoing improvement of class curricula.
He is excited about the continued growth of the backflow program and looks forward to strengthening relationships with backflow testers who have trained at the TREEO Center. Robb remains committed to advancing the program and ensuring its long-term success through collaborative feedback and innovative development.
Backflow Prevention Assembly Repair and Maintenance
CEUs: 2.0 DS DW WW | $515
Apr. 11-12 | Sarasota, FL
May 23-24 | Fort Myers, FL
Jun. 10-11 | Apopka, FL
Backflow Prevention Assembly Tester
CEUs: 3.8 DS DW WW | $645
Apr. 14-18 | Gainesville, FL
Apr. 21-24 | Jacksonville, FL
May 2-10 | Sarasota, FL
Backflow Prevention Recertification
CEUs: 1.2 DS DW WW | $200
Apr. 10-11 | Gainesville, FL
Apr. 12-13 | Tampa, FL
Apr. 17-18 | Fort Pierce, FL
Cross Connection Control Program Manager Series
Jun. 2 | Introduction to Backflow | Gainesville, FL
CEUs: 0.75 WW DW DS | $195
Jun. 3-4 | Survey and Inspection | Gainesville, FL
CEUs: 1.4 DS W WW | $415
Jun. 5-6 | Ordinance and Organization | Gainesville, FL
CEUs: 1.0 DS W WW | $415
Conserving Wildlife and Water: Zoo Miami Water Resource Recovery Facility Evaluation for Water Reuse
Lee Kimbell, Fabrizio Sabba, Gary Hunter, Nelson Perez-Jacome, and Lucas Botero
Water reuse is gaining popularity as communities face challenges such as urbanization, population growth, and climate change. In the United States, approximately 4.8 bil gal of wastewater are reused daily, which is expected to increase by 37 percent in 2027 (WateReuse Association, 2025). Zoos and wildlife parks are adopting water reuse strategies, which can save millions of gallons of potable water daily (Water Reuse Research Foundation, 2008). For example, Zoo Miami and Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department partnered with Black & Veatch to design a water resource recovery facility (WRRF) to provide a sustainable water supply for animal operations. Currently, the zoo conveys wastewater to Miami-Dade County’s sewer system, which results in significant annual expenditures (Figure 1).
This study developed a water reuse strategy, established water quality targets, and evaluated treatment technologies to ensure
high-quality effluent for reuse at the zoo. The study also included a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) to model pathogen removal and minimize risks of pathogen exposure in compliance with Florida indirect potable reuse (IPR) regulations.
Study Information
The project aimed to create an onsite water reuse system for the zoo, offering a sustainable and cost-effective water supply for animal operations (Figure 2). Given the diverse needs of zoo animals, disinfection of pathogenic microorganisms was a top priority during the planning and design of the WRRF and Black & Veatch gathered detailed information on disinfection requirements for various pathogens found in zoo wastewater. Implementing the WRRF at the zoo will bring multiple benefits, including reduced sewer discharges, an alternative water source,
Lee K. Kimbell is water and wastewater process engineer at Black & Veatch in Coral Gables. Fabrizio Sabba is wastewater process engineer at Black & Veatch in New York City. Gary Hunter is global technology process leader at Black & Veatch in Greenville, S.C. Nelson-Perez Jacome is assistant directorengineering and construction at Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department. Lucas Botero is wastewater process lead at Black & Veatch in West Palm Beach.
groundwater replenishment, and enhanced energy efficiency. The project also considered incorporating a public education element, such as a visitor center, to educate the community about water reuse, wastewater treatment, and sustainability efforts by the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department.
Wastewater Sampling and Characterization
A one-week sampling campaign was conducted to analyze the wastewater produced at the zoo (Figure 3). The wastewater mainly consists of drained water from pools and exhibits, along with stormwater runoff and contributions from bathrooms, kitchens, and administrative/support buildings. The average five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of the zoo wastewater was 31.7 mg/L, significantly lower than that of a medium-strength wastewater (~200 mg/L). Similarly, the average total suspended solids (TSS) in the zoo wastewater was 18.3 mg/L, which is well below the average for municipal wastewater of similar strength. Nutrient analysis of the zoo wastewater samples revealed concentrations of various nitrogen and phosphorus species, including ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and phosphate. This characterization of the wastewater informed the evaluation of technologies and selection of treatment processes for the zoo.
Figure 1. Current water balance at the zoo. (adapted from Kimbell et al., 2024)
Water Quality Evaluation and Microorganisms in Zoo Reuse Water
Reuse water can contain a variety of biological and chemical constituents, with the presence and concentrations depending on the water source and treatment level. These constituents may have different effects on animal health and physiology, being beneficial at low concentrations, necessary for life, or harmful in excess. Compared to potable water, reuse water typically contains higher levels of sodium, salinity, trace elements, organic compounds, chlorine residuals, nutrients, and pathogenic microorganisms. The quality of reuse water required for zoos and animalcare facilities varies based on the treatment level and intended use. Water for lowexposure purposes, like landscape irrigation, may be deemed relatively safe, while water for high-exposure applications, like animal exhibits, requires higher-quality standards and adequate disinfection to prevent microbial growth. Given the sensitivity of animals in the zoo’s exhibits, consultations with the zoo’s veterinarian staff were conducted to identify potential contaminants and microorganisms in the wastewater that could pose risks to human and animal health.
One of the main health concerns related to water reuse is the presence of pathogenic microorganisms, such as viruses, bacteria, and protozoa. Enteric viruses, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia, commonly found in wastewater, can be detected in reclaimed water. Black & Veatch conducted a thorough review of zoonotic, animal-derived, and human-related pathogens potentially present in the zoo’s wastewater, which is comprised of animal and human waste. Multiple barrier treatment processes, such as filtration and disinfection, are necessary to remove pathogens to
acceptable levels and reduce the risk of human and animal exposure through various pathways, like ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact. Additionally, consideration was given to emerging contaminants, including antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and other organic pollutants, in the evaluation of water quality for reuse purposes.
Technology Evaluation for Water Reuse at the Zoo
A comprehensive technology screening process was conducted to evaluate various treatment technologies and treatment trains for producing reuse water at the zoo. Advanced treatment methods are commonly employed for reclaimed water production to ensure
pathogen removal meets microbiological standards for IPR and direct potable reuse (DPR). The evaluation of treatment technology alternatives considered multiple criteria, such as treatment performance, reliability, regulatory compliance, expandability, public perception, environmental impacts, implementation time, Envision rating (a system used to assess the sustainability of infrastructure projects, including those related to water, across environmental, social, and economic dimensions), sustainability impacts, and cost factors. The aim was to provide reclaimed water for various uses at the zoo, including animal exhibits, maintenance, cleaning, pool filling, and park irrigation. Compliance with local and state regulations, including MiamiDade County Department of Environmental
Continued on page 46
Figure 2. Zoo site visit photos.
Figure 3. Zoo wastewater characterization.
Continued from page 45
Resources Management (DERM) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, for discharge to surface water, such as the use of irrigation water in the Biscayne Aquifer, was a critical element of the evaluation.
Several treatment processes were assessed, including preliminary screening, membrane aerated biofilm reactors (MABR), membrane bioreactors (MBR), granular and media filtration, reverse osmosis (RO), ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, ozone disinfection, chlorine disinfection, UV/hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) advanced oxidation process (AOP), and an ozone/H2O2-based AOP.
Technologies, like MABR, MBR, and filtration, were considered for removal of BOD5, TSS, and nutrients, while disinfection processes, like UV, ozone, chlorine, and AOP, were evaluated to target removal of pathogenic microorganisms. The AOPs generate oxidizing agents, such as hydroxyl radicals (•OH), which can break down a wide range of
organic pollutants, including pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and PFAS. Membrane filtration technologies, such as MBR, microfiltration, and ultrafiltration, can achieve significant removal of dissolved contaminants and microorganisms, including bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. The RO was considered as it can remove several wastewater contaminants, including metals, total dissolve solids, and organic compounds, and are effective for pathogen removal from wastewater for reuse applications.
For the treatment trains, various alternatives were evaluated, with the best-suited methods being MBR and RO to meet local standards for irrigation with reclaimed water. Injection of WRRF effluent into the groundwater aquifer onsite was also considered to replenish the local groundwater aquifer. The AOPs were included in the WRRF design to address dissolved organics and pathogen removal requirements.
In addition to water reuse, solids treatment options for wastewater residuals were assessed, with sewer disposal selected
as the preferred method. The final shortlisted treatment solutions included primary screening and biological nutrient removal followed by a combination of MBR, RO filtration, and disinfection by UV/H2O2 or ozone/H2O2 advanced oxidation. An example process flow diagram of one of the WRRF alternatives considered for implementation at the zoo is shown in Figure 4.
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment Analysis
The QMRA was used for evaluating treatment strategies for water reuse at the zoo and is an effective method of estimating the risk of infection and illness from exposure to pathogenic microorganisms. While monitoring product water for pathogens from advanced water treatment facilities may be challenging due to the low levels of target pathogens in reclaimed water, QMRA provides a valuable tool for assessing public health risks and guiding
Figure 4. Conceptual design of the zoo’s reuse water resource recovery facility.
Figure 5. Process flow diagrams for indirect potable reuse concept at the zoo.
<A2GM7M3H-M46I78M;49IHH5
938I2C;4?M8M;4M4N FGGHAI48FA0B<838M;4
risk management efforts. Although QMRA is commonly utilized for DPR system planning and design, its application to IPR scenarios and onsite nonpotable water systems is growing.
In this study, QMRA was employed to evaluate the pathogen removal reliability of the treatment trains at the zoo, focusing on key pathogens, such as adenovirus, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and enteric viruses. The design of the treatment trains aligned with the pathogen requirements for IPR in Florida (F.A.C. 62565.530), including 14-log removal of viruses, 12-log removal of Giardia, and 12-log removal of Cryptosporidium, which is in accordance with EPA risk criteria for water reuse. Due to the recent adoption of Florida potable reuse regulations, the proposed WRRF treatment trains were modified to include additional treatment processes to achieve log removal requirements for IPR in the state of Florida. Process flow diagrams for two treatment trains designed for compliance with updated state and local IPR criteria are shown in Figure 5.
The QMRA analysis, conducted using the DPRisk model (Water Research Foundation, 2021; Gerrity et al., 2023), provided insights into the daily and annualized risks of infection associated with human consumption of reclaimed water. Despite using conservative estimates for animal or human exposure at the zoo, the results indicated that the treatment trains consistently met EPA risk criteria, with minimal risks of infection for the selected pathogens. Even under failure analysis scenarios, the treatment trains demonstrated high efficiency in meeting pathogen removal requirements for IPR and local irrigation standards. Additional information on the QMRA results for the zoo’s WRRF alternatives can be found in Kimbell et al., 2024.
By incorporating multiple physical and chemical treatment processes, the treatment trains showcased the capability of consistently producing reclaimed water that complies with stringent pathogen removal requirements for IPR and with local water quality standards for irrigation and environmental discharge in Miami. The comprehensive QMRA analysis provided valuable insights into the effectiveness of the treatment strategies employed, ensuring the safety and reliability of reclaimed water for various uses at the zoo.
Conclusions
The water reuse initiatives at zoos, such as a WRRF for Zoo Miami, can offer a significant opportunity to not only provide high-quality reclaimed water for various operations, but also to educate the public on the importance of water reuse. Several utilities in Florida, including JEA,
Hillsborough County, and Palm Beach County, have been actively promoting water reuse initiatives through visitor centers with public education components. These efforts aim to raise awareness about the benefits of water reuse and sustainability practices within the community. This study conducted at the zoo represents a pioneering effort in assessing the potential health risks associated with IPR treatment strategies in the state of Florida and the use of reclaimed water in a zoological park setting. The findings from this study provide valuable insights for risk managers in identifying the implications of treatment failures on pathogen removal and the redundancy requirements for IPR and DPR planning, design, and evaluation processes. Moreover, the successful implementation of multiple IPR treatment strategies for pathogen removal at the zoo could serve as a model that can be replicated by other zoos or water utilities to mitigate potential risks to human and animal health.
By showcasing the feasibility and effectiveness of these treatment strategies, this study contributes to advancing water reuse practices and public health protection in not only zoological settings, but also in broader water reuse initiatives across various sectors.
References
1. WateReuse Association, (2025). Water Reuse 101. Webpage: https://watereuse.org/ educate/. Accessed on 3/10/2025.
2. WateReuse Research Foundation and United States Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, (2008). Recycled Water Use in Zoo and Wildlife Facility Settings: Assessing Effects on Animal Health and Well-Being. Alexandria, Va.
4. Water Research Foundation (2021). Tools to Evaluate Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment and Plant Performance/ Reliability, Project No. 4951. Alexandria, Va.
5. Gerrity, D.; Crank, K.; Steinle-Darling, E.; and Pecson, B.M. (2023). Establishing Pathogen Log Reduction Value Targets for Direct Potable Reuse in the United States. AWWA Water Science, 5(5), p.e1353.
6. Kimbell, L.K.; Sabba, F.; Hunter, G.; and Botero, L. (2024). Comparison of Treatment Trains for Indirect Potable Reuse and Use of Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) to Evaluate Reliability of Pathogen Removal: Zoo Miami Case Study. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 65, p.105850. S
STATE OF THE WATER INDUSTRY SURVEY
If you work in the water industry we want your input!
The Florida Water Resources Journal is conducting a survey on various aspects of the water and wastewater industry to rate current issues and challenges and help set the agenda for the future.
It doesn’t matter what your position is, or what company your work for, if you’re in water your opinions count! Encourage your coworkers to participate, too.
Please scan the QR code here or go to the FWRJ website at www.fwrj.com to access the survey.
All surveys should be returned by April 15, so complete yours today!
FWEA CHAPTER CORNER
Welcome to the FWEA Chapter Corner! The Member Relations Committee of the Florida Water EnvironmentvAssociation hosts this article to celebrate the success of recent association chapter activities and inform members of upcoming events. To have information included for your chapter, send details to Melody Gonzalez at gonzalezm@bv.com.
Melody Gonzalez
South Florida Chapter Holds a Sold-Out Technical Seminar on PFAS Solutions
Seminar Program
The South Florida Chapter kicked off 2025 with a resounding success, hosting a sold-out technical seminar on Jan. 29, 2025. The event, “PFAS in Water and Wastewater: Solutions for a Healthier Tomorrow,” drew 120 attendees for a full day of in-depth technical presentations. A total of 12 technical presentations were delivered featuring insights from industry peers in the public, academic, and private sectors.
The seminar was organized into four blocks of presentations, with networking breaks, lunch, and a social hour providing additional opportunities for attendees to connect and exchange ideas.
The seminar covered per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulations for water and wastewater, including developing a strategic implementation roadmap and a comprehensive five-year program to achieve compliance. The discussion also presented approaches from other states, including North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Colorado, as well as initiatives from local utilities like Deerfield Beach and Miami Dade Water and Sewer Department.
The presentations highlighted different treatment technologies, such as ion exchange resins, granular activated carbon, and reverse osmosis. Additionally, a nationwide cost survey was reviewed, covering PFAS treatment, project delivery, and key lessons learned during construction.
The chapter was honored to have among the presenters Brent Tippey, the president-elect of AWWA. Attendees had the opportunity to interact with the presenting experts through interactive question-andanswer sessions.
Seminar attendees
Opening and closing remarks were given by Abnery Picon, chapter chair, who highlighted the chapter’s commitment to supporting local education and nurturing the next generation of engineering professionals via its donation to the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) program at a local high school. The chapter also donated a computer to the Engineering and Robotics Club of the TERRA Environmental Research Institute. We are proud to do our part in supporting water industry workers.
An event survey was distributed and great feedback from the speakers and attendees was received, praising the seminar content and organization.
Seminar Sponsors Thank You
A heartfelt thank you goes to the event sponsors whose generous support made this seminar possible. Their continued commitment to the chapter’s effort is truly appreciated.
Ignacio Lizama, Juan Aceituno, and Lilian Marrero
South Florida Chapter board members responsible for organizing the seminar include (left to right) Jaime Abreu, Lilian Marrero, Abnery Picon, Juan Aceituno, Ignacio Lizama, and Melody Gonzalez (not pictured).
at the morning session.
Seminar Development
The chapter leadership worked months ahead of the event, with weekly meetings, abstract review, venue selection, and speaker coordination. The timely coordination of the event allowed us to obtain the approval of offering six PDHs credits to the attendees.
Thank you to all the attendees, speakers, and volunteers, including Dhruv Anand, Genesis Gilles, Jose Abinazar, and Sandra Pedre, for their participation and support of our chapter. Special thanks to Abnery Picon for her exceptional leadership in keeping the team on track and ensuring a seamless event. The attendees’ presence and engagement were instrumental in making this event a success.
Stay tuned for more events to come in 2025, and we look forward to your continued involvement.
Utilities can optimize control in water treatment or water pumping applications with energy-saving variable speed technology. Dedicated variable frequency drives (VFDs) are used to combat common challenges in these applications, such as clogging, water hammering, cavitation, and more. A solution from Mitsubishi Electric for water pumping and treatment is the FR-F800-E Series drive. Key benefits include:
S Optimized control with advanced dual proportional integral derivative (PID). The VFD can perform PID control for both the motor and an external safety valve.
S Reliable anticlogging. The FR-F800-E executes a forward/reverse timing sequence to remove clogging materials from the pump’s impellers, preventing damage from pump lockup.
S Avoid water hammering. The VFD operates the pump at a constant speed until the pipe fills to a set water level. Once this level is reached, the PID control is activated and continues normal pumping operation
S Dry run monitoring. The FR-F800-E will monitor the water flow rate (measured value) inside the pipe to avoid running the pump when the pipes are empty.
S Cavitation avoidance. In order to prevent air intake and cavitation inside the pump, the VFD monitors the suction pressure danger
NEW PRODUCTS
level and automatically reduces pump speed to prevent cavitation.
S Control up to four pumps to maintain constant pressure. The FR-F800-E uses smart multipump control to maintain constant pressure regardless of the flow fluctuations. The VFD can automatically alternate the control of the pumps to ensure uniform wear and tear occurs for both the motors and pumps to extend operation life.
S Built-in Ethernet communication. The FR-F800-E features seamless connections to BMS systems using embedded protocols. Flexible options are available for other popular networks. (www.mitsubishicomfort. com)
RThe AquaPrime cloth media filtration system from Aqua-Aerobic Systems is designed as an economical and efficient solution for the treatment of primary wastewater and wet weather applications. This system utilizes a disk configuration and the exclusive OptiFiber PF-14 pile cloth filtration media to effectively filter high-solids waste streams without the use of chemicals. This system is ideal for primary wastewater treatment and wet weather applications due to its proven removal efficiencies and high-quality effluent, even under varying influent conditions.
The system is designed to handle a wide range of flows in a fraction of space compared to conventional primary clarifiers. The system’s high solids removal in comparison to conventional treatment puts the technology in the advanced primary treatment category. AquaPrime provides reduced carbon loads to downstream secondary treatment process, resulting in:
S Aeration energy savings (by approximately 20 to 30 percent).
S Increased capacity in existing secondary treatment processes.
S Reduced basin size for the secondary process (footprint savings).
S Increased primary solids for anaerobic digestion for increase biogas. production (by up to 30 to 40 percent) to be used for energy production or heating within the facility.
S Dramatically reduced footprint (75 to 90 percent less) in comparison to conventional sedimentation. (www.aqua-aerobic.com)
Envie3 high-efficiency air-filled motors from Crane Pumps & Systems come without application limitations. This next generation of dry pit submersible pumps can run in wet and dry pit applications. These pumps took proven solids handling and chopper wet ends and
Continued on page 52
Morning session speakers with chapter board members.
Afternoon session speakers with board members of the chapter.
Conservation, Water Reuse, and Where it Begins
Kevin Shopshire President, FWPCOA
ou know the saying, “April showers bring May flowers.” What do Mayflowers bring? Pilgrims!
Happy April! In case you don’t get the April showers to bring the May flowers, where does the water come from?
Water conservation can be defined as taking action to improve the effectiveness of water use through various means, such as choosing to change behavior by running waterusing fixtures and appliances less. We’ve all seen the public education (or given it ourselves), encouraging conservation of water at home and at work. Some of us have even enjoyed the
YouTube videos from Patrick “Murf” Murphy, former FWPCOA president.
Water reclamation and reuse is the next step to helping quench our irrigation thirst. To quote the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
“Water reuse (also commonly known as water recycling or water reclamation) reclaims water from a variety of sources then treats and reuses it for beneficial purposes, such as agriculture and irrigation, potable water supplies, groundwater replenishment, industrial processes, and environmental restoration.”
As I’ve alluded to before, I may not be a reclaimed specialist, but I know someone who is: John O’Brien of Palm Beach County Utilities. He submitted photos and information to help with my column this month.
Palm Beach County Southern Region Water Reclamation Facility
“Palm Beach County operates the Palm Beach County Southern Region Water Reclamation Facility,” said John. “This facility treats, filters, and disinfects wastewater for reuse irrigation, as well as replenishing the nearby Wakodahatchee Wetlands. The county has also added an educational center with interactive experiences and there is a boardwalk path that connects to the Great Florida Birding Trail.”
John recently held a tour for a group of high school and elementary students, and well, I’ll let him tell the story.
“We recently had students from South Plantation High School and Morikami Elementary School tour our water reclamation facility. It was a great opportunity to share with Morikami Elementary students the water recovery process and advanced technology for treating our water because they’re currently studying water scarcity.
“We are currently constructing the Reclamation Education Center for Advanced Purification (RECAP) onsite. The electric power supply and underground piping is prepared for the reverse osmosis advanced oxidation process to be built by CDM, with Hazen as our contractor project manager. David Atwood is the CDM project manager. After completing the Lake Houston project David moved to Palm Beach County to oversee construction. Richard Davis is the Hazen project manager representing Palm Beach County. He has relocated from Maryland to work in conjunction with CDM and the Palm
Vincent Munn (far left), Palm Beach County Water Utility District water plants operations and maintenance manager.
Rex McClung (center) from Palm Beach County Water Utility District with Morikami Elementary School students.
Aerial views of Palm Beach County Southern Region Water Reclamation Facility. Continued on page 52
Beach County Water Utility District for the construction of the water purification system and the new nature park, Green Cay 2.
“The park has also begun construction, and completion of the project is on schedule for the end of 2026. The park will have public access and the wetland spring will recharge the unconfined aquifer, which is a source of groundwater for the community.”
Thanks, John!
Fresh Ideas for Water Conservation
In our ever-growing Florida population, we must find ways to conserve, reuse, and replenish our water supplies. Where do these new ideas originate? I’m not just referring to employee incentive programs, consultants, and engineers. Where do they originate?
The last several years I’ve been invited to be a judge at a local public school elementary science fair. The ideas and brainpower are always very refreshing. This year, I was chosen to judge a physics category, in which our chosen winners came up with everything from transporting neodymium magnets through tubes with different valence electrons to what type of
acoustic guitar grip amplifies the sound louder. I was able to interview two young students who did projects focused on water conservation.
One fourth grader experimented with using hydrogels for more-efficient irrigation. She proved that water release using hydrogels is more efficient than sprinkler valves and water metering (don’t tell our vendors!). The point is she lives on a farm, and at her young age, she already knows the importance of water conservation.
The other student designed a sink-to-toilet water system, and provided a model. She was already studying sustainability development goals in her sixth grade class. She knew that “fresh water is a scarce resource, and I want to make a difference.” Just looking around her house, she came with this project idea when realizing freshwater was being wasted in her toilets.
Both students hope to continue their studies in this area of water conservation! In appreciation for their ideas, project, and time with my questions, I did work with the judging program to give them each a Water Conservation Efforts Appreciation Certificate, with our FWPCOA logo.
Wherever the ideas originate, we need them to conserve this finite resource.
What’s your water conservation idea?
See you next month!
New Products
Continued from page 49
outfitted them with a premium efficient/ IE3 motor that can run in both vertical and horizontal configurations. Features and benefits include:
S Patent-pending, closed-loop glycol cooling system that keeps motors stress-free, even in the most demanding applications.
S Premium efficient IE3 motor that delivers significant energy savings versus traditional motor offerings.
S Available for both solids handling and chopper pumps, it’s one of the market’s most flexible solutions.
S Made in the United States with bestin-class manufacturing lead times.
S Available in both vertical and horizontal configurations, and offered with a variety of user-friendly mounting hardware options.
S Easy to service with plug-and-play cord and commercially available mechanical seals and bearing components.
S Rugged and modern design that looks great out of the box, and for years to come.
S Suitable for shallow wells, high water tables, and rocky terrain.
S Extensive sensing package for reliable protection. (www.cranepumps.com)
R
The portable Alumi-Lite davit crane from OZ Lifting Products is constructed from lightweight, aerospace-grade aluminum, and boasts exceptional strength, while being easy to transport. At just 24 pounds for the 500-pound-capacity model and 47 pounds for the 1,000-pound capacity, the crane is a game-changer for on-ite lifting needs. The AlumiLite offers effortless assembly with no tools required, and its 360-degree rotation and adjustable boom height provide superior versatility. All davit cranes come equipped with a manual brake winch and a drill drive adapter, and AC and DC electric winches are also available. These cranes are made in the United States and each one is individually tested and certified at 125 percent, ensuring safety and reliability. (www.ozliftingproducts.com) S
Fourth grade hydrogel science fair project.
Sixth grade sink-to-toilet science fair project.
Palm Beach County Southern Region Water Reclamation Facility.
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
RATES
C L A S S I F I E D S
- Classified ads are $22 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
The Water Treatment Plant at the Village of Wellington is currently accepting applications for a full-time WATER OPERATOR and an INSTRUMENT TECH/OPERATOR positions. Apply online. Job postings and applications are available on our website: https://wellingtonfl.munisselfservice.com/employees/ EmploymentOpportunities/
We are located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Village of Wellington offers great benefits. For further information, call Human Resources at (561) 753-2585.
Peace River Manasota
Regional Water Supply Authority
is seeking a Project Engineer who is ready to take their career to the next level and be part of a dynamic team tackling some of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in the region. We are implementing an $800M 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan that includes a 9 Billion Gallon Reservoir. Apply at www.regionalwater.org.
Utilities Treatment Plant Operator I or Trainee
$57,208 - $80,496/yr. or $51,889 - $73,012/yr.
Utilities System Operator Foreman
$57,208 - $80,496/yr.
Utilities Lift Station Operator I
$49,418 - $69,536/yr.
Utilities Lift Station Operator II
$57,208 - $80,496/yr.
Utilities System Operators I or Trainee
$44,823 - $63,071/yr. or $42,690 - $60,068/yr.
Apply Online At: http://pompanobeachfl.gov Open until filled.
Seminole County, FL - Deputy Director of Utilities
Oversees Water, Wastewater, Utility Engineering, Maintenance, Finance, and Administrative Services Divisions. Detailed brochure available at www.SRNsearch.com; Salary Range $117,340$187,744. Contact S. Renée Narloch & Associates, 850-391-0000, info@srnsearch.com for additional information. EOE. Under Florida law, applications are subject to public disclosure.
Continued from page 37
Editorial Calendar
January
March
March
April
May
June
July .............. Stormwater Management; Emerging Technologies
August
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.
1. D) all of the above
Grit is comprised of cinders, eggshells, and sand.
2. D) 0.7 to 1.4 ft/sec.
The recommended flow velocity to remove grit from wastewater when passing it through a channel is 0.7 to 1.4 feet/second.
3. C) light organic solids. The recommended flow velocity within grit channels is to prevent the settling of organic solids.
4. B) proportional weir
The part by which the flow velocity is controlled within the grit channel is the proportional weir.
5. C) enhances the settling of grit. The introduction of air to wastewater enhances the settling of sludge.
6. C) detritus.
The mixture of grit and organic material is called detritus.
7. D all of the above.
Organic matter is washed from grit in order to prevent odors, septicity, and complaints.
8. C) burial with 6 inches of soil. The proper disposal of grit removed from grit removal systems within wastewater treatment facilities is burial with 6 inches of soil.
9. D) all of the above. Grit is removed from the wastewater prior to primary treatment to prevent reduction of the capacity of digesters and aerators and excessive wear of pumps.
10. D) grit classifier.
The part of the cyclone grit separator that remove organics from grit washing is the grit classifier.
