JAWWA journal | June 2018

June 2018 Volume 110 Number 6

-

American Water Works Association

Silver-Amended Coagulation for Bromide and Other Halide Ion Removal p. 13 ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:

Drinking Water Protection in Northwest Arkansas Innovative Collaborations Through Forest Resilience Bonds Recirculating Cascade Tray Aeration for TTHM Removal Nanofiltration for Improving Cr(VI) Removal With Ion Exchange

BEST in Advertising AWWA will present the 2017 Best in Advertising awards for Journal AWWA at the Annual Conference and Exposition in Las Vegas. DN Tanks, McWane, and Sensus will receive awards for outstanding advertising. Judges considered creativity, originality, impact, and messaging delivery.

Think beyond the leak.

BUILD IN THE PRESENT, PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE No one can predict the future, but you can depend on the strength of DN Tanks to last for generaaons. With 80 years of experience, we build the longest-lasang water and wastewater prestressed concrete tanks for the lowest overall cost of ownership.

Build for the future with DN Tanks.

1.855.DNTANKS | WWW.DNTANKS.COM

Delivering clean and safe water worldwide.

Water. It’s essential to our very existence. To keep it safe and clean, the world counts on McWane. For almost a century, McWane has been building the strongest, most durable infrastructure in the industry for one reason: to bring water to the world.

Buy American. Buy McWane.

Pipe | Valves | Hydrants | Fittings | Plumbing | Extinguishers | Fire Suppression Systems Steel Pressure Vessels | Network Switches | Monitoring Equipment

mcwane.com

Non-revenue water goes beyond leaks and tank overows. In fact, there are four sources of non-revenue water leading to a daily potential revenue loss of $165K in the US. Discover the facts, and learn how a smart water solution from Sensus can help boost your bottom line.

Visit sensus.com/beyond-leaks today.

DN Tanks McWane

Sensus, a xylem brand

op marks

awwa.org/advertise

Partnership Programs’ guidance and planning empowers utilities to continuously improve Drinking water treatment plant and distribution system programs focus on operational details and facility optimization Daily operations cover a range of activity, with personnel diligently attending to the many details of running a complex plant or system. Partnership Programs support these activities, like flushing, with in-depth guidance and tools that provide direction for utility staff to assess operations and continuously improve, while being recognized for their efforts.

Learn more about the Partnership’s utility optimization and recognition programs and get optimized today!

ks

The Partnership thanks Blue-White Industries for its sponsorship at ACE18!

Partner With Us!

Subscribe to the Partnership’s water and wastewater utility optimization programs today! partnership@awwa.org | 303.347.6169 www.awwa.org/partnership www.awwa.org/partnershipforcleanwater

Visit the Partnership at the AWWA Pavilion (Booth #11104) in Las Vegas, Nevada, at ACE18!

On Water & Works KE NNE TH L . M E RCER

Citizen Science

JUNE 2018 • Vol. 110, No. 6

E

ncouraging the public to care more about our water systems and services is the responsibility of every water professional, and it seems like an easy sell given that water directly affects public health and underpins the livelihoods and lifestyles that define our communities.

One way to expand opportunities for community engagement beyond a community-wide event or issue is through citizen science.

Citizen science—scientific research that is conducted in whole or in part by amateur scientists—is an opportunity for water professionals to connect with community members who are issue-focused and to influence and engage those whose interests lie elsewhere. Citizen science projects can be relatively low cost because they typically involve volunteers who are motivated by civic duty or community activism. Of course, these projects require time, resources, and oversight, including promotion/recruitment, training, and ongoing data collection and validation.

If weighted more toward promotion, citizen science at a minimum allows a wide range of age and interest groups to better understand issues by fostering interactions with experts to investigate and track pertinent data such as water quality and supply parameters. The water industry could benefit from data points provided by citizen scientists, such as linking locational water quality measurements through online applications like GPS, GIS, mapping platforms, and social networks. As our analytical capabilities improve, it will be interesting to see if more concerned citizens become involved, and who knows what sensors may ultimately be included as simple smartphone applications in the future. Of course, for crowd-sourced data to be usable, there need to be quality assurances and data validation, and ongoing training and oversight could support at least some level of useful information collection.

Across North America there are local, regional, and national efforts underway to encourage citizen science projects involving water, and looking forward, citizen science could ultimately be leveraged into the modern paradigm of safe water. For example, a well-distributed base of volunteers with sensors making measurements in a watershed can be coupled with localized, real-time monitoring and analysis so that utility managers can make more immediate source water protection decisions and adjust long-term strategies. The contributions of citizen scientists could be considered another layer of protection within the multi-barrier approach that typifies modern potable water systems.

In the end, citizen science can promote engagement, contribute to social identity, and hopefully inspire curiosity in the next generations.

Although this month’s Journal AWWA doesn’t include any contributions from citizen scientists, it does have several excellent peer-reviewed original research articles from academic and government investigators. Topics cover halide removal from drinking waters using silver-amended coagulation (page 13), stripping trihalomethanes using tray aeration (page 26), hexavalent chromium treatment using ion exchange (page 27), asbestos–cement pipe deterioration (page 28), and water main failures (page 29). Feature articles include topics such as partnerships for source water protection (page 30), advanced metering infrastructure (page 36), innovative financing (page 42), and sustainability (page 50).

Please consider submitting your original research and practical perspectives for publication in Journal AWWA to better connect the water industry. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1093

2

ON WAT E R & W ORKS | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6

| J O U R N A L AWWA

EDITORIAL AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION Editor-In-Chief

Kenneth L. Mercer, PhD

Senior Editorial Manager

Kimberly J. Retzlaff

Senior Technical Editor

Maureen Peck

Contributing Editors

Martha Ripley Gray

Maripat Murphy

Jenifer F. Walker

Kelly Watkins

Chief Executive Officer

David B. LaFrance

Deputy Chief Executive

Paula MacIlwaine

Officer Director of Publishing

Zsolt G. Silberer

Publishing Coordinator

Cindy Uba

JOHN WILEY & SONS Editor

Donna Petrozzello

Art Director

Scott A. McPherson

Publisher

Lisa Dionne Lento

Journal - American Water Works Association (ISSN print 0003-150X electronic: 1551-8833) is published monthly on behalf of the American Water Works Association by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., a Wiley Company, 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774 USA. Periodicals postage paid at Hoboken, N.J., and additional mailing offices. Neither AWWA nor Wiley assume responsibility for opinions or statements of facts expressed by contributors or advertisers, and editorials do not necessarily represent official policies of the association or the publisher. Copyright © 2018 by American Water Works Association, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235.

Telephone (303) 794-7711, e-mail journal@awwa.org.

Printed in the United States by Sheridan, Hanover, N.H. PRODUCTION Senior Production Editor

Linda Yeazel

Cover Design

Kirsten Seidel

Contributing Artists

Gillian Wink

Melanie Yamamoto AWWA SALES

Director of Sales

JoAnn Spinnato

Sales Project Manager

Karen Pacyga

Advertising Coordinator

Connor Larson

TERRITORY SALES MANAGERS Southeast US, Colorado, Asia, Latin America Pam Fithian: (303) 347-6138 pfithian@awwa.org Northeast US, Eastern Canada Ryan Fugler: (303) 347-6238 rfugler@awwa.org Midwest US, Western Canada, Europe, Israel Nancy Mortvedt: (303) 734-3442 nmortvedt@awwa.org Western US, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, Mexico Kathy Smith: (303) 347-6237 ksmith@awwa.org

SMART WATER IS:

AMI WITHOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE CELLULAR KEEPS IT EASY. In the past, AMI was only available to those with the resources to operate a traditional fixed network. Today, utilities are leveraging highly reliable and secure cellular networks to make their meter reading more efficient, scalable and interoperable for the long term. BEACON® Advanced Metering Analytics is smart water. Smart water is Badger Meter.

Visit booth #18029 during ACE18 to discover more.

SMART WATER IS B ADGER ME T ER (800) 616-3837 | badgermeter.com

Two column figure max width = 37p9 (actual 2 column width = 39p9) Ag+—silver ion, Al3+—aluminum, Br–—bromide ion, GW—groundwater, secondary MCL—maximum contaminant level set by National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, SW—surface water, WW—wastewater

alum addition. An oddity of these predictions is the slight increase in THM and relative toxicity at the lowest residual Br levels (i.e., highest Ag dosages); this is

JUNE 2018 VOLUME 110 NUMBER 6

FIGURE 7

probably not realistic and represents exceeding the lower boundaries for Br concentration applied in the empirical THM prediction models.

Predicted treatment cost and corresponding THM formation and toxicity reduction when using silveramended coagulation

FIGURE 1

Schematic of Babson Park Water Treatment Plant 2’s treatment train Sodium hypochlorite

Cascade tray aerator

13

26

150,000 gal ground storage tank

Blended phosphate The initial water quality and chlorination conditions: 5 mg/L DOC, 0.15 cm−1 UV254, 200 μg/L Br–, pH 7.5, 15 C, 24 h chlorination with chlorine dose at Well a mass ratio of Cl2:DOC = 1:1 pump

Br–—bromide ion, DOC—dissolved organic carbon, THM—trihalomethane, THM4—sum of four trihalomethanes, USEPA—US Environmental Protection Agency, UV254—ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nm

Peer Reviewed 13

26

29 High service pump

Using Existing Cascade Tray21 Aeration Infrastructure to Strip Recirculation Total Trihalomethanes pump GA N ET A L. | JU N E 2 0 18 • 11 0 :6 | JO UR N A L A WW A

28

15,000 gal hydropneumatic tank

Sodium hypochlorite Distribution system

Determination of Asbestos– Cement Pipe Deterioration Rate Using Accelerated Acid Degradation

Because certain disinfection byproducts (DBPs) are suspected carcinogens, the US Bromide and Other Halide Ion Asbestos–cement (AC) pipe makes up Environmental Protection Agency reguThe cascade aerator located on top of the ground storage tank was historically used for sulfide and carbon dioxide treatment.

12–15% of water mains in theAddition Unitedof a Removal From Drinking Waters recirculation pump allowed for the cascade aerator toofalso be used for in stripping of trihalomethanes that formed while water was stored on site. lates occurrence these DBPs potable States; it can deteriorate through lime Using Silver-Amended water; total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) leaching or sulfate attack. Using varying are one such DBP group. These authors Coagulation concentrations of nitric acid to speed up investigated, through pilot and full-scale pipe degradation, this study aimed to To address the concern of high bromide testing, cascade tray aeration in recircudetermine the rate of deterioration and the ion concentrations during water treatment lated mode to determine its effectiveness most appropriate trajectory (relationship and their role in forming brominated disin TTHM reduction. of rate of deterioration versus time) to infection byproducts, this study explored Benjamin A. Yoakum and estimate remaining service life of AC pipe. the use of silver-amended coagulation Steven J. Duranceau (SAC) to remove bromide ions from Abiy M. Ghirmay and Clinton M. Wood source water. Surface water, groundwater, 27 and secondary treated wastewaters were 29 jar-tested with the SAC process.

Nanofiltration to Improve Hot Spot Analysis of Water Wenhui Gan, Arjun K. Venkatesan, Process Efficiency of Hexavalent Main Failures in California Onur G. Apul, Francois Perreault, Chromium Treatment Using Ion Xin Yang, and Paul Westerhoff For this study, the authors identified Exchange abnormally high concentrations of water Managing waste brine from strong-base main failures, or “hot spots,” for three anion exchange processes used for hexavaservice areas in California; performed lent chromium removal is an operational, multi-variate linear regression for both Write for the Journal environmental, and economic considerthe hot spots and all mains’ failures, ation.

This study investigated the use of accounting for pipe materials, diameter, Journal AWWA is nanofiltration to recover excess regenerant hydraulic pressure, season, soil, length, seeking peersalt and reduce the waste volume using air temperature, and water content; and reviewed and brine collected from fulland pilot-scale compared major differences between the feature articles. installations.

A batch concentration model two regression results.

Find submission guidelines at was developed for a case study.

Diego Martínez García, Juneseok Lee, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ Julie A. Korak, Richard G. Huggins, journal/15518833.

Jonathan Keck, Paul Yang, and and Miguel S. Arias-Paic Robert Guzzetta Floridan Aquifer

Innovation to win your day in

AMI Networks

Get back to the business of water with Network as a Service (NaaS).

LoRa® technology uses low power consumption and long-range connectivity to boost efficiencies and sustainability.

• Eliminate systems maintenance with a tailored NaaS solution • Leverage LoRa networks for easy AMI deployment without reprogramming endpoints • Make advanced functionality simple to use

Leverage the industry’s first LoRa Alliance™ certified solution for AMI. Reap the benefits without the operational burdens. neptunetg.com/AMInetworks

ACE18 / BOOTH 17043

JUNE 2018 VOLUME 110 NUMBER 6

30 Feature Articles 30

Protecting Northwest Arkansas’ Drinking Water Through the USDA Regional Conservation Partnership Program The US Department of Agriculture and partner organizations created the West Fork White River Watershed (WFWR) Initiative to protect the water quality of Beaver Reservoir in northwest Arkansas.

This article describes how the WFWR Initiative has succeeded through shared support among the organizations, Farm Bill funding, innovative strategies, and solid scientific knowledge.

Sandi J. Formica, Robert Morgan, John Pennington, James McCarty, and Matt Van Eps

36

Water and Electric AMI Differences: What Water Utility Leaders Need to Know Water and electric utilities share common factors in advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), and each can learn from the other in implementing AMI. There are, however, points of departure in AMI use for the two industries that warrant attention. This article taps into findings from a Water Research Foundation project to outline these similarities and differences.

Terrance M. Brueck, Claude Williams, Jon Varner, and Ed Tirakian

36

42

42

58

Forest Resilience Bond Sparks Innovative Collaborations Between Water Utilities and Wide-Ranging Stakeholders Forests play an essential role in watershed health, and increased frequency and severity of wildfires is threatening forest health and thus the reliability of public water supplies. The Forest Restoration Bond is a public–private partnership that makes it possible for utilities to share the cost of forest restoration with stakeholders.

Leigh Madeira and Todd Gartner

Pages From the Past: Better Tools for Treatment This article reviews the evolution of water treatment in North America beginning in the 1800s, commenting on the challenges water professionals must face.

The original article appeared in Journal AWWA in February 1966 (Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 137–146).

A.P. Black

50

Realizing a More Sustainable Water Future From a “One Water” View This article discusses how water leaders are redefining sustainability goals to provide an actionable framework for planning. Additionally, the author discusses a recent report about which cities are delivering water sustainability to provide insights into what’s working and provides several ideas for how cities are successfully creating more sustainable futures.

John J. Batten III

On the cover: Jar testing was central to a study investigating the potential for silveramended coagulation to remove bromide ions from source water.

Imagery by Shutterstock.com artists: Macrovector, Hekla, Ron Dale

DOWN HERE, WE’RE ALREADY WORKING ON THE NEXT 100 YEARS.

WATER O U R FOC U S OUR BU SIN ESS

OUR PASSION

Rebuilding America’s infrastructure is no easy job. We know what lies ahead and we’re up to the task. Since 1933, Carollo has been offering complete engineering services, financial strategies and innovative technology to the water and wastewater industries. We’ve been busy creating durable infrastructure solutions for the next century and beyond. We can do the same for you.

1.800.523.5826 | carollo.com

JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD

Columns and Departments

Andrew D. Eaton (chair) Dulcy M. Abraham Joseph J. Bernosky Dominic Boccelli David E. Bracciano David Cornwell Joseph A. Cotruvo Christopher S. Crockett Steven Duranceau Richard W. Gullick Charles D. Hertz Karl G. Linden Darren A. Lytle Joan A. Oppenheimer Christine A. Owen Theresa R. Slifko John E. Tobiason

2 On Water & Works Citizen Science 10 Open Channel I’m Still Not Oprah!

70

66 Special Advertising Section: Transformative Issues Symposium 70 DC Beat Make Water Affordable Again?

74 Law & Water The Legal Version of a Main Break 77 AWWA Awards

74

CUSTOMER SERVICE INQUIRIES: Contact Wiley customer service via e-mail at cs-journals@wiley.com or by telephone: Americas (toll free) +1 800-835-6770; Europe, Middle East, and Africa +44 (0)1865-778315; Asia Pacific +65 6511 8000.

MISSING ISSUES: For problems with receipt of issues, AWWA members should contact AWWA Customer Service Group at (800) 926-7337 or service@awwa.org. Nonmember subscribers should contact Wiley Customer Service for assistance. Claims for missing issues must be submitted upon receipt of the following issue. Allow 90 days for change-of-address notification.

83 People in the News

INDEXING: Indexed regularly by Chemical Abstracts, Compendex, Pollution Abstracts, Water Resources Abstracts, Environmental Science & Pollution Management, and Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge.

85 Industry News

CODEN: JAWWA5

90 Media Pulse

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Journal AWWA, American Water Works Association, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235-3098. Telephone (303) 794-7711; fax (303) 794-7310; e-mail journal@awwa.org.

92 AWWA Section Meetings 93 Corrigendum 96 Product Spotlight 97 Buyers’ Resource Guide 120 List of Advertisers

85

SUBSCRIPTIONS: A subscription to Journal AWWA is a benefit for most AWWA memberships. For questions regarding membership, e-mail membership@awwa.org or call 303-794-7711. The annual subscription rates are for print only: $296 (US), £249 (UK), €297 (Europe), $320 (international); for electronic only: $296 (US), £249 (UK), €297, $320 (international); and for print and electronic: $370 (US), £312 (UK), €372 (Europe), $400 (international). For questions regarding subscriptions, contact Wiley subscription agents via e-mail cs-agency@wiley.com or by telephone: Americas +1 781-388-8597; Europe, Middle East, and Africa +44 (0)1865 778054; Asia Pacific +65 6511 8200.

120 Standards Official Notice

BACK ISSUES: For any Journal AWWA article from Jan. 1, 2017, to the present, or to order back issues up to 12 months old, contact Wiley customer service.

REPRINTS AND PERMISSIONS: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means and without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Permissions to reproduce copyrighted material from Wiley are handled through the RightsLink® automated permissions service. To request permission to reuse specific content, navigate to the article on Wiley Online Library and select “Request Permissions.”

For technical queries contact customercare@copyright.com. For questions about the permitted uses of a specific article, contact us at permissions@wiley.com. For general information on reprints and reprint orders, e-mail commercialreprints@wiley.com.

EXECUTIVE, EDITORIAL, PRODUCTION, & ADVERTISING OFFICES 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235 (303) 794-7711 e-mail: journal@awwa.org www.awwa.org A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION

Mission: Journal AWWA communicates the scholarship of the water industry through peer-reviewed original research and practical perspectives to professionals that manage and treat water.

Vision: Journal AWWA strives to be an internationally acknowledged authority on the science, engineering, and management of water supply, treatment, and distribution.

Dedicated to the world’s most important resource, AWWA sets the standard for water knowledge, management, and informed public policy.

Question the ordinary

Imagine the extraordinary

Create the enduring

Reclaiming 35 million gallons of water per day for irrigation and aquifer recharge

One of the largest water reuse projects of its kind in the world

Irrigating 2,700 acres of citrus groves along with several nurseries, golf courses and residential communities

Water Conserv II Orlando, Florida WSP’s Role: Services for permitting, design, construction, operation and system maintenance

From water and wastewater treatment and conveyance to watershed planning and green infrastructure, WSP meets complex client challenges with sustainable and cost-effective solutions.

Find out what we can do for you.

wsp.com/usa

Formerly WSP | PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

Join our team!

Open Channel DAVID B. L a FRANCE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I’m Still Not Oprah!

T

hree times before, I have shared my recommendations on books I think every water professional should read (kind of like what Oprah Winfrey used to do). In this column, I want to share a fantastic book—The Source, by Martin Doyle. It is different from any other book I have read on water because it looks at rivers through a different lens. The subtitle of Doyle’s book—How Rivers Made America and America Remade Its Rivers—provides an indication of how a professor of river science and policy might view the symbiotic relationship between rivers and society.

What I liked most about The Source is Doyle’s fresh context for understanding how our relationship with rivers evolved to where we are now. All too often, we view things as they currently are and assume they have always been that way. Doyle, on the other hand, explains that rivers have served many changing and positive purposes throughout America’s history. In fact, in The Source, Doyle takes us back to the source of how America came to rely on rivers as the fundamental building block of our society and how this reliance has evolved to what it is today.

While history is certainly part of Doyle’s story, it only serves to set the stage for America’s needs and goals during different eras. The actors in this story are the institutions that have influenced how rivers are used and viewed. Front and center is America’s federated government—with all levels playing key roles during various times in our history—and the other is America’s private sector industry. But rest assured, this is not a dull recounting of building governmental bureaucracy or private sector expansion. Instead, it is the story of how these public and private institutions worked and struggled together on the use of rivers for positive outcomes for society.

Stop for a moment and think about America’s leaders in the late 1700s and their views of the land and rivers. Back then, the state of rivers was raw, unharnessed, and natural, and the vastness of America was unknown and unexplored. From that time forward, rivers have been the key to the expansion of America and its strategic physical and economic advantages.

The Source tells that story.

As America moved west, rivers enabled private sector commerce, and the government played a role in defining how rivers would be used for interstate commerce. These were critical factors in shaping America’s

10

OPE N CHAN N E L | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

economy into a single economy rather than a collection of independent state economies.

Along the way, different rules were needed in the West than in the East. The riparian water allocation system of the East was not viable in the West, where water was scarcer. As a result, the prior appropriations doctrine of the West—viewing water as a property right—was created to protect water owners and facilitate national goals.

Economic systems have been created because of the importance of rivers to society. Doyle walks us through different periods of America’s financial prosperity and decline and shows how, after each decline, America’s financial power shifted from states, to local municipalities, to the federal government. While Doyle does not say this directly, it seems logical that today’s attachment to the importance of locally owned and operated water and wastewater utilities stems from the economic downturn of the 1890s, after which cities became America’s economic engine, municipal bonds were introduced to fuel the engine, and utilities were built.

As America and its economic systems and institutions grew, the use of rivers also grew. And just as a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy is not as crisp as the original, the quality of rivers eroded. As a result, society has become concerned about America’s environmental integrity, and the institutions have responded. Doyle discusses how present-day institutions, like the US Environmental Protection Agency, along with various environmental acts and laws, provide the framework and powers to clean rivers, make water safe to drink, protect endangered species, and so on. These shifts in focus reflect America’s goals in the present, including the importance of remaking our rivers.

The Source shows us how important rivers are to the people working on them. Doyle’s narrative takes us on his personal journey as he traveled to the places he wrote about, and the reader gets to know the people he met. This in itself is a story worth telling.

Doyle’s views on America’s rivers are clearly those of a scholar, but his passion for this scholarship comes, I believe, from his intimacy with rivers. As a paddler of boats and kayaks, Doyle cares that we protect the natural state of rivers—not just because of their beauty but because, as The Source outlines, rivers enable everything else we desire. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1094

ARSENIC IS NOT A GAME Ready to make the right move?

AdEdge is your one-stop resource for arsenic treatment systems for any size community. We now supply Bayoxide E33 adsorptive media and E33 media replacements for the largest and the smallest systems. As always, AdEdge offers competitive pricing, experienced engineers, and unparalleled support.

With AdEdge’s arsenic treatment systems’ global success history, why would you go anywhere else?

When you’re ready to make the right move, call us at 866.823.3343.

www.AdEdgetech.com

Journal -

American Water Works Association

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES The following section contains this issue’s peer-reviewed, original research content. Each month we print the full version of at least one article, along with the expanded summaries of additional peerreviewed articles that appear in their entirety on the Journal AWWA website (www.awwa.org/journal).

There are several advantages to publishing your research in Journal AWWA:

OPEN ACCESS

EARLY VIEW

All research articles published Online Open are immediately freely available to read, download, and share. Authors can select the option that works best for their research after acceptance. Some benefits of publishing Online Open include fast efficient publication, quality and authoritative Open Access publishing support, article and institutional-level metrics, and easy sharing.

The Early View service presents full-text, peer-reviewed, copyedited articles as soon as they are complete, before the release of the compiled print issue. Articles are posted following receipt of the author’s corrected proofs. They include all figures and tables and are fully citable. Every Early View article carries an online publication date and a DOI for citations.

LONGER REVIEW ARTICLES Journal AWWA will consider articles that exceed its standard limits for text length and number of graphical elements to sufficiently present comprehensive reviews of subject areas.

COOPERATION WITH AWWA CONFERENCES AND EVENTS If you’ve made a presentation at an AWWA conference and would like to publish your findings in Journal AWWA, there are no copyright barriers to doing so. Material that has been presented at an AWWA conference may be reused as part of AWWA publications.

Journal AWWA submission guidelines can be accessed online at www.awwa.org/submit. Questions regarding manuscript submissions can be directed to the editor-in-chief at journaleditor@awwa.org.

Join notable researchers in the pages of Journal AWWA

Haas

12

Lawler

J UN E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 : 6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Weber Jr.

Rose

Edzwald

Suffet

Cleasby

Peer Reviewed

Bromide and Other Halide Ion Removal From Drinking Waters Using Silver-Amended Coagulation WENHUI GAN,1 ARJUN K. VENKATESAN,2 ONUR G. APUL,2,3 FRANCOIS PERREAULT,2 XIN YANG,1 AND PAUL WESTERHOFF2

1

School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Environmental Pollution Control and Remediation Technology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 2 Nanosystems Engineering Research Center for Nanotechnology-Enabled Water Treatment, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.

3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Mass.

High bromide ion concentrations are of concern because of formation of brominated disinfection byproducts in drinking water, which may be more toxic than their chlorinated analogs. Jar tests dosed with alum and silver were performed on several water samples with chloride-to-bromide (Cl:Br) ratios ranging from 15 to 866 mg Cl/mg Br. In lower-chloride waters (15 mg Cl/mg Br), silver-amended coagulation (SAC) removed 20–90% of the initial bromide. In higher-chloride water (525 mg Cl/mg Br), a silver dose of 15 mol Ag/mol Br achieved 40% bromide

removal. Iodide and chloride removal also occurred during silver addition. SAC did not influence total organic carbon or turbidity removal, and residual silver was below the secondary maximum contaminant level but was successful in decreasing trihalomethane (THM) formation from 44 to 28 μg/L by shifting away from brominated THM species. SAC may only be applicable and cost-effective in a narrow range of waters with lower Cl:Br ratios, and other technologies should be developed for waters with >300 mg Cl/mg Br.

Keywords: bromide removal, chlorine, disinfection

Bromide ion (Br–) occurrence in source waters is a concern because of its role in brominated disinfection byproduct (Br-DBP) formation during water treatment (Cowman & Singer 1996, Singer 1994, Cooper et al. 1985). Disinfectants oxidize Br– to HOBr/OBr–, which reacts with natural organic matter (NOM) and produces brominated halogenated organics (e.g., trihalomethanes [THMs], haloacetic acids, haloacetonitriles, haloacetamides). During ozonation, Br– can be oxidized to bromate, which is also a potentially carcinogenic Br-DBP. Higher Br–-to-total organic carbon (TOC) ratios shift halogenated organic DBPs from chlorinated to brominated analogs, which are of greater public health concern because of their higher cyto- and genotoxicity (Wagner & Plewa 2017, Yang et al. 2014, Richardson et al. 2007, Echigo et al. 2004). Additionally, nitrogenous DBP formation, such as N-nitrosodimethylamine, increases during chloramination in the presence of Br– (Le Roux

et al. 2012, von Gunten et al. 2010). DBPs are often managed through maximizing TOC removal; changing water quality parameters such as pH; altering the type, dose, or contact times of disinfecting oxidants; and adjusting distribution system operational conditions (Clark et al. 1994, Singer 1994). This study explored a technique to remove inorganic DBP precursors, namely Br– instead of TOC. A survey of US waters conducted in 1994 found Br– concentrations average between 80 and 100 μg/L, and range up to 450 and 2,200 μg/L in some surface waters (SWs) and groundwaters (GWs), respectively (Amy et al. 1994). A separate survey of 23 drinking water treatment plant source waters similarly reported Br– concentrations varying from 24 to 1,120 μg/L, with a median of 109 μg/L (Richardson et al. 2008).

Because Br– is used in some industrial processes—for example, to control mercury emissions at coal power plants—industrial development and urbanization in

GA N ET A L. | JU N E 2 0 18 • 11 0 :6 | JO UR N A L A WW A

13

close proximity has increased Br– discharge to SW (Good & VanBriesen 2016). In some watersheds, elevated Br– may occur seasonally. For example, high industrial discharges or low streamflow during drought contribute to increased Br– significantly at downstream drinking water treatment plants (Wilson & Van Briesen 2013).

Similar to Br–, the presence of iodide ion (I–) in source waters can result in the formation of iodinated DBPs, which generally exhibited even higher toxicity than BrDBPs (Gong & Zhang 2015; Plewa et al. 2008, 2004; Richardson et al. 2008; Bichsel & von Gunten 2000; Jones et al. 1985). Iodide ion concentrations in source waters range from 0.4 to 104 μg/L, with a median of 10 μg/L (Richardson et al. 2008).

Electrolysis, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange have previously been studied to evaluate Br– removal from drinking waters (Watson et al. 2012). However, these technologies are costly to integrate continuously or seasonally into conventional water treatment plants.

Therefore, this study explores Br– removal using a simple modification that can be incorporated into an existing coagulation process at water treatment plants: adding silver salt during coagulation, termed silveramended coagulation (SAC). Previous studies revealed that silver-impregnated adsorbents (e.g., silver [Ag]doped carbon aerogels, activated carbon, and polymeric cloth) could effectively remove Br– from waters (Chen et al. 2017, Polo et al. 2016, Gong et al. 2013, SánchezPolo et al. 2006). However, Ag impregnation on preoxidized carbon surfaces requires multiple synthesis steps, and Br– removal depends on the dispersion and the availability of silver solids on the adsorbent surface.

Silver impregnation may also reduce the ability to regenerate granular activated carbon. We hypothesize that directly adding silver ion (Ag+) as soluble salt (AgNO3) during coagulation will overcome these limitations. To our knowledge, there is no peer-reviewed literature reporting the use of silver salt to remove Br– and I– during water treatment. As an added benefit, Ag+ in water can serve as an antimicrobial agent (Davies & Etris 1997). There is a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for Ag of 0.10 mg/L, which is a potential constraint for adding Ag during drinking water treatment. There is also a primary MCL for nitrate (10 mg NO3-N/L), which should be considered if AgNO3 salts are used.

Upon addition of Ag, co-removal of I– is expected during Br– removal because I– shares similar characteristics with Br–, namely low solubility of silver halide precipitate solids, as shown in Eqs 1 and 2. In addition, interference of chloride for Br removal was expected because of silver chloride (AgCls) precipitation (Eq 3).

When the saturation index (SI) exceeds zero, silver halides start to precipitate thermodynamically, where X– is the halide ion (Eq 4).

14

G AN E T A L . | J UN E 20 18 • 1 10 :6 | J OU RN A L A W W A

Ag + + Br − ! AgBrðsÞ , Ksp = 5:35 × 10 − 13

ð1Þ

Ag + + I – ! AgIðsÞ ,Ksp = 8:52 × 10 −17

ð2Þ

Ag + + Cl ! AgClðsÞ ,Ksp = 1:77 × 10 −10

ð3Þ

–

SI = log

½Ag + �½X – � Ksp

ð4Þ

The guiding research question for this article was “What water quality conditions are conducive to achieving Br– removal from water, in the presence of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and chloride or other ions, by using silver ion-amended coagulation?” The specific objectives were to investigate (1) Br– removal performance with varying Ag+ doses; (2) impact of background water composition (e.g., Cl:Br ratios and DOC concentration) on Br– removal and finished water quality; (3) DBP formation after Ag-amended coagulation using simulated distribution system (SDS)-free chlorination conditions; (4) consideration of Ag and nitrate levels in treated water; and (5) the technical feasibility, reduced toxicity benefits, costs, and water quality limitations for SAC of drinking waters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Source water collection and characterization. Three SWs, one GW, and one tertiary-treated wastewater (WW) effluent collected from Arizona or South Carolina in 2017 were used in this study. Table 1 summarizes the water quality of five collected waters, plus a model ultrapure water spiked with sodium Br only. The waters have Br and chloride concentrations of 47–426 μg Br/L and 3–369 mg Cl/L, respectively, which result in Cl:Br ratios of 63:990 mg Cl/mg Br in the nonmodel waters. This ratio is in the range of 35 to >6,000 mg Cl/ mg Br reported in the Amy et al. (1994) study.

To evaluate the efficiency of the SAC process on a similar Ag/Br basis, such that effects of background water matrix could be evaluated, SWs 1–3 and GW were spiked with Br– and I– to a final concentration of 200 and 20 μg/L, respectively, to simulate high and environmentally relevant Br– and I– concentrations (Richardson et al. 2008). A level of 200 μg Br/L was selected because it represents a plausible level of Br occurrence and one that would lead to very different bromine incorporation factors (BIFs) and elevated mass concentration (microgram per liter) levels of regulated DBPs (Regli et al. 2015). No spiking was necessary in the WW effluent sample because of its inherently high background concentration of 426 μg/L Br– and 40 μg/L I–. The resulting Cl:Br ratios for four of the waters are 141:865 mg Cl/mg Br, and within the range reported in the Amy et al. (1994) study, with just one water having a lower mg Cl:mg Br ratio of 15. The Cl:Br ratios of 10:100 have been reported in runoff (Short et al. 2017,

TABLE 1

Water quality characteristics of experimental waters

Water DI SW 1 SW 2 SW 3 GW WW

Type

Location

pH

DOC mg/L

SUVA254 L/mg-cm

Cl– mg/L

Br– μg/L

<0.2

ND

ND

1.48

Ultrapure water

—

6.5

Surface water

Arizona

8.2

Surface water Surface water Groundwater

Arizona South Carolina Arizona

Wastewater effluent Arizona

8.4 8.2 8.3 8.2

3.49 10.76 1.96 3.84 7.57

1.07 1.17 1.43 2.25

SO42– mg/L

PO43– mg/L

Cl:Br Ratio mg/mg

I– μg/L

200a

—

ND

ND

ND

105

106b

990b

6.8

260

0.5

32

200a 81b

525a 395b

8.3

50

0.2

3.0

200a 47b

160a 64b

2.1

2

ND

220

ND

116

ND

a

a

149

200 173b

15 861b

8.3

369

200a 426b

745a 866b

40

3−

Br —bromide ion, Cl —chloride ion, DOC—dissolved organic carbon, DI—deionized, I —iodide ion, GW—groundwater, ND—not detected, PO4 —phosphate, SO42−–—sulfate, SUVA254—carbon-specific ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nm, SW—surface water, UV254—UV absorbance at 254 nm, WW—wastewater –

a

–

–

With spiked bromide Ambient bromide

b

Davis et al. 1998) and can occur when Br (without cooccurring chloride) is discharged into streams from power plants (Good & VanBriesen 2016). Thus, we believe that the water conditions tested represent a plausible range of Cl:Br ratios observed in water supplies where Br removal may be needed.

Jar test experiments. Jar tests were conducted with source water (2 L) at 17–18� C on a programmable jar test apparatus.1 Water samples were rapidly mixed at 200 rpm for 5 min after adding 15 mg/L of alum2 (Al2(SO4)3�14H2O) and varied doses of silver salt3 (AgNO3). Silver salt was added within seconds of adding alum. Silver doses (molar Ag:Br ratios) ranged between 1 and 100 times the stoichiometric requirement relative to Br– concentration, according to Eq 1.

Samples without Ag addition (i.e., alum alone) were also tested as control. After rapid mixing, slow mixing at 25 rpm for 30 min allowed flocculation to occur.

Sedimentation occurred without mixing for 60 min.

After sedimentation, 100 mL of supernatant samples were collected using a plastic syringe from below the water surface. All samples were filtered through a 0.7 μm GF/F filter4 (ashed at 500� C for 2 h) before measuring DOC, ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nm (UV254), and residual halide concentrations.

Analytical methods. DOC was measured using an analyzer,5 UV254 on a spectrophotometer,6 turbidity using a turbidimeter,7 and pH using a portable pH meter.8 Ion chromatography measured chloride ions (Cl–);9 Br–, I–, aluminum, and Ag concentrations were measured using inductively coupled plasma/mass spectroscopy10 equipped with an auto sampler11 operated in a normal mode for the detection and quantification of 107 Ag, 27Al, 79Br, and 127I in water samples. The

method detection limits for 107Ag, 27Al, 79Br, and 127I were 0.1, 2, 0.8, and 0.05 μg/L, respectively. Four THMs (chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform) were analyzed on a gas chromatograph12 with a mass selective detector.13 THM formation. SDS tests were conducted to determine THM formation. The chlorine dose was set to achieve 1.0�0.1 mg/L residual chlorine after 24 h incubation in headspace-free, organic-free amber bottles at 20� C without pH adjustment. Residual chlorine was determined using an N,N-diethyl-1,4-phenylenediamine sulfate reagent and the measurement program in a spectrophotometer. Ascorbic acid was used to quench residual chlorine before THM analysis. Turbidity was also measured after chlorination and before quenching to evaluate the influence of residual Ag on finished water quality.

The BIF is calculated using molar concentrations of DBPs by accounting for the number of Br atoms in halogenated organic DBPs. For example, BIF is calculated as shown in Eq 5 for the four THMs (THM4) (Obolensky & Singer 2005): BIFTHM4 =

0 × CHCl3 + 1 × CHBrCl2 + 2 × CHClBr2 + 3 × CHBr3 ½CHCl3 + CHBrCl2 + CHClBr2 + CHBr3 � × 3 ð5Þ

with BIFTHM4 ranging between 0 (no brominated THM) to 1 (all bromoform).

MINEQL modeling. A chemical modeling software14 was used to model the precipitation reactions during SAC. The main components selected for calculations were Br– (2.5 μM), Cl–, and Ag+. The influence of carbonate, phosphate, and acetate was also considered.

GA N ET A L. | JU N E 2 0 18 • 11 0 :6 | JO UR N A L A WW A

15

FIGURE 1

Residual concentrations of bromide (A), iodide (B), and chloride (C) in waters after silver-amended coagulation normalized by initial ion concentration (C/C0)

Ag+—silver ion, Br–—bromide ion, Cl–—chloride ion, GW— groundwater, SW—surface water, WW—wastewater

16

G AN E T A L . | J UN E 20 18 • 1 10 :6 | J OU RN A L A W W A

Acetate was considered model carboxylic acid that has similar Ag complexation potential as NOM. Most modeling conditions plotted were set at 20 C and pH 7.0. Additional modeling showed higher SI values for AgBrs and AgCls at 5 C compared with 20 C. Simulated DOC removal and THM formation using empirical models. A model water was selected for simulating THM formation, where the water contained elevated specific ultraviolet absorbance (SUVA), DOC, and Br levels. Similar waters were previously modeled in regions affected by Br discharges (Kolb et al. 2017, Wang et al. 2017, Good & VanBriesen 2016). The initial model water quality was selected such that using alum coagulation alone would be difficult to achieve the THM MCL: 5 mg/L DOC, 0.15 cm-1 UV254, 200 μg/L Br–, and pH 7.5, 20 C. A chlorine dose was set at a Cl2: DOC ratio of 1 mg/mg with a 24 h contact time.

Simulated alum doses ranged from 0 to 50 mg/L, and Ag doses ranged from 0 to 22.5 μM. DOC removal by alum was simulated using established models (Edwards 1997). Br– removal by silver salt was assumed to be 0.12 μM Br–/μM Ag+ dosed, based on earlier unpublished experimental data. Individual and total THM formation was predicted using empirical relationships for alum coagulated waters (Amy et al. 1998). Take, for example, this equation for THM4: THM4 = 100.651 [DOC]0.752 [Cl2]0.246 [Br–]0.185 [Time]0.258, where DOC is in mg/L and Time is reaction time (h) after a specific chlorine dose (Cl2 in mg Cl2/L) at a given Br level (Br– in μg/L) is added to water. These empirical models for alum coagulated waters were developed at pH 7.5 and 20 C. Many other empirical DBP formation models exist (Ged et al. 2015), but the alum coagulated model was applied here because it closely matches with the concept of amending traditional coagulation with simultaneous Ag addition. Furthermore, initial THM modeling indicated that alum addition alone in the target water would not be able to achieve the 80 μg/L MCL for THM4.

Mammalian cell cytotoxicity on Chinese hamster ovary cells was selected as a toxicity indicator in this study because of individual THM species (Plewa et al. 2002). The predicted relative toxicity was estimated following previously published methodology (Plewa et al. 2017, Krasner et al. 2016, Smith et al. 2010). Median lethal concentration (LC50) values represent the concentration of an individual THM species that induces 50% viability of Chinese hamster ovary cells for 72 h exposure compared with the negative control. LC50 values for chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform are 9.62 × 10−3, 1.15 × 10−2, 5.35 × 10−3, and 3.95 × 10−3 M, respectively (Plewa et al. 2002). The predicted relative cytotoxicity was calculated by dividing the detected individual THM concentrations (M) by the corresponding LC50 value.

FIGURE 2

Influence of silver dose and Cl–:Br– ratios in different waters on bromide removal by silver-amended coagulation

Ag+—silver ion, Br–—bromide ion, Cl–—chloride ion, GW— groundwater, SW—surface water, WW—wastewater

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Silver-amended alum coagulation removal of Br–, I–, and Cl . As shown in Figure 1, part A, Br– removal increased during SAC compared with alum alone. This indicates Ag is responsible for Br– removal during coagulation.

Br– removal varied with different water qualities. Lower Br– removals were observed in WW, which was attributed to higher initial Br– concentration (426 μg/L) and potentially a greater number of competing ions (e.g., chloride, phosphate, carbonate) or organics to complex with Ag+ (Table 1). Removal of Br– in WW was 12, 23, 34, and ~50% for Ag+:Br– molar ratio dosages of 15, 20, 50, and 100, respectively. All Ag+:Br– molar ratios used were greater than unity (i.e., SI > 0 in Eq 4 for silver bromide). Although Br– removal in high chloride and high Br WW was not complete, silver salt– amended coagulation performed much better in typical source water samples (SW or GW). More than 85% Br– removal occurred at an Ag+:Br– molar ratio of >50 in SW and GW samples. At a 20 Ag+:Br– molar ratio, the percentage Br removed (98 > 72 > 47 > 30%) was consistent with the water containing lower to higher chloride concentrations (SW 3 > SW 2 > SW 1 > GW) as reported in Table 1.

Figure 2 shows the Br– removal normalized to the amount of Ag dosed (Δmol Br–/mol Ag+). With the exception of SW 3, Δmol Br–/mol Ag+ remained constant within a water sample. When comparing waters, the Br– removal capacity was inversely proportional to the mg Cl:mg Br ratio of the water (i.e., higher Cl:Br –

ratios resulted in lower Br– removal capacity). This further confirms that the Br– removal is primarily controlled by the amount of Ag+ added and the amount of Cl– in the water, so the relative Br to chloride concentration becomes a key driver for the effectiveness of Br removal.

Bromide removal occurs when AgBrs precipitates from solution, but these precipitates can be small in size and not well removed during sedimentation.

Approximately 10% higher Br removal was achieved in Ag salt–amended coagulation than silver salt alone (data not shown). AgBrs precipitates can be enmeshed or trapped in alum floc (Pivokonsky et al. 2006, Edzwald & Van Benschoten 1990) and achieved better AgBrs removal during sedimentation.

Halide ions other than Br were also simultaneously removed by SAC. As shown in Figure 1, part B, higher removal (65–95%) of I– than Br– was observed during SAC. Cl– is also consumed by Ag+ by forming AgCls (Eq 3) during coagulation. For the higher initial chloride waters shown in Figure 1, a lower percentage of chloride is removed. Whereas Br– and Cl– removal continued to improve upon higher Ag dosages, I– removal reached a plateau greater than five times the Ag dosages (Figure 1). Although the SI for AgIs is >0 for the initial Ag dose, Ag is consumed by chloride and Br (forming AgCls and AgBrs), which lowers the available Ag+ in solution. Thus, the lower residual I– and Ag+ in solution may not exceed the SI for AgIs, but these species were not explicitly measured.

Effect of chloride competition on Br removal. Separate experiments conducted in ultrapure water spiked only with silver nitrate and sodium Br resulted in 0.89 mol Br– removal/mol Ag+ dosed, which is very close to the stoichiometric value of 1 mol Br–/mol Ag+. However, Br– removal capacity was much lower in SWs (<0.16 mol Br–/mol Ag+) even with higher Ag+ doses (Figure 2). This result indicates that components existing in drinking waters (e.g., Cl– and NOM) reacted with the majority of Ag+ during SAC. Results of equilibrium modeling also concluded that Cl– in water was a key competitor to Br– removal (Figure 3, part A). When Cl–:Br– increased from 10 to 250 mol/mol (4–111 mg Cl/mg Br), Br– removal decreased from ~100 to 58% at a Ag+:Br– molar dosing ratio of 100. Correspondingly, the Br– removal capacity, at a constant Ag+ dose (Ag+:Br– = 10 mol/mol), reduced from 0.1 to 0.03 mol Br–/mol Ag+ when Cl– level increased from 10 to 250 mol Cl/mol Br (Figure 3, part B). However, the modeling did not fully predict jar test results. Although no Br– removal was expected when Cl–:Br– exceeded 500 mol/mol (222 mg Cl/mg Br) on the basis of the modeling result, 40 and 15% Br– removal was observed in SW 1 (525 mg Cl/mg Br) and GW (745 mg Cl/mg Br) in jar tests at a Ag+:Br– molar dose ratio of 15. Differences between the modeling and GA N ET A L. | JU N E 2 0 18 • 11 0 :6 | JO UR N A L A WW A

17

FIGURE 3

Software simulation for (A) effects of chloride concentration on bromide removal with silver nitrate addition to water containing 200 μg/L (2.5 μM) of bromide, and (B) distribution of silver solids and aqueous species at a Ag+:Br– molar ratio of 10

Ag+—silver ion, AgBr—silver bromide, AgCl—silver chloride, Br–—bromide ion, Cl–—chloride ion, GW—groundwater, SW—surface water, WW—wastewater

jar tests may be due to Ksp values in the model for Eqs 1 through 3 and conditions in real water matrixes.

Notably, comparable Br– removal capacity was observed between SAC and Ag-impregnated activated carbon for the low chloride SW (SW 3) from South Carolina (Table 2). This indicated that SAC could be a promising alternative Br– removal treatment when low chloride source waters impacted by Br-rich industrial discharges (e.g., coal-fired power plant WW).

Moreover, DOC in waters did not show considerable influence on Br– removal during SAC. SW sample 2 had the highest DOC (10.76 mg/L) among the five water samples, but it exhibited about twice the Br– removal capacity as SW 1, which had 3.49 mg/L DOC. Coagulation efficiency during SAC. DOC, UV254, SUVA254, and turbidity values were measured to determine coagulation efficiency. Coagulation with alum alone (15 mg/L) removed 5% of DOC, 13% of UV254, and 8% of SUVA254 for SW sample 1, and comparable removal of DOC, UV254, and SUVA254 was observed during SAC (Figure 4, part A). The removals were stable with increasing Ag+ dose. This indicated that NOM removal during SAC was mainly attributed to alum.

Even though complexation between Ag+ and NOM components was possible (Sikora & Stevenson 1988), its influence on NOM removal appears minor.

The turbidity of SW 1 was reduced by alum coagulation from 4.88 ntu in the raw water to 0.45 ntu after sedimentation. Settled water turbidity increased dramatically from 0.51 to 45.2 ntu when Ag+:Br– molar ratio

18

G AN E T A L . | J UN E 20 18 • 1 10 :6 | J OU RN A L A W W A

increased from 1 to 100 (Figure 4, part B). However, the turbidity of SW 1 reduced to 0.25 0.5 ntu in all cases after filtration (0.7 μm). The increase in settled turbidity was caused by precipitation of silver halide particles, which remained suspended in suspension (i.e., exhibited poor settling characteristics), but those particles could be effectively removed by filtration.

However, such high turbidities would be unacceptable at full scale, but may only occur in high chloride waters.

Future pilot testing would need to closely evaluate settleability of silver solids and turbidity removal by filtration. Turbidity after chlorination of filtered SW 1 samples was not affected by the silver salt; thus, formation of solids in distribution systems would be unlikely. Overall, low doses of Ag+ would not be expected to significantly increase turbidity, but this should be further assessed in pilot testing.

THM formation control by SAC. SDS testing was used to investigate THM formation in SW 1 after SAC. The alum-only treated water formed 44 μg/L of THM4 (5.8 μg/L chloroform, 13.2 μg/L dichlorobromomethane, 18.4 μg/L dibromochloromethane, and 6.5 μg/L bromoform). In samples treated by SAC, the THM4 concentration decreased from 44 to 28 μg/L. However, the THM4 molar concentration (micromolar) was almost unchanged at ~0.23 μM with increasing Ag+:Br– molar ratio dosages of 1:100 during alum coagulation (Figure 5). This is expected because silver salt had a minor effect on NOM removal (i.e., molar THM organic precursor concentration remained unchanged).

Ag+—silver ion, Br–—bromide ion, Cl–—chloride ion, DI—deionized, GW—groundwater, SIAC—silver-impregnated activated carbon, SIGO—silver-impregnated graphene oxide, SW—surface water, WW—wastewater

Kidd et al. (2018) 1,182

1,182 0.06

0.06 4.5

5.2 0.8

1.75 2.5

2.5 13

29 SIGO

SIAC Arizona Surface water SW 1

Arizona Surface water SW 1

This study

Chen et al. (2017) 129:1,142

— 0.89

0.12–0.29 2.4

1 2.23

0.96–2.28 3.3

2.5 2.5

7.9 SIAC

Salt —

South Carolina

Deionized water

Surface water

DI water

Seven waters (Charleston, etc.)

This study

This study 1,677

1,950 0.004

0.013 5

5 0.11

0.16 2.5

5.3 26.7

12.5 Salt Arizona

Arizona

Groundwater

Wastewater effluent

GW

WW

Salt

This study 34 0.16 5 2.0 12.5 South Carolina Surface water SW 3

Salt

2.5

This study

This study 1,183

360 0.023

0.013 5

5 0.29

0.17 2.5

2.5 12.5

12.5 Salt

Salt Arizona Surface water

Arizona Surface water

SW 2

Location Water Source Water Sample

SW 1

Reference Molar Ratio Cl–:Br– ΔBr–/ Ag+ mol Molar Ratio Ag+:Br– Bromide Removal μM Initial Br– μM Silver Dose μM Silver Type

Comparison of bromide removal by per mole silver of this study with other studies TABLE 2

In accordance with Br– removal by silver salt, the BIF, which indicates the extent of brominated THM formation, dramatically reduced with increasing silver salt dose. The BIF for the water after alum coagulation was 0.46, indicating the dominance of brominated THM species (bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform [TBM]). After SAC, BIF decreased to 0.27, 0.19, 0.08, and 0.05 at Ag+:Br– molar ratios of 15, 20, 50, and 100, respectively.

Therefore, SAC proportionately reduced brominated THM formation. Reduction of other Br-DBPs, such as bromate and haloacetic acids, could be expected because of the removal of Br– and should be evaluated in future research.

Residual aluminum, Ag, and nitrate after SAC. Residual aluminum and Ag concentrations were measured after SAC because of the risk of excess metals. The SMCLs for drinking water are 0.05–0.2 mg/L for aluminum because of the potential to produce colored water, and 0.1 mg/L for Ag because of its potential to cause skin discoloration or graying of the sclera. Compared with alum coagulation, residual aluminum remained stable with increasing silver salt dose (Figure 6, part A).

Residual aluminum levels in waters after SAC were <0.2 mg/L except for SW 2. More NOM-aluminum soluble complexes may occur in SW 2 with high DOC (10.76 mg/L) and UV254 (0.115 cm−1).

In most cases, the soluble Ag+ was below the SMCL of 0.1 mg/L (Figure 6, part B). Excess Ag residuals occurred in SW 3 when Ag+:Br– molar ratio was >20.

Residual Ag increased to 0.39 and 1.35 mg/L in SW 3 at Ag+:Br– molar ratio of 50 and 100, respectively.

Correspondingly, the Cl– concentration in SW 3 reduced from 3.0 to <0.3 mg/L. Therefore, there is a risk of excess Ag in finished waters in low Cl− waters; however, such conditions are unlikely, because nearly all the Br– would be removed at this point from the dosed Ag. When the proper Ag dose is added in SAC, it is highly unlikely to exceed the SMCL for Ag. Ag+ can form complexes with common acids (e.g., humic substances) or inorganic anions, and was assessed in modeling.

Phosphate can complex and precipitate with Ag+ (e.g., Ag3PO4 − Ksp = 8.89 × 10−17). However, at phosphate levels observed in drinking waters (Gunawan et al. 2017, Hudson et al. 2000), there was no associated precipitation or complexation of Ag+. Ag+ also forms soluble complexes with humic substances, which we modeled using acetate ions. Software modeling suggests that such soluble complexes represent a very small fraction (<1%) of the Ag for the types of lower Ag dosages applied here in the presence of excess Br– or Cl–.

Nitrates in water pose potential toxicity concerns.

The MCL for nitrate is 10 mg NO3-N/L. Adding silver nitrate salts will increase nitrate in water. For example, to remove 100 μg/L of Br using a Ag+:Br– molar dose ratio of 100 during coagulation results in adding GA N ET A L. | JU N E 2 0 18 • 11 0 :6 | JO UR N A L A WW A

19

FIGURE 4

DOC, UV254, and SUVA removal (A) and turbidity change (B) in SW 1 with silver-amended coagulation

DOC—dissolved organic carbon, SUVA254—carbon-specific ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nm, SW—surface water, UV254—ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nm

1.8 mg NO3-N/L to water. Therefore, it is unlikely that even very high silver nitrate dosages would affect compliance with the nitrate MCL.

FIGURE 5

THM formation and BIF for samples treated with silver-amended coagulation

Ag+—silver ion, BIF—bromine incorporation factor, Br–—bromide ion, DBCM—dibromochloromethane, DCBM—bromodichloromethane, TBM—bromoform, TCM—chloroform, THM—trihalomethanes

20

G AN E T A L . | J UN E 20 18 • 1 10 :6 | J OU RN A L A W W A

Trade-off between TOC and Br removal in THM management. The cost of using SAC to control Br–, TOC, THM, and the corresponding calculated toxicity associated with the THM was assessed using several quotes for high-grade silver nitrate (~US$400/kg AgNO3) and alum (~US$184/ton); costs of alum and silver salt were estimated on the basis of industry information (Hendricks 2006). A model water was considered in which alum addition alone could not achieve the THM MCL. Figure 7, part A, shows the relative costs of adding silver nitrate alone (no alum) or in conjunction with increasing cost of higher alum dosages for controlling THM formation. Figure 7 is color coded: blue regions represent the ability for this fictional water utility to comply with the 80 μg/L THM4 MCL, based on a 24 h contact time and maintaining a free chlorine residual.

Figure 7, part A, shows that the utility could not decrease THM4 to <80 μg/L by alum addition alone, and such a utility would traditionally have to pursue use of granulated activated carbon or switch from free chlorine to chloramines. However, by practicing Agamended alum coagulation, the utility could comply with the MCL while still using free chlorine. Figure 7, part B, shows the same model simulations by plotting relative toxicity from THM against the remaining concentrations of Br– or TOC. The relative toxicity is normalized to predicted toxicity without any TOC or Br removal (i.e., upper right-hand corner of Figure 7, part B). The slightly steeper slope for the y-axis slope (alum) than the x-axis slope (Ag) indicates the ability to reduce THM levels and associated calculated toxicity through

FIGURE 6

Residual aluminum (A) and silver (B) after silver-amended coagulation

Ag+—silver ion, Al3+—aluminum, Br–—bromide ion, GW—groundwater, secondary MCL—maximum contaminant level set by National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, SW—surface water, WW—wastewater

alum addition. An oddity of these predictions is the slight increase in THM and relative toxicity at the lowest residual Br levels (i.e., highest Ag dosages); this is

FIGURE 7

probably not realistic and represents exceeding the lower boundaries for Br concentration applied in the empirical THM prediction models.

Predicted treatment cost and corresponding THM formation and toxicity reduction when using silveramended coagulation

The initial water quality and chlorination conditions: 5 mg/L DOC, 0.15 cm−1 UV254, 200 μg/L Br–, pH 7.5, 15 C, 24 h chlorination with chlorine dose at a mass ratio of Cl2:DOC = 1:1 Br–—bromide ion, DOC—dissolved organic carbon, THM—trihalomethane, THM4—sum of four trihalomethanes, USEPA—US Environmental Protection Agency, UV254—ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nm

GA N ET A L. | JU N E 2 0 18 • 11 0 :6 | JO UR N A L A WW A

21

The example highlights two important points. First, from a THM-based potential toxicity reduction viewpoint, DOC removal by alum reduced toxicity of the chlorinated water more than Br removal by SAC. Second, even for this low Ag dose, which was found suitable only for the lower Cl:Br ratios studied, the cost of adding Ag to achieve target THMs was nearly 100 times higher than the cost of alum. However, for utilities affected by upstream industrial discharges or having periodic high Br events (e.g., seasonal use of brominated antifouling compounds in industrial cooling towers and coal-fired power plants discharges), Ag addition might emerge as cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS This study explored the feasibility of SAC to remove Br– from water. Promising Br removal capacity (0.16 mol Br–/mol Ag dosed) was obtained in water with low chloride concentrations (i.e., low Cl:Br ratio water). Although NOM did not appear to influence the efficiency of Br removal, Br removal efficiencies decreased with higher Cl/Br waters. As future research quantifies the health risks associated with iodinated DBPs, additional research is needed on selectively removing I– and Br– over Cl–.

Consistent with Br– removal, the BIF and the mass concentration of THM4 greatly decreased after SAC. The reduction of THM4 and the corresponding toxicity

by SAC was caused by the combined effect of NOM removal by alum and Br– removal by silver salt.

Moreover, treated water quality after SAC showed DOC, UV254, and SUVA removal comparable to conventional coagulation. Residual aluminum and Ag concentrations in waters after SAC achieved corresponding drinking water standards in most cases. Considering the cost, SAC could be a feasible and temporary Br– removal and DBP control strategy when source waters are impacted by Br-containing WW discharges or seasonally high Br–. Future work should focus on pilot testing SAC on waters with low Cl–:Br– ratios and high Br–: TOC ratios, where Ag addition may have higher efficiencies. Recovery and potential reuse of Ag from the settled sludges, containing aluminum and Ag, should also be considered to increase cost efficiency, including separation of Ag from alum sludge through chemical reduction (e.g., NaBH4) of AgCls or AgIs to Ag+ (Murphy et al. 1991). It may be less beneficial to apply Ag with ferric chloride, rather than aluminum sulfate coagulants because of chloride competition.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was partially funded by the National Science Foundation through the Nanotechnology-Enabled Water Treatment Nanosystems Engineering Research Center (EEC-1449500).

22

G AN E T A L . | J UN E 20 18 • 1 10 :6 | J OU RN A L A W W A

ENDNOTES 1

PB-900, Phipps & Bird, Richmond, Va. Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo. Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo. 4 GF/F glass microfilter, Whatman, Maidstone, United Kingdom 5 TOC-VCHS analyzer, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan 6 DR5000 UV–Vis, Hach Company, Loveland, Colo.

7 2100P turbidimeter, Hach Company, Loveland, Colo.

8 Orion, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, Mass.

9 ICS 5000, AS12A column, Dionex, Sunnyvale, Calif.

10 X-Series II ICP/MS, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, Mass.

11 ASX-520, Teledyne Cetac, Omaha, Neb. 12 6890 N gas chromatograph, Agilent, Santa Clara, Calif.

13 5973 Network mass selective detector, Agilent, Santa Clara, Calif.

14 MINEQL+ 5.0, Environmental Research Software, Hallowell, Maine 2 3

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Wenhui Gan is a PhD candidate in environmental engineering in the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, where she received her bachelor’s degree. Her research interests include drinking water and wastewater treatment technologies and disinfection byproducts formation and control. She is currently a visiting scholar working with Paul Westerhoff at Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz., in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment. Arjun K. Venkatesan is a research scientist in the New York State Center for Clean Water Technology and is an adjunct professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, N.Y. Onur G. Apul is an assistant professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering department at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. Francois Perreault is an assistant professor at the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment at Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.

Xin Yang is a professor in the Laboratory of Environmental Pollution Control and Remediation Technology at Sun Yat-sen University. Paul Westerhoff (to whom correspondence may be addressed) is a deputy director in the NanoSystems Engineering Research Center for Nanotechnology-Enabled Water Treatment Technologies and is a regents professor in the Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Program at the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, POB 873005, Tempe, AZ 85287-3005 USA; p.westerhoff@asu.edu. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1049

PEER REVIEW Date of submission: 09/06/17 Date of acceptance: 02/08/18

REFERENCES

Amy, G.; Siddiqui, M.; Ozekin, K.; Zhu, H.; & Wang, C., 1998. Empirically Based Models for Predicting Chlorination and Ozonation By-Products: Haloacetic Acids, Chloral Hydrate, and Bromate.

EPA Report CX 819579. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington.

Hendricks, D.W., 2006. Water Treatment Unit Processes: Physical and Chemical. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.

Amy, G.; Siddiqui, M.; Zhai, W.; DeBroux, J.; & Odem, W., 1994. Survey of Bromide in Drinking Water and Impacts on DBP Formation.

Water Research Foundation, Denver.

Hudson, J.J.; Taylor, W.D.; & Schindler, D.W., 2000. Phosphate Concentrations in Lakes. Nature, 406:6791:54. https://doi.org/10.

1038/35017531.

Bichsel, Y. & von Gunten, U., 2000. Formation of Iodo-Trihalomethanes During Disinfection and Oxidation of Iodide-Containing Waters.

Environmental Science & Technology, 34:13:223. https://doi.org/10.

1021/es9914590.

Jones, B.M.; Sakaji, R.H.; & Daughton, C.G., 1985. Effects of Ozonation and Ultraviolet-Irradiation on Biodegradability of Oil-Shale Waste-Water Organic Solutes. Water Research, 19:11:1421. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(85)90309-4.

Chen, C.; Apul, O.G.; & Karanfil, T., 2017. Removal of Bromide From Surface Waters Using Silver Impregnated Activated Carbon.

Water Research, 113:223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.

01.019.

Kidd, J.; Barrios, A.; Apul, O.; Perrault, F.; & Westerhoff, P., 2018.

Removal of Bromide From Surface Water: A Comparison Between Silver-Impregnated Graphene Oxide and Silver-Impregnated Powdered Activated Carbon. Environmental Engineering Science. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2017.0485.

Clark, R.M.; Adams, J.Q.; & Lykins, B.W., 1994. DBP Control in Drinking Water: Cost and Performance. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 120:4:759. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372 (1994)120:4(759).

Cooper, W.J.; Zika, R.G.; & Steinhauer, M.S., 1985. Bromide-Oxidant Interactions and THM Formation: A Literature Review. Journal AWWA, 77:4:116. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.1985.tb05520.x.

Cowman, G.A. & Singer, P.C., 1996. Effect of Bromide Ion on Haloacetic Acid Speciation Resulting From Chlorination and Chloramination of Aquatic Humic Substances. Environmental Science & Technology, 30:1:16. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9406905.

Davis, S.N.; Whittemore, D.O.; & Fabryka-Martin, J., 1998. Uses of Chloride/Bromide Ratios in Studies of Potable Water. Groundwater, 36:2:338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1998.tb01099.x.

Davies, R.L. & Etris, S.F., 1997. The Development and Functions of Silver in Water Purification and Disease Control. Catalysis Today, 36:1:107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5861(96)00203-9.

Echigo, S.; Itoh, S.; Natsui, T.; Araki, T.; & Ando, R., 2004. Contribution of Brominated Organic Disinfection By-Products to the Mutagenicity of Drinking Water. Water Science & Technology, 50:5:321.

Edwards, M., 1997. Predicting DOC Removal During Enhanced Coagulation. Journal AWWA, 89:5:78. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.

1551-8833.1997.tb08229.x.

Edzwald, J.K. & Van Benschoten, J.E., 1990. Aluminum Coagulation of Natural Organic Matter. Chemical Water and Wastewater Treatment (Hahn, H.H. & Klute, R., editors). Springer, Berlin, 341.

Ged, E.C.; Chadik, P.A.; Boyer, T.H., 2015. Predictive Capability of Chlorination Disinfection Byproducts Models. Journal of Environment Management, 149:253.

Gong, T.T. & Zhang, X.R., 2015. Detection, Identification and Formation of New Iodinated Disinfection Byproducts in Chlorinated Saline Wastewater Effluents. Water Research, 68:77. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.watres.2014.09.041.

Kolb, C.; Francis, R.A.; & VanBriesen, J.M., 2017. Disinfection Byproduct Regulatory Compliance Surrogates and Bromide-Associated Risk. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 58: 191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2017.05.043.

Krasner, S.W.; Lee, T.C.F.; Westerhoff, P.; Fischer, N.; Hanigan, D.; Karanfil, T.; Beita-Sandí, W.; Taylor-Edmonds, L.; & Andrews, R.C., 2016. Granular Activated Carbon Treatment May Result in Higher Predicted Genotoxicity in the Presence of Bromide. Environmental Science & Technology, 50:17:9583. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.

6b02508.

Le Roux, J.; Gallard, H.; & Croué, J.-P., 2012. Formation of NDMA and Halogenated DBPs by Chloramination of Tertiary Amines: The Influence of Bromide Ion. Environmental Science & Technology, 46:3:1581. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203785s.

Murphy, J.A.; Ackerman, A.H.; & Heeren, J.K., 1991. Recovery of Silver From and Some Uses for Waste Silver-Chloride. Journal of Chemical Education, 68:7:602. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed068p602.

Obolensky, A. & Singer, P.C., 2005. Halogen Substitution Patterns Among Disinfection Byproducts in the Information Collection Rule Database. Environmental Science & Technology, 39:8:2719. https:// doi.org/10.1021/es0489339.

Pivokonsky, M.; Kloucek, O.; & Pivokonska, L., 2006. Evaluation of the Production, Composition and Aluminum and Iron Complexation of Algogenic Organic Matter. Water Research, 40:16:3045. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.06.028.

Plewa, M.J.; Wagner, E.D.; & Richardson, S.D., 2017. TIC-Tox: A Preliminary Discussion on Identifying the Forcing Agents of DBP-Mediated Toxicity of Disinfected Water. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 58:Suppl. C:208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jes.2017.04.014.

Gong, C.; Zhang, Z.; Qian, Q.; Liu, D.; Cheng, Y.; & Yuan, G., 2013.

Removal of Bromide From Water by Adsorption on Silver-Loaded Porous Carbon Spheres to Prevent Bromate Formation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 218:333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.12.059.

Plewa, M.J.; Muellner, M.G.; Richardson, S.D.; Fasanot, F.; Buettner, K.M.; Woo, Y.T.; McKague, A.B.; & Wagner, E.D., 2008.

Occurrence, Synthesis, and Mammalian Cell Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Haloacetamides: An Emerging Class of Nitrogenous Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts.

Environmental Science & Technology, 42:3:955. https://doi.org/10.

1021/es071754h.

Good, K.D. & VanBriesen, J.M., 2016. Current and Potential Future Bromide Loads From Coal-Fired Power Plants in the Allegheny River Basin and Their Effects on Downstream Concentrations.

Environmental Science & Technology, 50:17:9078. https://doi. org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01770.

Plewa, M.J.; Wagner, E.D.; Richardson, S.D.; Thruston, A.D.J.; Woo, Y.T.; & McKague, A.B., 2004. Chemical and Biological Characterization of Newly Discovered Iodoacid Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts. Environmental Science & Technology, 38:18:4713. https://doi.org/10.1021/es049971v.

Gunawan, C.; Marquis, C.P.; Amal, R.; Sotiriou, G.A.; Rice, S.A.; & Harry, E.J., 2017. Widespread and Indiscriminate Nanosilver Use: Genuine Potential for Microbial Resistance. ACS Nano, 11:4:3438. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.7b01166.

Plewa, M.J.; Kargalioglu, Y.; Vankerk, D.; Minear, R.A.; & Wagner, E.D., 2002. Mammalian Cell Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity Analysis of Drinking Water Disinfection By-Products. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 40:2:134. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.10092.

GA N ET A L. | JU N E 2 0 18 • 11 0 :6 | JO UR N A L A WW A

23

Polo, A.M.S.; Velo-Gala, I.; Sánchez-Polo, M.; von Gunten, U.; López-Peñalver, J.J.; & Rivera-Utrilla, J., 2016. Halide Removal From Aqueous Solution by Novel Silver-Polymeric Materials.

Science of the Total Environment, 573:1125.

Regli, S.; Chen, J.; Messner, M.; Elovitz, M.S.; Letkiewicz, F.J.; Pegram, R.A.; Pepping, T.J.; Richardson, S.D.; & Wright, J.M., 2015. Estimating Potential Increased Bladder Cancer Risk Due to Increased Bromide Concentrations in Sources of Disinfected Drinking Waters. Environmental Science & Technology, 49:22: 13094. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03547.

Richardson, S.D.; Fasano, F.; Ellington, J.J.; Crumley, F.G.; Buettner, K.M.; Evans, J.J.; Blount, B.C.; Silva, L.K.; Waite, T.J.; & Luther, G.W., 2008. Occurrence and Mammalian Cell Toxicity of Iodinated Disinfection Byproducts in Drinking Water.

Environmental Science & Technology, 42:22:8330. https://doi. org/10.1021/es801169k.

Richardson, S.D.; Plewa, M.J.; Wagner, E.D.; Schoeny, R.; & DeMarini, D.M., 2007. Occurrence, Genotoxicity, and Carcinogenicity of Regulated and Emerging Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water: A Review and Roadmap for Research. Mutation Research, 636:1–3:178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. mrrev.2007.09.001.

Sánchez-Polo, M.; Rivera-Utrilla, J.; Salhi, E.; & Von Gunten, U., 2006.

Removal of Bromide and Iodide Anions From Drinking Water by Silver-Activated Carbon Aerogels. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 300:1:437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2006.03.037.

Short, M.A.; de Caritat, P.; & McPhail, D.C., 2017. Continental-Scale Variation in Chloride/Bromide Ratios of Wet Deposition. Science of the Total Environment, 574:1533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2016.08.161.

Sikora, F.J. & Stevenson, F.J., 1988. Silver Complexation by Humic Substances: Conditional Stability Constants and Nature of Reactive Sites. Geoderma, 42:3:353. https://doi.org/10.

1016/0016-7061(88)90011-0.

24

G AN E T A L . | J UN E 20 18 • 1 10 :6 | J OU RN A L A W W A

Singer, P.C., 1994. Control of Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 120:4:727.

Smith, E.M.; Plewa, M.J.; Lindell, C.L.; Richardson, S.D.; & Mitch, W.A., 2010. Comparison of Byproduct Formation in Waters Treated With Chlorine and Iodine: Relevance to Point-Of-Use Treatment.

Environmental Science & Technology, 44:22:8446. https://doi. org/10.1021/es102746u. von Gunten, U.; Salhi, E.; Schmidt, C.K.; & Arnold, W.A., 2010. Kinetics and Mechanisms of N-Nitrosodimethylamine Formation Upon Ozonation of N, N-Dimethylsulfamide-Containing Waters: Bromide Catalysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 44:15:5762. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1011862.

Wagner, E.D. & Plewa, M.J., 2017. CHO Cell Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity Analyses of Disinfection By-Products: An Updated Review. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 58:Suppl. C:64.

Wang, Y.X.; Small, M.J.; & VanBriesen, J.M., 2017. Assessing the Risk Associated With Increasing Bromide in Drinking Water Sources in the Monongahela River, Pennsylvania. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 143:3:10.

Watson, K.; Farré, M.; & Knight, N., 2012. Strategies for the Removal of Halides From Drinking Water Sources, and Their Applicability in Disinfection By-Product Minimisation: A Critical Review. Journal of Environmental Management, 110:276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2012.05.023.

Wilson, J.M. & Van Briesen, J.M., 2013. Source Water Changes and Energy Extraction Activities in the Monongahela River, 2009–2012.

Environmental Science & Technology, 47:21:12575. https://doi. org/10.1021/es402437n.

Yang, Y.; Komaki, Y.; Kimura, S.Y.; Hu, H.-Y.; Wagner, E.D.; Mariñas, B.J.; & Plewa, M.J., 2014. Toxic Impact of Bromide and Iodide on Drinking Water Disinfected With Chlorine or Chloramines. Environmental Science & Technology, 48:20:12362. https://doi.org/10.1021/es503621e.

Tideflex Mixing System: Science, with Simplicity. 速

See us at ACE, Booth 26076

For nearly two decades, the Tideflex速 Mixing System (TMS) has been providing cost-effective, clean drinking water to thousands of municipalities. Extensively CFD modeled, scale modeled and fieldvalidated, the TMS dramatically improves storage tank water quality by eliminating short circuiting and achieving complete mixing. The TMS is a green technology, requiring no outside energy source or maintenance, resulting in major cost savings over a minimum 30-year life. Tideflex速 Engineers work with you to custom design the optimum TMS for your tank or reservoir, along with a mixing and water age analysis to ensure complete mixing based on volume turnover. Active systems utilizing recirculation pumps are also available when required. Contact us today to find out more.

CFD MODELING AND SCALE MODELING

Circular Reservoirs

www.redvalve.com

Rectangular Reservoirs

|

412.279.0044

Elevated Tanks

NSF

速

Standpipes

United States Patent #7,104,279 Canadian Patent #2,409,009

Peer Reviewed

Expanded Summary

Using Existing Cascade Tray Aeration Infrastructure to Strip Total Trihalomethanes BENJAMIN A. YO A KU M A ND STE VE N J. DU RA N C EAU

Many small system water treatment plants (WTPs) reduced to below the detection limit (0.7 µg/L/species) employ cascade tray aeration to remove hydrogen sulfide after five passes through the tray aerator. and carbon dioxide from raw water. Many of these same To assess whether this treatment paradigm would be WTPs have difficulty complying with total trihalosuccessful on the full scale, BPWTP2—a full-scale small methane (TTHM) regulations. One potential solution for system plant—and its distribution system were monitored some of these WTPs is to recirculate water stored on site for eight months while operating a falling-cascade tray through the tray aerators to strip formed trihalomethanes. aerator with and without recirculation. Full-scale results To assess the efficacy of employing falling-cascade tray showed an approximate 40 µg/L TTHM reduction at aeration to reduce TTHMs in potable water, a pilot aeraseveral monitoring locations when recirculating cascade tor was constructed and operated in a recirculated mode. aeration was employed. This mode of recirculation helped Raw water was collected from Babson Park WTP 2 the utility comply with TTHM regulations. Several fac(BPWTP2), a small drinking water treatment plant located tors were identified that may help water purveyors assess in Polk County, Fla. (the treatment train for BPWTP2 is whether this treatment paradigm could be employed to shown in Figure 1). max Thewidth water= 37p9 was (actual placed 2incolumn a 208width L = manage Two column figure 39p9) TTHMs in their small systems. polyethylene tank prior to being dosed with bleach and then incubated for 48 h to allow TTHM formation to Corresponding author: Steven J. Duranceau is proceed. After incubation, the water was sampled for professor and director of the Environmental Systems TTHM content. The water was then recirculated through Engineering Institute in the Civil, Environmental and a pilot aerator, and water samples were collected after Construction Engineering Department, University of each pass through the aerator to test for TTHM content.

Central Florida, POB 162450, Orlando, FL 32816Pilot results showed that 56.5 µg/L of TTHMs could be 2450; steven.duranceau@ucf.edu.

FIGURE 1

Schematic of Babson Park Water Treatment Plant 2’s treatment train Sodium hypochlorite

Cascade tray aerator

Well pump

Blended phosphate

150,000 gal ground storage tank

15,000 gal hydropneumatic tank High service pump

Sodium hypochlorite Distribution system

Recirculation pump Floridan Aquifer The cascade aerator located on top of the ground storage tank was historically used for sulfide and carbon dioxide treatment. Addition of a recirculation pump allowed for the cascade aerator to also be used for stripping of trihalomethanes that formed while water was stored on site.

26

Y OAKUM & DURAN C E A U | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Peer Reviewed

Expanded Summary

Nanofiltration to Improve Process Efficiency of Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Using Ion Exchange JULIE A. KO RAK, RIC H A RD G. H U GGINS, A ND MI G U EL S . AR I AS -PAI C

Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) in drinking water sources presents a risk to human health, and strong-base anion (SBA) exchange is a best available technology for removing the predominant form of Cr(VI), chromate, from source waters. SBA resin eventually becomes exhausted for chromium removal and is regenerated using a concentrated salt solution. Sodium chloride (NaCl) with concentrations of approximately 2 N is commonly used. The solution volume typically ranges from 3 to 6 bed volumes (BVs), depending on regeneration objectives. SBA resin regeneration produces a concentrated waste brine composed primarily of unused regenerant salt, with lower concentrations of other anions removed during water treatment.

Minimizing waste brine produced from chromium SBA exchange processes is important, since disposal of potentially hazardous brines is the major environmental and economic consideration. This study investigated the use of nanofiltration (NF) to manage waste brine by determining the practical limits of waste minimization and regenerant salt recovery and by evaluating how coupling resin regeneration and NF can improve overall SBA exchange performance.

Three waste brines (brines A, B, and C) were collected from full-scale and pilot-scale SBA exchange processes.

NF experiments were conducted as a batch concentration process using crossflow filtration cells at a constant transmembrane pressure of 250 psi. Brines A, B, and C achieved 81, 79, and 44% recovery, respectively. The recovery of brine A (full-scale brine) was flux-limited at 81% as sulfate concentrated in the retentate, whereas brines B and C were limited by minimum volume constraints of the NF system. Divalent anions (i.e., sulfate, chromate, and other trace metals) exhibited rejections >0.9. Monovalent anions (i.e., chloride and nitrate) exhibited low to negative rejections that became increasingly negative with increased recovery and decreased flux.

System-specific, empirical relationships were developed between membrane flux, sulfate concentration, and chloride rejection.

A batch NF model was developed by discretizing the filtration process into small recovery increments. The model simulated the batch treatment of waste brine and was designed to terminate when the membrane flux decreased to 5 L/m2/h as a result of sulfate concentration. Pairing the

NF model with regeneration data allows for tradeoffs between chemical use, waste production, and regeneration efficiency to be compared between approaches.

NF could decrease the waste brine volume requiring disposal to less than 1 BV with little sensitivity to initial regeneration solution volume. Conventional tradeoffs associated with using more volume to fully elute nitrate after chromium elution are nearly eliminated. Since sulfate controls flux and completely elutes from the resin before chromium, the total mass of sulfate in the waste brine would not depend on regeneration termination point beyond 2 BVs. When more volume is used to elute nitrate, a higher NF batch recovery can be achieved as a result of lower initial sulfate concentrations, yielding similar final waste volumes regardless of initial regeneration solution volume.

NF can greatly reduce chemical costs by recovering regenerant salt (NaCl) that would otherwise be lost to disposal. For example, the resin used in this study has a capacity of approximately 1.6 eq/L. If regeneration requires 3 BVs of 2 N NaCl, a maximum of 27% of the chloride in the regeneration solution could exchange with resin, and 73% would pass to the waste brine. NF can recover 50 to 80% of the salt needed for the next regeneration depending on initial regeneration solution volume. At 55% recovery, the fraction of regenerant salt lost to waste would decrease from 73 to 18%. Recovering regenerant salt from waste brine using NF would reduce chemical operating costs for similar conditions as tested.

NF system size was modeled for different regeneration scenarios. For most cases, the time-averaged flux to achieve the maximized recovery ranged from 13 to 31 L/m2/h.

To assess the required system size, the membrane area needed to concentrate the waste brine within 8 h was determined iteratively. Most regeneration scenarios would require two to four 4 in. × 40 in. membrane elements for every 1,000 L of resin. This membrane area is appealing for mobile treatment units that could serve a network of groundwater wells applying the SBA exchange process and reduce the operating costs of treatment.

Corresponding author: Julie A. Korak is an environmental engineer at the Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of the Interior, POB 25007, Denver, CO 80225 USA; jkorak@usbr.gov.

K O R A K ET A L. | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

27

Peer Reviewed

Expanded Summary

Determination of Asbestos–Cement Pipe Deterioration Rate Using Accelerated Acid Degradation A BIY M. GHIRMAY A ND C L INTO N M . WO O D

Deterioration of asbestos–cement (AC) water pipe is a major issue for many water utilities throughout the United States, as AC pipe makes up 12–15% of water mains in use today. These in-service AC pipes have been shown to deteriorate over time as a result of lime leaching from acids in the conveyed water or surrounding soil. The leaching of lime from the pipes causes a physical softening of the AC by gradually penetrating the cross section and reducing its effective structural capacity, eventually leading to pipe failure. While a number of studies have looked at the deterioration mechanisms, residual capacity, and remaining service life of AC pipe, little evidence exists regarding the most appropriate shape (i.e., linear, exponential increasing, or exponential decreasing) of the deterioration-versustime model for AC pipe.

In this study, accelerated acid laboratory experiments were conducted on AC pipe specimens to understand the trend or shape of the relationship of rate of deterioration versus time for AC pipe. This study used varying concentrations of nitric acid from 0.000158 M to 3.16 M to artificially degrade AC pipe specimens in the laboratory.

The rates of deterioration of the specimens were monitored using traditional phenolphthalein staining for high levels of deterioration. However, for lower levels of deterioration, below the resolution of phenolphthalein staining, the concentration of calcium and magnesium in the acid solutions was monitored using an ion chromatograph and correlated to deterioration.

The results of the acid experiments indicate a constant linear rate of deterioration is most appropriate for understanding the rate of deterioration of AC pipe. For each acid concentration, the magnitude of the rate of deterioration changed (i.e., increasing rate of deterioration for an increase in acid concentration). However, for each acid concentration, the deterioration progressed at a constant linear rate from small deterioration levels to fully deteriorated when the acid concentration was held constant. This means that although the aggressiveness of the deterioration may change from pipe location to pipe location, a constant linear rate of deterioration is most appropriate for estimating the remaining service life of AC pipe on the basis of the current deterioration of a section of pipe.

28

GHIRMAY & W OOD | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

To validate the findings of the accelerated acid experiments, the rates of deterioration determined in the acid experiments were compared with rates observed in the field. While many of the high concentrations of acid solutions had rates much higher than those observed in the field, the lowest acid concentration used in the experiments yielded rates of deterioration very similar to rates observed in the field; this indicates that the findings are scalable to the relatively slow deterioration behavior observed for inservice pipes. In addition, full-scale pipe samples, which were artificially degraded using the same acids as the laboratory experiments, were tested using standard ASTM tests for AC pipe to evaluate crushing and hydrostatic capacities of the artificially deteriorated specimens. Results of these tests showed the behavior (loss of capacity with increasing deterioration) was very similar for the acid-degraded specimens versus the naturally degraded specimens, indicating that acids can be used to artificially degrade specimens in order to understand the residual strength loss of AC pipe.

Overall, this study determined that a constant linear rate of deterioration is the most appropriate model for estimating the remaining service life of AC pipe, and the use of high-concentration acids to understand the behavior of in-service AC pipes is appropriate. Utilities wishing to estimate remaining service life of AC pipe are encouraged to use a constant linear rate of deterioration, along with estimates of the current level of deterioration of a section of pipe (normally using phenolphthalein staining) to understand the rate at which the section of pipe will further deteriorate in the future.

Corresponding author: Clinton M. Wood is an assistant professor at the University of Arkansas, 4190 Bell Engineering Center, Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA; cmwood@uark.edu.

Write for the Journal

Journal AWWA is currently seeking peerreviewed and feature articles. Find submission guidelines at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ journal/15518833.

Peer Reviewed

Expanded Summary

Hot Spot Analysis of Water Main Failures in California DI EGO MARTÍN EZ GA RC ÍA , JU NE SE O K L E E , JO N AT H AN K EC K , PAU L YAN G , AN D R O BERT G U Z Z ET TA

In this article, the authors developed clustering techniques to identify water main failure hot spots using the spatial clustering techniques provided by the Hot Spot Analysis tool in ArcGIS. In addition to identifying hot spots, this study involved conducting two multivariate linear regressions to determine which factors are correlated with the failure for the entire study region and which are found specifically within the identified hot spots.

METHODS Data. Cities located in three water service districts across California were selected as study sites. The geographic information system (GIS) data set contains information on each individual pipe, including attributes such as diameter, material, date of installation, location, and length, as well as details of every water main failure, its reported date, and its location.

Hot Spot Analysis. The Hot Spot Analysis tool calculates the number of failures within each buffer and its neighbors using the Getis-Ord-Gi*. The z-scores and associated p-values for each water main failure indicate whether the null hypothesis (i.e., that water main failures are completely random) can be rejected on the basis of appropriate levels of confidence.

Multivariate linear regression (MLR). Two MLR analyses were developed for each of the three service areas.

MLR I covered all the failed mains in each service area, while MLR II covered only those failures located within the statistically significant hot spots. In the model, pipe longevity was selected as the dependent variable. Eight independent variables were considered in the regression: pipe material, diameter, extended period simulation– based hydraulic pressure, season, length, air temperature, water content, and soil type.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results indicated that the failure patterns are not evenly distributed but instead tend to cluster in specific areas where the actual failure distributions are higher.

For Stockton, one of the three outstanding hot spots contains multiple pumping stations (Figure 1). It was discovered that selected pipe materials, season, diameter, and type of soil had statistically significant impacts on pipe longevity. For the three cities, the Hot Spot MLRs (Model II) had significantly higher adjusted R2. This indicates that the statistically significant variables explain a higher percentage of the variation in pipe longevity within hot spots.

Within Cal Water, effective asset management programs designed around maintaining water main integrity are expected to save at least $2 million to $5 million per general rate case cycle by avoiding failures, reducing water loss, and saving energy through improved materials and sizing, as well as to realize a host of other (more intangible) customer service benefits. Visualizing failure hot spots, along with developing an increased understanding of the impact and value of various asset attributes, will improve the water utility’s ability to identify and mitigate the risk of deteriorating assets. Adopting a risk-driven capital renewal program and operations and maintenance program will increase system reliability, reduce water service outage, and control costs. A highperforming water system could also lead to greater customer satisfaction.

Corresponding author: Juneseok Lee is the California Water Service Co. Chair Professor and associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192 USA; Juneseok.Lee@sjsu.edu.

M A R TÍNEZ G A R C ÍA ET A L. | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

29

Feature Article

In an effort to promote the Environmental Quality Incentives Program as part of the West Fork White River Watershed Initiative, landowners receive one-on-one property visits. Photo courtesy of RA Morgan LLC

SAN DI J. F O RMIC A , RO B E RT M O RGA N, JO H N P EN N I N G T O N , J AMES M c C ART Y, AN D MAT T VAN EP S

Protecting Northwest Arkansas’ Drinking Water Through the USDA Regional Conservation Partnership Program AN INITIATIVE WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS AND COMPONENTS HAS BEEN FUNDED IN PART BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TO IMPROVE AN ARKANSAS WATERSHED AND PROTECT A KEY WATER SUPPLY.

30

T

he US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) provides opportunities for utilities to collaborate with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), conservation-based nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), state agencies, and other partners to protect source waters. Selected for funding in fall 2016, the West Fork White River Watershed Initiative (WFWR Initiative) consists of river restoration projects, implementation of agriculture and forestry best management practices (BMPs), and public outreach in the WFWR watershed, a tributary of northwest Arkansas’ drinking water source, Beaver Lake.

Major conservation projects such as the WFWR Initiative become possible when a foundation of assessment, planning, and successful implementation exists. This initiative stands atop more than 20 years of collaboration by local, state, and national partners striving to protect Beaver Lake.

This article reviews the background and efforts leading to the successful RCPP application.

F ORMICA E T AL . | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

DRINKING WATER SOURCE FOR NORTHWEST ARKANSAS Beaver Lake, a 24,000-acre US Army Corps of Engineers reservoir in northwest Arkansas, has been the region’s source of drinking water since the 1970s. Today, Beaver Lake provides water to more than 420,000 area residents. Four water providers use Beaver Lake, including Beaver Water District (BWD), Benton and Washington County Rural Water Authority, Carroll-Boone Regional Water District, and Madison County Regional Water District. BWD is the largest of the providers (approximately 80% of the allocation) and distributes water to Bentonville, Rogers, Springdale, and Fayetteville, Ark. Northwest Arkansas, one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States, is poised to become a top 100 metropolitan area (Northwest Arkansas Council 2017). Because Beaver Lake is the source of drinking water for the region, protecting Beaver Lake is a high priority.

During the 1990s, BWD started experiencing annual taste and odor events caused by 2-methylisoborneol, a metabolite from cyanobacteria (Tetra Tech & BWA 2012). The cyanobacteria result from excessive nutrient loading to the lake from nonpoint sources in the watershed. With the introduction of the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, disinfection byproducts also became a concern. Since 2008, approximately 1,500 acres in the upper end of Beaver Lake have been listed by Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) as impaired for turbidity (ADEQ 2008).

Beaver Lake’s watershed (Figure 1) consists of roughly 763,000 acres of forest and pasture in the Ozark Highlands ecoregion, with growing urban land use. The watershed consists of six designated sub-watersheds: the West Fork of the White River, the Middle Fork of the White River, Beaver Lake– White River, Richland Creek, War Eagle Creek, and White River Headwaters. Approximately 30% of the watershed is pasture lands that

support a variety of agricultural activities, including cow–calf operations, hay production, and poultry farms. In the early 1990s, BWD began working with local, state, and federal agencies to implement BMPs to reduce the impacts from agriculture and urban lands on Beaver Lake’s water quality.

Today, that partnership consists of more than 25 public and private entities working in the region.

During 2015, the Watershed Conservation Resource Center (WCRC), a nonprofit organization that specializes in watershed assessment and river restoration, approached BWD with the idea of submitting a proposal to the NRCS RCPP that emphasized the reduction of sediment

and nutrient loadings in the WFWR watershed. The RCPP, authorized by the Farm Bill, provides an opportunity for local partnerships that include agriculture, water districts, municipalities, NGOs, and others to focus USDA funding on critical issues on the basis of watershed planning and local and regional conservation priorities.

THE WFWR INITIATIVE In 2015 the WCRC, BWD, and Beaver Watershed Alliance (BWA), along with other partners, submitted their proposal—the WFWR Initiative —to the NRCS RCPP. The WFWR Initiative was approved by the NRCS at a total project cost of $8.7 million, including a $4.3 million federal

FIGURE 1 West Fork White River Watershed Initiative project

location map

FO R M IC A ET A L. | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

31

contribution and $4.4 million from local matching funds.

The objectives of the WFWR Initiative were to reduce sediment and nutrient loadings and improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats in the watershed by restoring up to 2 mi of unstable river channel and 4 mi of riparian areas, developing 150 conservation-based plans and implementing BMPs on agricultural and

sediment in surface waters, and fish and wildlife habitat degradation.

Factors contributing to successful applications include protecting drinking water sources, including multiple partners, using NRCS programs innovatively, leveraging funds, addressing state conservation priorities, complying with locally led conservation initiatives, and creating the potential for success.

Northwest Arkansas, one of the most rapidly growing regions in the Unites States, is poised to become a top 100 metropolitan area.

forest lands. In addition to the WCRC, the BWD, and BWA, other partners included the Walton Family Foundation, the Arkansas Forestry Commission, the Northwest Arkansas Land Trust, Cities of Fayetteville and West Fork, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, the Arkansas Farm Bureau, Ozarks Water Watch, the Washington County Conservation District, Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC), Washington County Cooperative Extension Service, and the NRCS as the funding agency.

Each partner provided a letter of commitment documenting their support and financial contribution. For every dollar or equivalent in-kind service provided by partners, the RCPP provided up to one dollar toward the project.

The WFWR Initiative is the largest nonpoint source-based water quality project to be implemented within the Beaver Lake watershed. The RCPP application process is highly competitive, with less than one-third of applicants receiving funding. The WFWR Initiative was eligible for funding because the project is located w i t h i n t h e U S DA - d e s i g n a t e d Mississippi River Basin Critical Conservation Area and addresses priority concerns of water quality degradation, excess nutrients and 32

Understanding how the region secured the RCPP funding requires looking at the region’s history of watershed management efforts.

Three key components of the WFWR Initiative were essential to selection of the project: • The project was built on solid science, specifically water quality monitoring, watershed assessment, and watershed planning.

• The project made innovative use of NRCS programs.

• The partners and landowners had a strong working relationship and a track record of successful river restoration projects.

These three key components are further described in the following sections.

Water quality monitoring, watershed assessment and planning, and priorities. Over the prior decades, local water quality monitoring, comprehensive watershed assessments, and stakeholder-led watershed planning in the Beaver Lake watershed supported the need for the WFWR Initiative. Water quality monitoring that began in the 1970s led the ANRC to designate Beaver Lake watershed a priority for nonpoint source pollution management through the US Environmental

F ORMICA E T AL . | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Protection Agency’s Section 319(h) program in 1991. Following an ADEQ 1994 water quality study, the WFWR was assessed as not supporting the “aquatic life”-designated use because of excessive silt loads and high turbidity; subsequently, it was placed on the state’s impaired water body (303(d)) list (ADEQ 1998), and it is still classified as an impaired stream today (ADEQ 2016). A total maximum daily load was established in 2006 (FTN Associates 2006).

In 1999, the ADEQ received a 319(h) grant from the ANRC to conduct a watershed assessment and evaluate sources of sediment in the WFWR. This comprehensive assessment estimated that 66% of annual sediment loads resulted from accelerated streambank erosion (ADEQ 2004). In 2007, the WCRC received a USDA NRCS Conservation Partnership Initiative (CPI) grant to address accelerated streambank erosion in the WFWR watershed. The WCRC worked with the BWD and other local partners to develop the CPI WFWR Project Plan. Twentynine unstable reaches of river, where pasture and forest lands were being lost to streambank erosion, were identified for restoration and prioritized on the basis of sediment loading, riparian habitat loss, and potential nutrient contributions (Figure 1) (Formica & Van Eps 2010).

BWD also participates in a wide range of watershed planning activities. For example, in 2005 the BWD initiated a formal source water protection program. During a three-year period beginning in 2007, BWD teamed up with the Northwest Arkansas Council in a stakeholderdriven process to develop the Beaver Lake Watershed Protection Strategy (BLWPS), a road map for implementing key conservation measures that prevent degradation of water quality (Tetra Tech 2009).

The watershed group, BWA, was formed in 2011 to help implement the recommendations of the BLWPS. The BWA brings together representatives from significant interests within

the Beaver Lake watershed to implement water quality management projects. It has succeeded in building a positive reputation with landowners and has established a reputation of assisting with implementation of BMPs. In 2016, BWD allocated funding to the source water protection program in the amount of $0.04/1,000 gal sold. This allocation generates roughly $750,000/year for support of the BWA and the implementation of the BLWPS. Innovative use of NRCS programs.

To address river instability problems, reduce sediment and nutrient loadings from streambank erosion, and consider additional priorities established in the CPI project plan and other assessments, the WFWR Initiative uses two NRCS programs: PL-566 (a watershed program) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Most NRCS programs work with single landowners, and large-scale river restoration projects involving several landowners cannot be accomplished with the normal programs. The state NRCS office suggested the PL-566 program as a way to address the unstable reaches of the WFWR while working with multiple landowners.

The BWD and WCRC fill the roles of a qualified sponsor required by the PL-566 program. The PL-566 program requires a watershed-based environmental assessment that includes an economic analysis of the recommended solution. This twoyear process has to be completed and approved before any construction begins. The WCRC is responsible for the PL-566 component and is working with landowners to achieve voluntary participation along the highest-priority reach. Restoration of this single reach is estimated to result in a 25% reduction in the total sediment load from streambank erosion in the WFWR watershed.

The EQIP portion of the project provides the infrastructure for BMP implementation and conservation plan development. Through the WFWR Initiative, the EQIP BMP

implementation is focused on a 40 mi2 project area (Figure 1). This focus provides more intensive use of BMPs than traditional EQIP funding, which is generally on a countyscale basis in Arkansas. The BWA is responsible for contacting landowners and informing them about the WFWR Initiative, with a focus on promoting the EQIP through project newsletters, workshops, and

impairment designation of the WFWR; and • re-establishment of healthy ecosystems that protect agricultural lands and provide essential habitat for wildlife and fisheries.

History of strong partnerships and successful projects. Fourteen partners agreed to support and participate in the WFWR Initiative. Twelve

The WFWR Initiative is the largest nonpoint source-based water quality project to be implemented within the Beaver Lake watershed.

one-on-one property visits (shown in the opening photograph on page 30). The BWA has established a close partnership with the WCRC and NRCS, and it has an extensive track record of working with landowners to rapidly accelerate BMP adoption and increase conservation knowledge. During the first year of the RCPP, more than 500 people participated in workshops and other activities, and 49 property visits were conducted.

By combining the PL-566 program and EQIP, the WCRC and BWA will work with multiple landowners to apply natural channel design techniques to large sections of unstable river in conjunction with implementation of conservation practices on agricultural and forest lands throughout the project area. Watershed assessment data indicate that implementation of the WFWR Initiative will result in • an estimated reduction of sediment and phosphorus loads into the Beaver Lake watershed of 3,000 to 7,000 tons and 1,500 to 3,500 lb, respectively, on an annual basis; • protection of regional sources of drinking water and assistance with addressing the

partners contributed cash and/or inkind services as matching funds against the federal funds provided through the RCPP. Bringing multiple partners together requires an understanding of how they share conservation and water quality protection goals. In this case, the partners already had a history of cooperation, and the BWD, local NGOs, watershed groups, and local and state government understood the importance of river restoration in protecting the drinking water source by reducing sediment and nutrient loadings to streams. Improving aquatic habitat, streambed features, terrestrial habitat, recreational opportunities, and overall quality of life are motivational drivers for locally based private foundations and communities.

Protecting pasture and forest lands is a priority for landowners, while protection of parks and infrastructure can save municipalities and governments millions of dollars. Welldesigned stream restoration projects can address all of these concerns under the umbrella of a single project (Figure 2).

The WCRC, along with the BWA, BWD, and the Walton Family Foundation, are key partners in two areas: first, in leveraging federal funding to construct and maintain

FO R M IC A ET A L. | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

33

large-scale river restoration projects; second, in implementing the WFWR Initiative. BWD provided 27%, and the foundation provided 45% of the matching funds. Because partner funding must be committed as part of the RCPP’s full proposal application, it was necessary to start planning and designing the WFWR Initiative one full year before the deadline for the RCPP proposal. The BWA had experience in

FIGURE 2

environmental outreach and had already gained the trust of WFWR landowners through a recent BMP opportunity assessment it had conducted. The WCRC, as project lead, had an established history of managing projects of this magnitude and the expertise to design and oversee the river restoration.

The WCRC has worked with BWD, the Walton Family Foundation, the

City of Fayetteville, the BWA, and other partners on implementing and maintaining several river restoration projects in northwest Arkansas for more than a decade. These projects have been successful, and every year they prevent thousands of tons of sediment and thousands of pounds of phosphorus from entering streams in the Beaver Reservoir watershed.

The WCRC uses natural channel

Restoration on the White River in the Beaver Lake watershed

A

B

C

D

The Watershed Conservation Resource Center (WCRC) partnered with the City of Fayetteville, Ark., Beaver Water District, CH2M, the Arkansas Natural Resource Commission, and the US Environmental Protection Agency on this restoration project. The WCRC continues to maintain the site, with support from the City of Fayetteville. Shown here: (A) river view of the 16 ft-high cut bank before restoration; (B) before restoration at the upstream end of the project; (C) one month after project construction in 2012; (D) five years (2016) after completion of the project.

34

F ORMICA E T AL . | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

design principles to develop restoration designs that restore channel and riparian areas, and the WCRC maintains these sites for a minimum of five years (Figure 2). Even after catastrophic flooding, these restoration sites are capably protecting valuable lands and infrastructure.

SUMMARY Funded through the USDA RCPP, the WFWR Initiative will reduce sediments and nutrients reaching Beaver Reservoir, which in turn will help achieve goals prescribed in the BLWPS. The main purpose of this strategy is to protect water quality, which will ensure a continued supply of safe drinking water for the growing region. The success of the WFWR Initiative relies on the support of its partner organizations.

This is one of the reasons for the long-term project sponsorship required by PL-566. The BWD, BWA, and WCRC have a proven ability and established credibility to ensure the project’s success.

Every watershed endeavor has to stand on its own merit, and this case study does not constitute a recipe for success in achieving Farm Bill funding. The success of this project and future funding applications will continue to be contingent on the use of solid science, innovative use of funding programs, and strong partnerships with a history of water quality achievements. Finally, programs such as this would not be possible if it were not for the continued funding of the federal Farm Bill. Funding for both the EQIP and PL-566 is administered through the NRCS, and continuation of these programs is contingent on future authorizations from Congress. In the end, agriculture has a large part to play in water quality, and Farm Bill programs are the most effective mechanism for reaching out to agricultural producers. It is important to prioritize programs such as the RCPP to support the continued protection and improvement of drinking water sources.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Sandi J. Formica (to whom correspondence may be addressed) is executive director and cofounder of the Watershed Conservation Resource Center (WCRC), 380 W. Rock St., Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA; formica@watershedconservation.org. She has BS and MS degrees in chemical engineering from the University of Arkansas, with an emphasis on the transport of contaminants in the water, soil, and air. She oversees and manages the WCRC, an environmental nonprofit organization (founded in 2004) and is responsible for project development, design, and management, providing technical oversight and support, grant development, and implementation of watershedbased projects. Formica is a regional expert in watershed assessment and planning, river stability, and stream restoration design, implementation, and maintenance.

Robert Morgan is president of RA Morgan LLC in Springdale, Ark. John Pennington is a consultant with the Beaver Watershed Alliance in Fayetteville, Ark. James McCarty is manager of environmental quality for the Beaver Water District in Lowell, Ark. Matt Van Eps is associate director with the WCRC. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1095

REFERENCES

ADEQ (Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality), 2016. Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Report. Prepared pursuant to Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. ADEQ Water Division, Little Rock, Ark. ADEQ, 2008. Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Report. Prepared pursuant to Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. ADEQ Water Division, Little Rock, Ark. ADEQ, 2004. West Fork White River Watershed, Data Inventory and Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment. Prepared by the ADEQ Environmental Preservation Division for the Arkansas Soil and Water

Conservation Commission. www.adeq. state.ar.us/water/planning/pdfs/west_ fork_white_river_watershed.pdf (accessed Dec. 13, 2017).

ADEQ, 1998. Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Report. Prepared pursuant to Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. ADEQ Water Division, Little Rock, Ark. Formica, S.J. & Van Eps, M.A., 2010. West Fork White River Watershed Restoration of Priority Stream Reaches Project Plan.

Watershed Conservation Resource Center, Fayetteville, Ark. FTN Associates, 2006. TMDLS for Turbidity for White River and West Fork White River, AR. FTN Associates Ltd., Little Rock, Ark. Northwest Arkansas Council, 2017. Northwest Arkansas Poised to Be Top 100 MSA. www.nwacouncil.org/news/2017/ 3/23/analysis-nw-arkansas-to-make-top100-in-2019. Last accessed Dec. 13, 2017.

Tetra Tech, 2009. Beaver Lake Watershed Protection Strategy. Tetra Tech, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Tetra Tech & BWA, 2012. Beaver Lake Watershed Protection Strategy. May 2012 Revision. Tetra Tech, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Updated by Beaver Watershed Alliance, Springdale, Ark.

AWWA RESOURCES • Protecting Drinking Water at the Source: Lessons From US Watershed Investment Programs.

Gartner, T.; DiFrancesco, K.; Ozment, S.; Huber-Stearns, H.; Lichten, N.; & Tognetti, S., 2017.

Journal AWWA, 109:4:30. Product No. JAW_0084863.

• Eco Logic—From the Nature Conservancy—Our Forefathers’ Legacy: Watershed Degradation and the Right to Reverse It. Murphy, J., 2008. Journal AWWA, 100:10:56.

Product No. JAW_0068939.

• Current Issues—The Piasa Creek Watershed Project: Cleaning up the Muddy Mississippi.

LeChevallier, M.W., 2005. Journal AWWA, 97:12:30. Product No. JAW_0062307.

These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff.

For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.

FO R M IC A ET A L. | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

35

Feature Article

T E RRAN C E M. BR U E C K, C L A U D E WIL L IA M S, J O N VAR N ER , AN D ED T I R AK I AN

Water and Electric AMI Differences: What Water Utility Leaders Need to Know CONSIDERING ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE (AMI) WILL FIND PARALLELS WITH ELECTRIC UTILITIES USING AMI, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE NUMEROUS DIFFERENCES AS WELL.

36

W

BRUE CK E T AL . | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/Turan Ramazanli, VectorsMarket, Sergio Foto, and CharacterFamily

WATER UTILITIES

hile there are similarities between the technological infrastructure of water and electric advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)—e.g., communication networks, information technology (IT) infrastructure, metering endpoints—there are distinct differences in how AMI is used between water and electric services. In addition, the business drivers and economic justification for water and electric AMI are different. Because of this, electric utility experience with AMI does not necessarily translate to meet the needs of water utilities.

To gain the most relevant information for AMI meter implementation, water utilities should look to lessons learned from other water utilities, and one source of guidance in this area is a current Water Research Foundation (WRF) project on AMI meter data analytics (Brueck et al. n.d.). This article presents some of the differences between water and electric AMI and uses some of the results from the WRF project, which included surveys of seven large water utilities with AMI-based meter installations (over 100,000 endpoints—i.e., data collection devices), to explore how water utilities can use AMI data to realize benefits beyond simply reading meters.

WATER UTILITY AMI BENEFITS

• Reduce water theft and capture AMI systems can provide many lost revenue by recognizing and improvements in water utility operaaddressing usage patterns that tions far beyond the advantages of suggest meter tampering. automated meter reading, including • Use AMI data to identify the following: potential under-registering Improving customer service water consumption for further interactions. investigation to increase reve• Improve response to customer nue capture. inquiries about water usage Improving meter performance and and billing by answering quesmaintenance efficiency. tions with readily available • Use AMI data to analyze meter AMI data. performance and drive replace• Proactively notify customers of ment cycles for optimal revehigh consumption or possible nue with cost-effective meter leaks on the basis of AMI data maintenance and replacement. to enhance customer relations.

• Reduce the number of visits by • Help customers comply with field workers for meter reads water conservation policies on and other meter investigations the basis of AMI data analytics to increase workforce efficiency. to identify effective water use • Use AMI data for large/comand potential ways to save pound meters to determine water. when maintenance is required Reducing water loss and increasing on the basis of performance revenue. instead of by calendar or volu• Identify real water loss by commetric schedule. paring hourly “water in versus WRF Project #4741, which water out” within pressure focuses on researching the potenzones or figure districts (district of AMI-meter Three column max width = 37p9 (actualtial 2 column width = 39p9) data analytics, metering analysis [DMA]) to has documented some of these focus distribution infrastrucbenefits for utilities that have preture improvements on areas of viously installed AMI systems highest losses.

(Figure 1). For example, some water

FIGURE 1

utilities already use their AMI data to detect meter tampering or identify incorrectly sized meters. Utilities want to make better use of AMI systems for detecting water losses. A further explanation of the differences between water and electric AMI is provided in the following sections.

DIFFERENT AMI DRIVERS FOR WATER UTILITIES As Figure 1 shows, water utilities want AMI for many reasons; these often differ from those of electric utilities. For instance, electric utilities are typically constrained by power generation and therefore want to control the peak usage via time-ofuse rates. On the other hand, water utilities are not usually constrained by water production since water can be easily stored in tanks and reservoirs, in contrast to the lack of electric storage options. This has led electric utility AMI to incorporate time-of-use electric billing rates, an approach that does not translate well to water services.

While there is some overlap with electric utilities, typical drivers for AMI at water utilities include the following:

How water utilities use their AMI data Currently used Desired 43%

Customer notification

57% 57%

Self-help portal

83%

100%

Meter tampering Incorrectly sized meters

86%

14%

43%

Meter performance

57%

29%

Water loss audit

71%

17%

Acoustic leak detection 0

10

20

83% 30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Water Utilities—% Source: Brueck et al. n.d.

AMI—advanced metering infrastructure

B R U EC K ET A L. | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

37

• Water utilities can alert customers to high water use resulting from possible leaks or water left running.

• AMI helps with understanding the effectiveness of water conservation programs or enforcing restrictions on water irrigation. Sub-metering of irrigation may be required, leading to complexities in water use accounting and differentiation

applications, but rules and procedures for turn-on/turn-off for water versus electric vary significantly. Water turn-on/ turn-off requires no-flow or low-flow valves and may also require changes in plumbing to accommodate the valves.

• Near-real-time AMI water use data, combined with supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) information, can

To gain the most relevant information for AMI meter implementation, water utilities should look to lessons learned from other water utilities.

in billing for water and wastewater services.

• The replacement and maintenance cycles for water meters are improved, as meters can be maintained or replaced on the basis of degradation.

• A customer portal allows customers to review detailed water usage (interval data), potentially eliminating the need to call the utility’s customer service department to discuss a high water bill.

• Water utilities can respond to customer billing queries and provide detailed information about the timing and quantity of water usage. Typically, more than 80% of phone queries can be resolved during the initial call, saving the customer from having to make an appointment for a meter inspection (e.g., determining if unusual water consumption is caused by a leak, a running toilet, or simply by heavy usage).

• AMI can provide remote turnon/turn-off capability to reduce “truck rolls” and additional charges to customers. This function is also part of the business case for many electric 38

be used to perform DMA and detect “real” water losses in a distribution system. The use of acoustic leak detection via the AMI network in the water distribution system can help narrow the location and determine the severity of leaks.

• With reference to the meter replacement life cycle, a driver for using AMI is to combine the process for AMI endpoint installation with meter replacement, especially in northern climates, where replacements require customer appointments to access meter locations inside homes and facilities.

The following sections provide a closer examination of the difference in how AMI supports water and electric services.

DIFFERENT INSTALLATION AMI installation for water meters is significantly different from electric meters. To begin with, the installation location is different, as water meters are located indoors (typically basements) in northern climates and in “meter pits” in moderate or warm climates. Access to indoor locations requires extensive coordination and scheduling, resulting in significant

BRUE CK E T AL . | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

additional installation expense compared with electric installations.

Basement AMI endpoints may require external antennas for signal reliability via an externally connected wall mount device.

Meter replacement combined with AMI installation may have additional plumbing requirements, especially if AMI remote valve turn-on/ turn-off is implemented. AMI endpoints in meter pits may also be submerged, requiring pit flushing for installation and water-tight (not just water-resistant) AMI equipment.

The distribution architecture in electric service AMI is a network of electric substations and distribution lines that can be connected, switched, and rerouted via AMI-connected distribution automation (DA). The distribution architecture is different for water systems, which have no analogous DA. In water distribution systems, pump stations or pressure reduction stations are typically controlled by a centralized SCADA system, local pressure, or tank level.

Solutions for district metering would benefit from integration of data from a SCADA system and AMI. Acoustic leak detection in water systems, using AMI to collect data for potential anomalies, is another example of the differences between electric and water AMI. If water utilities want to take advantage of the additional register resolution available on newer meters, they may also need to reconcile meter manufacturers’ makes and models in their meter population, where compatibility and conversion accuracy between the AMI endpoint and meter register can be difficult to resolve.

DIFFERENT METERS Water meters used for billing purposes are still mostly mechanical devices. Over time, they experience wear, deposits, or other performance issues that degrade meter accuracy.

While some newer-technology water meters are fully electronic or have fewer mechanical components, the

cost, accuracy, and reliability of these meters are still being determined.

Like most assets, large water meters require regular maintenance, calibration, and repair/rehabilitation. Using AMI data to assess meter performance is challenging, but this approach has the potential to reduce the labor needed to improve the accuracy of customer bills and of a utility’s water audit.

AMI data for water meters can show no flow or reverse flow, which could signal stuck meters or tampering. AMI data analytics can help differentiate normal use patterns from anomalies. Some compound water meters provide two meter-reading signals for high and low water use. The analysis of data from these two signals can be used to determine when meter performance is degrading. Because compound meters represent large consumption, the financial impact of timely calibration or replacement of these meters can be significant, especially because most meter performance issues show less consumption than what is actually occurring. There is no electric meter counterpart to compound water meters.

Another key difference between electric and water meters is the power needed for the AMI endpoint.

An electric meter is constantly powered, while the water meter endpoint (and in some cases the water meter itself) must rely on a battery, resulting in significant changes to the operational requirements of a water AMI network. The communication methodology from the customer endpoint back through the data collector and into the billing system is limited by battery-life considerations. Communication with a battery-powered device must be more efficient and more infrequent than with an electric meter. Water AMI must provide the necessary frequency and robustness of data collection and still last a targeted 20 years to justify most business case expectations. Many magnetic and ultrasonic meters use batteries to measure water velocity. When these

batteries fail, measurement stops.

Mechanical meters might be coupled with battery-powered registers. For these situations, the register or meter battery monitoring and replacement processes need to be thoroughly understood in water AMI applications. These issues do not exist in electric AMI. Electric meters are usually electronic and have no mechanical parts to wear down or maintain. Meter data management (MDM) systems designed for electric utilities do not usually address the needs for analysis of water utility meter performance.

Electric metering may be more complex if power factor and peak usage are part of the billing. The rules for electric billing (e.g., peaks and power factor) are the main reasons that electric utilities have MDMs. These MDMs do not necessarily meet the needs of water utilities to understand water meter issues.

DIFFERENT CUSTOMER DATA NEEDS Utility customers have expectations for good-quality service, regardless of the utility or service provider. Water customers may be interested in water quality, which

conserve. Customer portals can provide up-to-date information from AMI meter data to show historical water usage and trends, in addition to billing information from the CIS (customer information system).

These portals can provide comparisons with similar users, or “neighbors,” to promote changes in behavior to affect water use.

Customers may be interested in their electricity use more than water use if their electric bills are higher.

But as water bills increase, including the correlated charges for wastewater services, the financial impact will be more significant. In the future, customers will likely expect their water usage data to be readily available as they look for ways to conserve water and control costs.

DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES The business case for AMI is usually based on more than just labor savings.

Additional benefits such as increased worker safety, enhanced credibility with governing bodies, increased water conservation, additional revenue, and improved customer service can justify AMI investments. The goals and benefits of any AMI program should be clearly defined beyond just

Water utilities want AMI for many reasons; these often differ from those of electric utilities.

has no electric counterpart directly affecting human health. While AMI data today only show water consumption, future metering could add water quality indicators with emerging sensor capabilities such as pressure, temperature, or water quality indicators.

Water customers are interested in usage data when choosing to conserve or pay higher bills. As more water utilities implement water conservation programs, customers will have more interest in their consumption patterns to understand ways to

the billing function to make a sound business case.

In the area of business improvement with AMI, water utility opportunities differ from those for electric utilities. A major difference is in water loss control. Water loss control is based on understanding both the real and apparent losses between water production and water use/ consumption. AMI data can help in both areas to perform a more realtime water audit of nonrevenue water.

Real losses can be better quantified through DMA, which uses AMI

B R U EC K ET A L. | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

39

with SCADA data in near-real time to perform mass balances (water in versus water out) by district or zone.

Areas of higher water loss can be targeted for acoustic leak detection, additional DMA, or zonal analysis by subdividing districts or zones.

Pipes or areas of large losses can be assessed for asset conditions and potential replacements.

Apparent losses can be further reduced by AMI integration with

need for IT integration and ongoing support. Although there are many small municipal electric utilities in North America, most AMI electric experience is from larger private or investor-owned utilities that may not be representative of municipal government complexities for public water utilities. While the technology issues may be similar between water and electric utilities, the organizational issues typically are different.

Another key difference between electric and water meters is the power needed for the AMI endpoint.

CIS to avoid data handling or manual recording errors. AMI can provide timely metered data from sites that are hard to read or access for billing purposes, which reduces nonrevenue water or timeliness of bill collections. AMI data can also help reduce apparent losses by identifying faulty meters so they can be replaced.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN WATER AND ELECTRIC UTILITY AMI The metering communications infrastructure and technology is largely the same between water and electric AMI, and may even be shared infrastructure. The networks of meter endpoints, data collectors, and the communication backbone are the same type of technology. While some AMI communication methods and technologies are evolving as expected, they will likely serve both water and electric markets.

Many water utilities are departments within municipal governments, which may necessitate coordination and/or integration with related organizational and technical issues. Customer portals and network infrastructure may be shared with other city departments. These factors may make water AMI more complicated to implement, given the 40

CONCLUSION Water utilities should be aware of the differences in AMI between water and electric services from several perspectives as presented in this article: • Utility needs and drivers • Meters and performance issues • AMI endpoint installations and locations • Customer interests and expectations • Data analytics for customer and utility benefit Technology governance and support These differences mean that experience in electric AMI implementation may have some value to a water utility, but that much greater value can be gained with experience in water AMI project planning, design, and implementation. Water utilities considering AMI are well served by conferring with other water utilities and professionals with water AMI experience.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Terrance M. Brueck (to whom correspondence may be addressed) is president and chief executive officer of EMA Inc., a utility management and

BRUE CK E T AL . | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

technology consulting firm. He currently leads the Water Research Foundation’s AMIMeter Data Analytics Project. He has over 35 years of experience working with numerous utilities in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, including projects to improve productivity and develop sustainable organizations to maximize long-term performance. Brueck received a BS degree from Iowa State University, Ames, and an MS degree from University of Iowa, Iowa City. He may be contacted at 2355 West Highway 36, Ste. 200, Saint Paul, Minn. 55113 USA; tbrueck@ema-inc.com.

Claude Williams, Jon Varner, and Ed Tirakian are consultants with EMA and researchers on the AMI project. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1096

REFERENCE

Brueck, T.; Varner, J.; & Williams, C., n.d. AMIMeter Data Analytics. Project #4741, forthcoming. Water Research Foundation, Denver.

AWWA RESOURCES • Money Matters—A Smoother Road to AMI: Leveraging Applicable Lessons Learned From the Power Industry. Imlah, T., 2017.

Journal AWWA, 109:10:56. Product No. JAW_0085662.

• Planning and Implementing CIS and AMR/AMI Projects: A 2016 WRF Report Is a Practical Guide for Success. Rettie, M.; Powers, L.; Wiest, G.; Reekie, L.; & Whaley, C., 2016. Journal AWWA, 108:11:62.

Product No. JAW_0084267.

• Smart Grid and AMI for Water Utilities. Lewis, C. & Hendrix, M., 2012. Journal AWWA, 104:9:58.

Product No. JAW_0076618.

These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff.

For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.

Introducing the

MTOL+ Turbidimeter ™

Accurate, easy-to-calibrate online turbidity monitoring solution with a low cost of ownership • • • • • •

EPA and ISO compliant models 0-10, 0-100, and 0-1000 NTU ranges Customizable data logging Simultaneous 4-20mA / Modbus signal outputs Ultrasonic cleaning USB port for downloading data and installing software updates • Two programmable high / low / error alarms and optional flow alarm

HFscientific.com

scan to learn more

Feature Article

An overgrown California forest shows signs of tree mortality. Photo courtesy of Blue Forest Conservation and World Resources Institute

L EI GH MADEIRA A ND TO DD GA RTNE R

Forest Resilience Bond Sparks Innovative Collaborations Between Water Utilities and Wide-Ranging Stakeholders A NEW COST-SHARING PROGRAM THAT TAPS INTO PRIVATE CAPITAL AND FOCUSES ON VALUE TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CAN MAKE FOREST RESTORATION AFFORDABLE AND ACHIEVABLE.

42

F

orest restoration can be a powerful but often cost-prohibitive tool for utilities to protect their water supply and infrastructure at scale. A new public–private partnership called the Forest Resilience Bond uses innovative partnerships and private capital to change that.

STATE OF FORESTS Water utilities are tasked with providing reliable access to safe drinking water and clean lakes and rivers. In many regions around the world, healthy forests contribute to improved watershed quality and lower customer rates. The importance of forest health for reliable, clean water systems is increasingly recognized as “natural infrastructure” investment programs expand around the world. In 2015, 419 programs spanning 62 countries prioritized ecosystem health for water benefits, and investing in forest management has saved cities billions of dollars across the United States (Bennett & Carroll 2014).

MADE IRA & GART N E R | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

FIGURE 1

Forest in various states: overgrown (A), burned (B), and restored (C)

A

When forests aren’t healthy, water quality and resilience suffer. Yet many forests in the United States, especially those in the West, are overgrown and woefully neglected. The combination of excessive overgrowth, tree mortality, and changing climate have left forests full of dead, dry plant matter—the perfect fuel for fires. This has increased wildfire frequency, size, and severity while progressively threatening forests’ ability to provide resources like clean water, fresh air, recreation, and employment. Figure 1 shows the difference between an overgrown and a restored forest and one devastated by wildfire.

According to the US Forest Service (USFS), 65 million acres of public forest land face a “high or very high risk of catastrophic wildfires” (USFS 2012). An additional 52 million acres of private lands across 11 western states are also considered high risk (American Forest Foundation 2015). Intense overgrowth plaguing this high-risk acreage too often results in devastating fire seasons and persistent threats to both water quality and quantity. At the same time, about 180 million Americans across 68,000 communities rely on water that originates from forested

B

C

lands managed by USFS (USFS n.d.).

When these forests burn, water is affected in several ways: rainfall carries soot and ash into the water supply (Bodí et al. 2014), along with elevated sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants from hillslope erosion (Khan et al. 2015), all of which combine to have significant impacts on treatment costs for utilities (Emelko et al. 2011). Impacts last long after the flames have subsided; it can take generations after a fire for a forest’s ability to filter water and control sediment to be fully restored.

Recent trends indicate that the threat of severe wildfires is here to stay and will likely only get worse, unless there are significant changes.

As a result of overgrowth and climate change, wildfire seasons have gotten longer by 30 to 45 days over the last 30 years (Jolly 2015).

In addition, individual wildfires themselves are larger and more severe (van Mantgem et al. 2013, Westerling et al. 2006). In the Sierra Nevada, the total acreage burned by wildfire is double what it was 30 years ago (Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2018a). Scientists have observed that wildfires across the West in particular are burning larger and for a progressively longer

portion of the year (Dennison et al.

2014, Westerling et al. 2006).

The threat to utilities, communities, and the environment will likely intensify as nearly 40% of development in the western United States is taking place in wildfire-prone areas (Glickman & Sherman 2014), and climate change continues to increase the risk of fire (Stephens et al. 2013).

The USFS recognizes these unhealthy and overgrown conditions yet lacks the resources to implement restoration to mitigate the risk of extreme wildfire at the needed scale.

RESTORATION NEEDED BUT NOT PRIORITIZED Decades of scientific research supported by US government agencies and environmental organizations demonstrates that removing overgrowth in just a portion of a given watershed can minimize the risk and severity of wildfires (Finney 2001), with an additional benefit of protecting water quality and potentially increasing water quantity in some regions (Hopkinson & Battles 2015).

In fact, forest restoration has proved to create a number of ecosystem benefits. Most directly, forest restoration can reduce the risk of highseverity wildfires (Collins et al. 2011,

M A D EIR A & G A R TNER | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

43

Schmidt et al. 2008). Such extreme fires now cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every year (National Interagency Fire Center 2018); destroy homes, communities, timber, and wildlife habitat; release hazardous carbon emissions and impair air quality (Sommers et al. 2014); threaten critical utility infrastructure (Diaz 2012) and recreation; and deposit sediment in reservoirs (Sankey et al. 2017).

Other potential benefits of forest restoration are the protection of water quality, reduced risk of flooding, and

watersheds they don’t directly control. With the need for restoration exceeding $65 billion on public land alone, it is clear that a new approach to funding forest health is needed.

One such approach, the Forest Resilience Bond (FRB), provides a platform for the public sector, private investors seeking environmental impact (such as pension funds and foundations), and stakeholders who benefit from the positive ecosystem services of forest restoration to work together to close the funding gap.

Recent trends indicate that the threat of severe wildfires is here to stay and will likely only get worse, unless there are significant changes.

in some areas additional water provided for both consumptive and hydroelectric uses (Saksa et al. 2017, Conklin et al. 2015).

Yet while the need for forest restoration is clear, how it should be paid for is not. On public land, the USFS is the obvious payor, but the agency lacks the budget to fund 100% of forest treatments at the needed scale.

Twenty years ago, the USFS spent 16% of its budget on fire suppression; now it directs more than half of its budget just to put out fires.

Left unchecked, fire suppression is expected to rise to two-thirds of its total budget by 2021, resulting in nearly $700 million less available each year for proactive restoration and other initiatives to promote forest health (USFS 2015; note that the estimate of fire exceeding 67% of budget has since been updated to 2021 from 2025, as cited in the document). The USFS is paying for today’s fires out of the funds designated to prevent tomorrow’s fires.

Other beneficiaries of healthy forests, such as utilities, water-dependent companies, recreation providers, and state governments, can be affected by land use practices in upstream 44

TAPPING PRIVATE CAPITAL FOR FOREST RESTORATION Developed by Blue Forest Conservation in collaboration with the World Resources Institute, Encourage Capital, and the American Forest Foundation, the FRB is a public–private partnership that enables private capital to finance muchneeded forest restoration. Beneficiaries of the restoration work, such as the USFS, water and electric utilities, and state governments, make payments over time (up to 10 years) to provide investors competitive returns based on the project’s success.

The FRB seeks to scale forest restoration across watersheds in need, not through increases in public or philanthropic funding, but by harnessing private capital to complement existing funding and facilitate investment in the management of public and private lands. With billions of dollars earmarked for conservation but not deployed because of a lack of investment opportunities, willing private investors have too often been left on the sidelines. The FRB development team is taking critical steps of curating the measurement

MADE IRA & GART N E R | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

framework, innovative contracts, and financial structures that will allow private capital to finance land management (Figure 2).

By using investor capital to fully cover the costs of restoration, significant value is created for a diverse group of beneficiaries. For example, the USFS would enjoy a lower risk of severe wildfire; water and electric utilities would benefit from improved and more reliable water quality, protected infrastructure, avoided sedimentation, and (in some cases) augmented water quantity; and state governments would make progress toward safeguarding rural communities, air quality, and natural resources. These beneficiaries would then make payments over time to reimburse investors, with each group paying only a portion of the value created. What follows is the process of a typical FRB project.

1. Beneficiaries identify a project in need of funding. The FRB development team works with the USFS, utilities, forest collaboratives, and other beneficiaries to choose a restoration project.

2. Metrics of success are determined. The development team collaborates with researchers and beneficiaries to determine what constitutes a successful outcome (e.g., number of restored acres, reduced sedimentation, augmented water quantity) and how it will be measured, using rigorous science-based approaches.

3. Beneficiaries sign contracts.

The USFS, utilities, state agencies, and other beneficiaries sign contracts with the FRB to repay investors over time on the basis of the determined metrics of success.

4. Investors provide upfront capital.

The development team raises funds from investors (pension funds, foundations, family offices, etc.) to cover upfront costs of restoration.

5. Implementation partners carry out restoration. The USFS monitors

FIGURE 2

Bridging the gap between restoration and private capital

implementation partners as they conduct restoration activities according to USFS guidelines.

6. Independent evaluators measure success. Successfully restored acres, reduced sediment flows, increased water volumes, or other metrics of success are measured and confirmed, triggering payments to investors by beneficiaries 7. Beneficiaries make payments.

Beneficiaries make contracted payments to the FRB. 8. Investors are repaid. The FRB structures payments from beneficiaries as cash flows to investors.

The FRB makes environmental conservation more attainable by focusing on the value forest restoration provides to ecosystem services.

Investments can come in all shapes and sizes, with the common goal of eventually earning a return. If a mortgage is an investment in a house and a college degree is an investment in future earnings, the FRB is an investment in forest health and water resources (Figure 3).

The FRB differs from other approaches to forest restoration not only by using investor capital to finance treatments but also by providing innovative approaches to cost sharing among beneficiaries. By bringing together multiple payors to

share the financial burden of forest restoration, the FRB creates compelling economics for beneficiaries while diversifying cash flows and providing a return for investors.

ADVANTAGES OF PRIVATE CAPITAL When used correctly, private capital offers a number of advantages.

Private capital is certainly not the solution for every situation, but with the right incentives, governance, and oversight, the goals of investors can align with those of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders to provide much-needed infusions of capital. If these groups’ various interests align and the situation allows, private capital can play a critical role in decreasing costs and risks for beneficiaries, even when factoring in a return to investors. In fact, the benefits of private capital can more than outweigh the cost in numerous ways.

Reduced risk. Upfront financing from investors enables ex-post payments in which utilities and other beneficiaries only pay after, not before, benefits have accrued. As a result, project risk is shifted from risk-averse government agencies and utilities to risk-tolerant investors. By using private capital to fund the upfront costs of restoration, beneficiaries make payments only when

the project is successful. For the USFS, success may be defined as completed restoration in a given area. For a utility, success may be defined as a reduction in sedimentation as a result of the restoration activities. Either way, the FRB development team will work with beneficiaries for each project to develop contracts that stipulate what constitutes success and therefore warrants a payment. This contractual relationship allows beneficiaries to make payments when the benefit is actually accruing, as opposed to before.

Investors then take on the project risk, as beneficiaries do not make payments if the agreed-upon level of success is not achieved.

Larger, less expensive projects.

The use of private capital allows for larger projects, which are more efficient and save beneficiaries money. Economies of scale can be realized by aggregating and streamlining certain processes for a single project of $50 million, relative to 10 projects of $5 million. For example, planning and securing financial commitments from multiple beneficiaries for 10 separate $5 million projects would be significantly more challenging and expensive than for a single $50 million project. Larger projects are also more likely to stimulate investment in cost-effective biomass

M A D EIR A & G A R TNER | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

45

FIGURE 3

Structure of the Forest Resilience Bond

USFS—US Forest Service

handling solutions (disposal or use of woody material removed during forest health treatments), further reducing costs.

Cost sharing. The combination of larger projects and ex-post payments results in better opportunities for cost sharing, which lowers costs for each beneficiary. Pursuing large projects is more likely to attract significant matching commitments from other beneficiaries, particularly when no upfront capital is required. Mobilizing commitments from the USFS, public utilities, municipalities, state governments, and private corporations requires considerable planning and coordination, which is more achievable when the funding source is already in place.

Acceleration of restoration. The use of private capital enables the acceleration of restoration work, which lowers the risk of future fires and 46

therefore saves money for utilities and other beneficiaries.

Consider an overgrown, forested watershed at high risk of severe wildfire. If the forest burns, the USFS, nearby water and electric utilities, the state government, and private water-dependent companies will all suffer losses. The USFS will have to divert more resources toward fire suppression, and the state government will have to dedicate funds to restoring destroyed properties, while also dealing with air quality, community resilience, and carbon sequestration challenges. Utilities and water-dependent companies may have to temporarily halt or modify operations and could suffer financial losses from impairments to water quality, increased risk of flooding, and damaged infrastructure.

Instead of waiting for the forest to burn, consider instead what might happen if these beneficiaries

MADE IRA & GART N E R | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

pool their resources and invest $5 million/year in restoration for the next 10 years. Without financing, the beneficiaries complete $50 million of restoration evenly over the 10 years. After three years, only 30% of the restoration has been completed. On the other hand, consider the possible effects if the same beneficiaries financed the full project at the start and made equal $5 million payments annually for 10 years. In this case, the $50 million could be deployed immediately (potentially taking two to three years to complete, assuming sufficient implementation capacity). After three years, 100% of the restoration has been completed. By accelerating the restoration work within the 10-year window, beneficiaries enjoy reduced wildfire risk and other benefits on the entire project area in years three through 10, compared with the first

scenario, in which it takes 10 years to achieve the same risk reduction.

The reduction in wildfire risk and protection of water resources should yield cost savings over the 10-year window, which would help justify any added expense of financing, especially when also considering the cost-sharing benefits of the FRB. Project catalyst. Funding motivates projects. Many groups want to advance forest restoration but may be discouraged from pursuing projects if the ultimate source of funds is unknown. Significant time, planning, and resources are required to implement restoration projects, but the certainty of funding through financing models such as the FRB could motivate projects to advance and lower the risk of noncompletion.

Summary. Private capital is not without its costs, but when properly deployed, its value cannot be understated. Financing is a critical part of the FRB because of its ability to accelerate restoration work, create efficiencies, enable ex-post payments, maximize cost sharing, and motivate projects. As a result, the FRB is able to lower both costs and risks for beneficiaries like utilities while achieving unmet restoration goals.

VALUE PROPOSITION TO UTILITIES Utilities rely on designated watersheds for their water and hydroelectricity needs but often do not own the land that makes up the watershed. In fact, 60% of California’s developed water supply comes from the Sierra Nevada mountain range (Sierra Nevada Conservancy 2018b), yet the majority of these headwaters are publicly owned and managed by the USFS. This separation of ownership, despite overlapping geography and interests, creates a management challenge but also an opportunity for collaboration. There are promising examples of utilities and the USFS working together to fund and implement investments in watershed

health, but in practice, it rarely happens at a meaningful scale. This is a missed opportunity—one that the FRB can help make more attainable for utilities both big and small.

In fact, Blue Forest Conservation, the World Resources Institute, and the American Forest Foundation each have a national memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the USFS. These MOUs enable the FRB team to take on the relationship building and stakeholder engagement required to plan restoration projects at scale. With the FRB team coordinating the process from start to finish, utility beneficiaries are relieved of human-resource and other constraints that might otherwise limit their ability to develop new partnerships.

The FRB is designed to minimize utility risk. As part of this structure, utilities reimburse only a portion of the restoration costs and make their payments over a 10-year period, limiting the upfront investment required from the utility while allowing for ex-post payments.

The FRB not only makes restoration more prevalent and affordable for beneficiaries, it also accelerates the pace of restoration across watersheds in need. By infusing a new

also caused unprecedented sedimentation in a drinking water reservoir and made the landscape more prone to flooding. Denver and Aurora water providers spent $25 million over two years to remove the excess sediment in the reservoir and endured damaged infrastructure after subsequent heavy rains led to flooding (American Planning Association 2018).

Investing in forest restoration through a collaborative platform such as the FRB can be a cost-effective approach to prioritize creation of fire-resilient watersheds. Restoration can help utilities address numerous challenges related to fire risk. The FRB is a collaborative opportunity for utilities to capture these important benefits at a discounted cost and lower levels of risk compared with pursuing such projects on their own.

PROJECT STATUS To effectively scale forest restoration across areas in need, the FRB development team will consider the planning, funding, implementation, and monitoring of restoration treatments. A two-step process will be used to ensure successful execution of the FRB. Once a watershed has

If a mortgage is an investment in a house and a college degree is an investment in future earnings, the FRB is an investment in forest health and water resources.

source of capital into the market for restoration, the FRB could help avert catastrophes like the Hayman Fire, which in 2002 burned more than 138,000 acres in Colorado, destroying 600 structures over six weeks and causing more than $42 million in home losses. Directly affecting communities, natural resources, and recreation, the fire

been identified as a suitable candidate, the first step will be to initiate a pilot project (less than $10 million in aggregate restoration costs) to demonstrate proof of concept for (1) the implementation of treatments, (2) the mechanisms for contracting with beneficiaries, and (3) the measurement of ecosystem services.

The development team will then

M A D EIR A & G A R TNER | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

47

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Extreme fire danger is the new normal during wildfire season across many forests in the

Leigh Madeira is a co-founder and partner at Blue Forest Conservation, a public benefit company leveraging financial innovation to create sustainable solutions to environmental challenges. Before founding Blue Forest, she researched energy investment opportunities in the equity and fixed income markets at Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management, worked as an analyst at the shareholder activism firm Relational Investors, and was an investment banking analyst for Credit Suisse. Madeira earned an MBA degree with honors from UC Berkeley Haas School of Business, Berkeley, Calif.; she holds a BBA degree in finance from the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Ind.; and is a CFA charter holder. She may be contacted at leigh@blueforestconservation.com.

Todd Gartner is a senior associate and director, Natural Infrastructure Initiative, at World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.; tgartner@wri.org.

western United States. Photo courtesy of Blue Forest Conservation and World Resources Institute

https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1097

move to the second step, in which the FRB is replicated in the same watershed but on a much larger scale, building upon the success of the initial pilot.

The FRB development team is currently pursuing four pilot projects in California, the first of which is scheduled to take place in 2018, and one pilot project in Colorado that is targeted for 2019.

CONCLUSION The connection of forests, fire, and water becomes clearer with every catastrophic fire across the western United States. Overgrown, degraded forests are increasing risks to water quality, ecosystem services, and human lives and livelihoods. In the case of forest 48

health, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The FRB helps utilities more easily share the costs of restoration with likeminded stakeholders who will also share in the benefits. Through the FRB, utilities are able to partner with land managers, conservation groups, researchers, and private investors to fund proactive restoration and reduce the severity of future wildfires. This will ensure that water utilities are able to continue doing what they do best— serving their ratepayers with reliable and safe water in a costeffective manner for years to come. Contact the authors if your utility in the western United States might be a candidate for future projects in the coming years.

MADE IRA & GART N E R | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

REFERENCES

American Forest Foundation, 2015. Western Water Threatened by Wildfire: It’s Not Just a Public Lands Issue. www. forestfoundation.org/stuff/contentmgr/fil es/1/3d98bbe1b03a0bdf4c726534d438b 0ab/misc/final_fire_report.pdf (accessed February 2018).

American Planning Association, 2018. Case Study: Hayman Fire, Hayman, Colorado. www.planning.org/research/ postdisaster/casestudies/haymanfire. htm (accessed February 2018).

Bennett, G. & Carroll, N., 2014. Gaining Depth: State of Watershed Investment 2014.

Washington, DC: Forest Trends. www. ecosystemmarketplace.com/reports/ sowi2014 (accessed February 2018).

Bodí, M.B.; Martin, D.A.; Balfour, V.N.; Santín, C.; Doerr, S.H.; Pereira, P.; Cerdá, A.; & Mataix-Solera, J., 2014. Wildland Fire Ash: Production, Composition and Eco-Hydro-Geomorphic Effects.

Earth-Science Reviews, 130:103. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.07.005.

Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Roller, G.B.; & Battles, J., 2011. Simulating Fire and Forest Dynamics for a Coordinated Landscape Fuel Treatment Project in the Sierra Nevada. Forest Science, 57:2:77.

Conklin, M.H.; Bales, R.C.; Saksa, P.C.; Martin, S.E.; & Ray, R., 2015. Learning How to Apply Adaptive Management in Sierra Nevada Forests: An Integrated Assessment, appendix E. Final Report of the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (P. Hopkinson & J.J. Battles, editors). Center for Forestry, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.

Dennison, P.E.; Brewer, S.C.; Arnold, J.D.; & Moritz, M.A., 2014. Large Wildfire Trends in the Western United States, 1984–2011.

Geophysical Research Letters, 41:8:2928. https://doi. org/10.1002/2014GL059576.

Diaz, J.M., 2012. Economic Impacts of Wildfire. SFE Fact Sheet 2012-7.

Southern Fire Exchange, multiple locations.

Emelko, M.B.; Silins, U.; Bladon, K.D.; & Stone, M., 2011. Implications of Land Disturbance on Drinking Water Treatability in a Changing Climate: Demonstrating the Need for ‘Source Water Supply and Protection’ Strategies.

Water Research, 2:45:461. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.08.051.

Finney, M., 2001. Design of Regular Landscape Fuel Treatment Patterns for Modifying Fire Growth and Behavior.

Forest Science, 47:2:219.

Glickman, D. & Sherman, H., 2014. Paying for the Forest Fire Next Time. The New York Times, June 17.

Hopkinson, P. & Battles, J.J., 2015. SNAMP Final Report: Learning Adaptive Management of Sierra Nevada Forests: An integrated assessment. Center for Forestry, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif. http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/snampfinal-report/ (accessed February 2018).

Jolly, W.M.; Cochrane, M.A.; Freeborn, P.H.; Holden, Z.A.; Brown, T.J.; Williamson, G.J.; & Bowman, D.M.J.S., 2015. ClimateInduced Variations in Global Wildfire Danger From 1979 to 2013. Nature Communications, 6, Article No. 7537. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8537.

Khan, S.J.; Deere, D.; Leusch, F.D.L.; Humpage, A.; Jenkins, M.; & Cunliffe, D., 2015. Extreme Weather Events: Should Drinking Water Quality Management Systems Adapt to Changing Risk Profiles? Water Research, 85:124. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.08.018.

National Interagency Fire Center, 2018.

Federal Firefighting Costs (Suppression

Only). www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_ documents/SuppCosts.pdf (accessed February 2018).

Saksa, P.P.; Conklin, M.H.; Battles, J.J.; Tague, C.L.; & Bales, R.C., 2017. Forest Thinning Impacts on the Water Balance of Sierra Nevada Mixed-Conifer Headwater Basins. Water Resources Research, 53:7:5364. https://doi. org/10.1002/2016WR019240.

Sankey, J.B.; Kreitler, J.; Hawbaker, T.J.; McVay, J.L.; Miller, M.E.; Mueller, E.R.; Vaillant, N.M.; Lowe, S.E.; & Sankey, T.T., 2017. Climate, Wildfire, and Erosion Ensemble Foretells More Sediment in Western USA Watersheds. Geophysical Research Letters, 44:17:8884. https://doi. org/10.1002/2017GL073979.

Schmidt, D.A.; Taylor, A.H.; & Skinner, C.N., 2008. The Influence of Fuels Treatment and Landscape Arrangement on Simulated Fire Behavior, Southern Cascade Range, California. Forest Ecology and Management, 255:8–9:3170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foreco.2008.01.023.

Sierra Nevada Conservancy, 2018a. Total Acreage Burned – West Slope of the Sierra by Decade. www.sierranevada. ca.gov/press-room/sierra-wildfirewire/1macres/image/image_view_ fullscreen (accessed February 2018).

Sierra Nevada Conservancy, 2018b.

California’s Primary Watershed. www.sierranevada.ca.gov/our-region/ ca-primary-watershed (accessed February 2018).

Sommers, W.T.; Loehman, R.A.; & Hardy, C.C., 2014. Wildland Fire Emissions, Carbon, and Climate: Science Overview and Knowledge Needs. Forest Ecology and Management, 317:1. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.12.014.

Stephens, S.L.; Agee, J.K.; Fule, P.Z; North, M.P.; Romme, W.H.; Swetnam, T.W.; & Turner, M.G., 2013. Managing Forests and Fire in Changing Climates. Science, 342:6154:41. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1240294.

USFS (US Forest Service), August 2015. The Rising Cost of Wildfire Operations: Effects on the Forest Service’s Non-Fire Work. US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, p. 2. www.fs.fed. us/sites/default/files/2015-Fire-BudgetReport.pdf (accessed February 2018).

USFS, 2012. Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests. USDA, Washington, p. 4. www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/ media/types/publication/field_pdf/ increasing-pace-restoration-jobcreation-2012.pdf (accessed February 2018).

USFS, n.d. Water Facts. USDA, Washington. www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/nationalforests-grasslands/water-facts (accessed February 2018). van Mantgem, P.J.; Nesmith, J.C.B.; Keifer, M.; Knapp, E.E.; Flint, A.; & Flint, L., 2013.

Climatic Stress Increases Forest Fire Severity Across the Western United States. Ecology Letters, 16:9:1151. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12151.

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; & Swetnam, T.W., 2006. Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science, 313:5789:940. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1128834.

AWWA RESOURCES • Protecting Drinking Water at the Source: Lessons From US Watershed Investment Programs.

Gartner, T.; DiFrancesco, K.; Ozment, S.; Huber-Stearns, H.; Lichten, N.; & Tognetti, S., 2017.

Journal AWWA, 109:4:30. Product No. JAW_0084863.

• Leveraging Source Water Protection Programs Through Effective Partnerships. Walker, L.; Morgan, R.; & Stangel, P., 2017.

Journal AWWA, 109:1:58. Product No. JAW_0084495.

• Philadelphia’s One-Water Approach Starts With Source Water Protection. Couillard, E.; Hesson, M.D.; Anderson, K.; Crockett, C.; & McCarty, M.E., 2015. Journal AWWA, 107:4:62. Product No. JAW_0081763.

• Protecting Forested Watersheds Is Smart Economics for Water Utilities. Gartner, T.; Mehan, G.T. III; Mulligan, J.; Roberson, J.A.; Stangel, P.; & Qin, Y., 2014. Journal AWWA, 106:9:54. Product No. JAW_0081763.

• Source Water Protection: Perspectives of the Past, Present, and Future. Gullick, R.W., 2014. Journal AWWA, 106:8:164. Product No. JAW_0080642.

These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff.

For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.

M A D EIR A & G A R TNER | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

49

Feature Article

JOH N J. BATTEN III

Realizing a More Sustainable Water Future From a “One Water” View

W NEW WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY PROVIDE CITIES WITH LEVERAGE FOR MAKING IMPROVEMENTS, AND SEVERAL CITIES HAVE ALREADY CREATED MORE

50

BAT T E N III | J UN E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/gyn9037

SUSTAINABLE FUTURES.

ater quality in North America may be the envy of the world, but water managers know they cannot be complacent. Every day brings new challenges to the sustainability of our water systems, from emerging contaminants to leakage from aging infrastructure.

Hurricane Harvey, for instance, a Category 4 storm that stalled over Texas in August 2017, caused an estimated $200 billion in damages from embankment flooding and excessive rainfall. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2016a), a flood occurs somewhere in the United States or its territories nearly every day. Floods kill more people than any other weather event, but even “nuisance flooding” that results in road closures, stormwater drainage overflows, and compromised infrastructure has increased across the US coastline between 300 and 925% since the 1960s (NOAA 2016a).

Even though the effects of water challenges can be felt across a region’s economy, society, and environment, the public and political will to make urban water systems more sustainable is often lacking. When it comes time for city leaders to execute remedies, water utilities and flood resiliency experts can find themselves tasked with making major changes with little or no new support.

After years of resource constraints and low investment, many cities are living with water supplies that are underresourced and with infrastructure that is in need of replacement or maintenance. The effects of this underfunding have not always been immediate, but they are profound, resulting in expensive leaks, interruptions in service, and even public health threats. Even more concerning,

because of this neglect, systems struggle to maintain quality and levels of service as new problems are added to a growing list of issues.

Fortunately, the water industry is undergoing some important changes that hold promise for weaving water sustainability into the fabric of policy and practice. After all, the way cities manage water issues has a direct correlation to the quality of life their communities enjoy. This article examines how cities can leverage this new thinking to bring about sustainable water improvements.

First, water leaders are increasingly redefining sustainability goals to provide an actionable framework for planning. Next, a recent report examines which cities are delivering water sustainability in the United States and around the world and provides insights into what’s working. Finally, several ideas for how cities are successfully creating more sustainable futures are presented.

actually reduce sustainability; for example, flood-proofing in one area may unknowingly shift risks across the region or to outlying areas. Integrated planning can reduce this potential by providing insight of interrelated policies and practices.

Compared with other critical infrastructure systems, the water sector is often divided into a multijurisdictional array of municipal drainage areas, which makes it a challenge to translate to the end user the added value, economic advantages, and improved quality of life of a more holistic approach. Fortunately, the

FIGURE 1

One Water paradigm can help unite jurisdictions, simplifying the motives and languages of utilities to deal with their communities’ particular challenges while trying to strengthen rapport with ratepayers.

To help utilities and urban planners lead their communities to a higher level of sustainability, Arcadis recently published a study, the Sustainable Cities Water Index, which measures water sustainability in 50 cities from 31 countries across several key performance indicators (Hill 2016). The index brings together multiple sources of data and information to provide a

Arcadis Sustainable Cities Water Index

REDEFINING WATER SUSTAINABILITY Creating water sustainability requires a multidisciplinary approach, encompassing the work of various programs, agencies, and leaders, and under the paradigm of integrated urban water management, a.k.a. “One Water,” one cannot plan water-related initiatives in isolation (Warner & Whitler 2014). The water sector is more actively seeking ways to manage all water sources holistically, as part of a single water cycle.

Water and wastewater utilities will need to step out of their comfort zones to complete this cycle, which fundamentally supports social, environmental, and economic needs.

Planners are also rethinking the idea of resiliency, a primary pillar of sustainability, and a recent article notes that resiliency is not simply the ability to take a punch—it’s about adaptation and the ability to learn and to build new capacity to meet the next crisis (Johannessen & Wamsler 2017). Planners are now recognizing that serving resiliency alone may B ATTEN III | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

51

comprehensive view of specific measures that can be acted upon.

The full ranking of cities by their water sustainability is provided in Figure 1. Overall, the index shows that most cities in North America rank in the upper half of this sample of cities from the developed world.

provides a snapshot of how well cities are addressing their water challenges, and this was the basis for the rankings shown in Figure 1. An overview of the components included in the sustainability assessment for cities and further details about each is provided in Figure 2.

The water industry is undergoing some important changes that hold promise for weaving water sustainability into the fabric of policy and practice.

However, there is room for improvement, as only one city in North America—Toronto, Ont.—made it into the top 10 of global city rankings for sustainability.

Consolidating the many data points into three categories—namely, resiliency, efficiency, and quality—

FIGURE 2

52

Resiliency. Leaders need to make the case that physically, economically, and socially resilient cities are worth the investment (Batten 2016). There is a resiliency movement in progress across the globe, and in most of North America it is still at a nascent stage. Leaders at the municipal level

Overview of the components of sustainability: resiliency, efficiency, and quality

BAT T E N III | J UN E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

need to work even harder to connect across departments, job titles, and geographies to address their individual urban water cycles if they want to improve the sustainability of their water systems. Fortunately, more city leaders understand that it is wise policy to invest in resiliency because it can attract private-sector investment and economic growth by demonstrating local or regional commitment to water sustainability.

Figure 3 shows the rankings of the 50 cities included in this analysis according to their resiliency subindex scores. With reference to Figure 2, the resiliency score is a composite of a city’s water stress, green space, water-related disaster risk, flood risk, water balance, and reserve water.

Efficiency. The operational aspects of water planning play a major role in a city’s ability to achieve another important aspect of water sustainability: efficiency. Efficiency in this context is taken to include consideration for nonrevenue water, water charges, metered water, reused wastewater, sanitation, service continuity, and drinking water. Figure 4 shows the rankings of the 50 cities included in this analysis according to their efficiency sub-index scores.

Of the North American cities ranking high in Figure 4, Los Angeles and San Francisco, Calif., are notable for their high levels of water reuse. Many cities with high rankings demonstrate that as technology evolves and the need for sustainable water sourcing continues, more communities will adopt water reuse. More cities like El Paso, Tex., will consider potable reuse a viable alternative water source in their to tal water p o r tfo lio . Take n together, many communities can use these models as they develop their own cases for restoring and updating their older systems and infrastructure to increase efficiency.

Quality. With continued funding and a commitment to innovation, US systems have demonstrated the ability to produce safe drinking

water. Depending on the local dynamics, utilities will still need to address the challenges of using and reusing alternative supply sources, maintain vigilance on emerging contaminants, and wrestle with the effects of climate change to maintain the quality of their water. To generate scores, quality was assessed with respect to drinking water, sanitation, water-related disease, treated wastewater, water pollution, and threatened species.

It is understood that years of wear, coupled with neglect and underfunding, can take a toll on water quality.

A recent report from the CarnegieKnight Initiative documented that over the past decade, as many as 63 million people in the United States have been exposed to potentially unsafe drinking water, sometimes repeatedly (Houston et al.

2017). The recent problems with lead service lines and Legionella experienced in Flint, Mich., provided many headlines highlighting the water quality crisis. Although Flint’s problems with lead may have resulted from a one-time action, the underlying risks had been present for a long time as the city’s water infrastructure aged and became too large for its population. For cities to achieve greater sustainability, they will need to continue to address water quality issues like these. Figure 5 shows the rankings of the 50 cities included in this analysis according to their quality sub-index scores.

Strengths. The primary source of drinking water, the Catskill/Delaware and Croton watersheds, are of such high quality that New York City is one of only five large US cities with a surface water supply that does not require filtration.

Improvements. In October 2012, Superstorm Sandy highlighted New York’s natural and built vulnerability to coastal flooding and the threat of sea level rise. New York is expected to incur at least $500 million in storm and flood damages over the next 50 years if no action is taken. Fortunately, the planned East Side Coastal Resiliency project will address flood and social infrastructure resiliency as

FIGURE 3

part of a risk-based plan that can serve as a model for other cities.

City profile: Los Angeles.

• Global water sustainability ranking: 27th • Resiliency: 48th • Efficiency: second • Quality: 21st Strengths. Los Angeles ranks second in efficiency for high level of water reuse, large storage capacity, nonrevenue water reductions, and a strong conservation program. The city embarked on an emergency drought response program more than a year ago, with an emphasis on local water supplies, by expediting increases in recycled water,

Resiliency sub-index rankings

WATER SUSTAINABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES On the basis of the assessments of their water sustainability, the following three cities exemplify the challenges and integrated planning needed to address urban sustainability challenges.

City profile: New York City.

• Global water sustainability ranking: 14th • Resiliency: 27th • Efficiency: 14th • Quality: seventh B ATTEN III | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

53

stormwater capture, and ground water remediation.

Improvements. The implementation of large local water supply projects will take four to 10 years. While the drought response projects are planned and implemented, Los Angeles is still relying on importing 85% of its water from more than 100 mi away and still faces sustainability challenges and chronic high water stress during droughts.

City profile: Chicago, Ill. • Global water sustainability ranking: 20th • Resiliency: 36th • Efficiency: 27th • Quality: second

FIGURE 4

54

Strengths. Chicago is close to having almost no pollution in its freshwater sources. The city’s exceptional water quality stands out globally. Chicago’s tunnel and reservoir program handles combined wastewater overflows, resulting in very little wastewater effluent or pollution flowing into its water bodies. This is in part due to Chicago’s enlightened planning efforts a century ago to reverse the course of its river away from Lake Michigan.

Improvements. The city’s efficiency vulnerability is being addressed through an ambitious water and wastewater line replacement program,

Efficiency sub-index rankings

BAT T E N III | J UN E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

replacing 100 mi of pipes per year.

To further increase efficiency and reduce consumption, Chicago implemented a volunteer metering program, incentivizing consumers with rate guarantees to increase awareness and reduce leakage.

STRATEGIES FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER FUTURE As cities compete for economic development and the amenities that add to their vibrancy, they find that water has become a must-have on corporate checklists. Resilient, efficient systems and high-quality, reliable water make cities more attractive as destinations in which to live, work, and invest. In addition, greater resiliency results in faster recovery from catastrophic emergencies when they occur. Because resilient systems can recover more quickly, a community’s citizens, businesses, and environment can also rebound faster.

Major cities worldwide are beginning to insist on resiliency planning, which is an initial step to becoming more sustainable. The following strategies stand as best practices that utilities and the cities they support should pursue in the drive for continuous improvement.

Urban adaptive planning. Top cities have become proactive in resiliency planning before they must face the next disaster. They employ statistics and modeling to design for hypothetical scenarios, potentially saving lives and making these cities safer. Topscoring cities also employ a leader or chief resilience officer to coordinate and advance sustainability in policy, planning, and funding. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to exactly plan and design for all contingencies in the mid- and long-term future. For this reason, modern planning practices must be adaptive, risk-based, and flexible enough to account for unexpected circumstances or developments.

Multi-purpose urban solutions. Water infrastructure projects often require large investments and space, but in urban areas, funding and space are limited. If resiliency development can

serve multiple functions—e.g., as a flood barrier and as development that improves urban livability— then planners can draw support from multiple stakeholders and investors for these types of projects.

In this example, harnessing the power of low-impact green infrastructure could not only reduce flood damage, it might also lead to environmental restoration and opportunities for direct community engagement and enhancement.

Optimizing urban water use. To increase overall water efficiency, cities need baseline knowledge of their assets, the behavior of their systems, and the types and levels of usage (current and projected). They also require insights into system vulnerabilities and potential risks.

Fortunately, technology advances are helping planners locate these points of weakness, real-time conditions, and even longer-term trends.

Improving sensor technology will also provide a better picture of usage and potential efficiencies. As an example of federal efforts, NOAA is pursuing the development of initiatives to provide local and holistic pictures for effective planning to build strategic partnerships for water information services and to strengthen water decision support tools and networks, among other objectives (NOAA 2016b).

Urban asset preservation and management. For several decades beforehand and throughout the economic recovery of the past 10 years, too many city authorities and utilities around the world held back on maintaining or upgrading water and wastewater infrastructure. Deferred maintenance and spending have resulted in a daunting funding gap in the United States of approximately $600 billion, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (Fister Gale 2017). At the same time, population growth and continuing urbanization require large investments in new water and wastewater infrastructure globally.

The opportunity risk of forgoing improvements based on social,

economic, and environmental consequences, as well as the probability of failure, can guide asset management decisions. For instance, the International Organization for Standardization’s asset management standard, ISO 55000, is increasingly being used to improve how utilities and cities adapt and manage their assets. Risk-based asset management approaches are also being implemented to prioritize capital and operating investments. This means allocating funds to address risks to those assets that have the highest potential of failure in balance with areas where the

FIGURE 5

consequences of failure have the biggest effect on public health, the economy, and the environment.

Desalination. Ocean water desalination is the fastest-growing alternative water supply in the world and can be a valuable source for cities looking to diversify their water portfolios. However, desalination processes typically require significant investment of initial capital and relatively high operational costs because of the energy demands of desalination and sometimes of residual (brine) management. The question for city leaders considering this option is whether the rewards of

Quality sub-index rankings

B ATTEN III | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

55

desalination warrant its implementation, and whether other alternatives such as conservation and water reuse could reliably and cost-effectively replace desalination as an alternative, or if it is a feasible approach to augmentation and diversification.

Water reuse. Effectively reusing and transporting water in a cost-effective and safe way can contribute considerably to long-term water availability and can be crucial to meeting a city’s extended demand. In many places, local conditions are driving the need and opportunity for direct potable reuse. For these communities, a good starting point is to begin early with a robust public communications program and to couple these efforts with rigorous proof-of-concept testing.

Pilot testing can demonstrate ongoing proof that direct-to-potable systems can be viable water alternatives. It is expected that more cities will consider and adopt potable reuse as freshwater resources are stretched even further in the future and the effects of conservation diminish.

INTEGRATED PLANNING Cities that carefully and creatively use their water assets will ultimately be more livable, safer, and more competitive. In a world of potentially rapid climate change, planners need to address water issues holistically, connecting the many policies and initiatives in an integrated way. Cities that bring together agencies, communities, and urban planners will be the agents of a common vision working toward the bigger goal of sustainability.

Cities must balance water resiliency with efficiency and quality, and these efforts are enhanced when the key principles of sustainability drive the planning process. Sustainable water systems operate more efficiently and deliver both high-quality water and a high quality of life, with the added benefit of faster recovery when disasters inevitably strike. The more steps cities take to rebound from disasters, to generate alternative water sources, and to ensure safety in their water sources, the more sustainable their future will be.

56

ABOUT THE AUTHOR John J. Batten III is the global cities director at Arcadis, 630 Plaza Dr., Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 USA; john.batten@ arcadis.com. In this role, he leads a global team of city-focused executives dedicated to delivering urban outcomes that improve a city’s quality of life while promoting sustainability. Batten is a globally recognized thought leader in cities and water and has more than three decades of experience in the field.

He now leads a portfolio of more than 20 global cities for Arcadis.

Previously he was the global director of water, executive vice-president and the director of strategic client development for Arcadis North America, and global water director. Batten’s industry-leading experience includes management of drinking water, wastewater utilities, water for industry, water quality and public health, marketing, communications, and customer and public relations. Batten holds a BS degree in environmental sciences from The American University, Washington, D.C., and a master’s degree in public health from New York Medical College, Valhalla, N.Y. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1098

REFERENCES

Batten, J., 2016. Resilience as a Platform for City Investment. Aquatech. www. aquatechtrade.com/aquatech-news/ resilience-as-a-platform-for-cityinvestment/ (accessed January 2018).

Fister Gale, S., 2017. Water Infrastructure Funding: Where Do We Go From Here? WaterWorld. www.waterworld. com/articles/print/volume-33/issue-3/ features/water-infrastructure-fundingwhere-do-we-go-from-here.html (accessed December 2017).

Hill, C., 2016. Sustainable Cities Water Index: Harnessing Water for Long-Term Success. Arcadis. www.arcadis.com/en/united-states/

BAT T E N III | J UN E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

our-perspectives/2016/sustainablecities-water-indexharnessing-waterfor-long-term-success/ (accessed January 2018).

Philip, A.; Sims, E.; Houston, J; & Konieczny, R., 2017. Millions Consumed Potentially Unsafe Water in the Last 10 Years. News 21, Aug. 14. CarnegieKnight Initiative. https://troubledwater. news21.com/millions-consumedpotentially-unsafe-water-in-the-last10-years/ (accessed December 2017).

Johannessen, Å. & Wamsler, C., 2017. What Does Resilience Mean for Urban Water Services? Ecology and Society. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/ iss1/art1/ (accessed January 2018).

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2016a. America’s Water Challenges: Science Helps Get the Most Out of Every Drop. www.noaa.gov/explainers/america-swater-challenges-science-helps-getmost-out-of-every-drop (accessed January 2018).

NOAA, 2016b. NOAA Water Initiative Vision and Five-Year Plan. www.noaa.gov/ explainers/noaa-water-initiativevision-and-five-year-plan (accessed January 2018).

Warner, J. & Whitler, J., 2014. Integrated Urban Water Management for Planners. Water Research Foundation. www.waterrf.org/resources/State OfTheScienceReports/Integrated UrbanWaterMgt_StateOfTheScience. pdf (accessed January 2018).

AWWA RESOURCES • Water Reuse: Reclaim Water for Public Water Supplies. Gerling, A., 2018. Opflow, 44:1:10. Product No. OPF_0086079.

• Assessing the Sustainability of Urban Water Supply Systems.

Richter, B.D., et al., 2018. Journal AWWA, 110:2:40. Product No. JAW_0086204.

• A Permanent Seat at the Table: The Role of Sustainability in the Boardroom. Taddune, G., 2018.

Journal AWWA, 110:2:55. Product No. JAW_0086205.

These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff.

For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.

PASS YOUR CERTIFICATION EXAM EXAM PREP

Download the new app Take certification preparation with you!

Available on iOS, Android, and as a desktop version via your web browser.

AWWA Water System Operations

Water Operator Certification Exam Prep

Water Operator

Certification Exam Prep ●

1,400+ all-new questions and answers

●

Vetted and approved by water industry experts

●

Meets latest ABC Need-to-Know Criteria

●

Arranged by subject matter and topic for easy reference

●

Pairs with AWWA Exam Prep app

Or check out the new book 1400+ all NEW questions and answers Vetted and approved by experts Meets latest ABC Need-to-Know Criteria

op marks ®

Arranged by subject matter and topic for easy reference

awwa.org/wso

®

Pages From the Past

Introduction by Kenneth L. Mercer, Editor-in-Chief

A

lvin Percy (A.P.) Black was a professor at the University of Florida for 47 years (until 1966), and during that time he was a major contributor to AWWA, both as an author for the Journal and serving as AWWA’s vice-president and president. Black’s influence on the water industry is immeasurable, and in 1967 AWWA established its A.P. Black Research Award to “recognize outstanding research contributions to water science and water supply rendered over an appreciable period of time.”

In his 1966 Journal AWWA article, Black reviews the evolution of water treatment in North America beginning in the 1800s, commenting on the challenge water professionals must face in that they must “follow closely a host of new developments and discoveries of the research scientists and engineers and to translate these findings into practice as soon as their effectiveness or economy has been determined.”

Journal AWWA has been published continuously since March 1914. Over the years, it has evolved from a quarterly compilation of research, discussions, and conference proceedings into a monthly blend of original research articles, topical features, and industry-specific columns by water professionals. Pages From the Past is a regular feature that provides a glimpse into past perspectives, challenges, and solutions as presented by our predecessors. The excerpt to follow is republished exactly as it appeared in the original pages of the Journal, with only slight modifications to general formatting styles such as font and spacing.

The article was originally published in the February 1966 issue of Journal American Water Works Association (Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 137–146).

BETTER TOOLS FOR TREATMENT—A. P. BLACK A PAPER PRE SE NTE D B Y A . P. B L A C K , R ES EAR C H P R O F. O F C H EMI S T RY & SAN. SC IE NC E , DE PT. O F C H E M ISTRY, U N I V. O F F L O R I D A, G AI N ES V I L L E, F L A.

In November 1933, George W. Fuller published his last paper in the Journal.1 It was titled “Progress in Water Purification,” and he attempted then, as the author shall attempt now, to evaluate available tools and techniques and to predict what the future may have in store.

In his paper, he divided the progress of the art of water treatment into four periods: 1. The period of early beginnings, 1869–86 2. The period of research and development, 1887–1902 3. The period of practical accomplishment, 1903–18 4. The period of refinements and extensions, 1919–33 He began with the year 1869 because that was the date of the Kirkwood Report, which provided, for the first time, full information regarding European practice in water treatment. It was during this period that Hyatt, in 1884, secured his patent on the use of alum as a coagulant.

Fuller closed his first period with the year 1886 because it was then that the Massachusetts legislature placed control of water quality in the state in the hands of the state board of health.

His second period witnessed the establishment, in 1877, of the Lawrence Experiment Station and the first of the important research data which were to be produced there. During the period, rapid sand filters were constructed in a number of United States cities. Fuller’s own classic work at Louisville, Ky., and elsewhere pointed out the necessity for the adequate preparation of water for filtration.

58

PAGE S F ROM T HE PA S T | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

In his third and fourth periods, he traced developments in the art of water treatment up until the time of his death, and closed his last paper with this prophetic statement: “However, the field has not been covered as completely or as thoroughly as should be the case. Typhoid epidemics still occur and there is still work to be done by those engaged in this field.”

CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT How right he was. Recent years have seen intensified research in almost every area of water treatment. There are many reasons for this. One is that more and more engineers are continuing their training at the graduate level. Another is the tremendous research grant program of the various federal agencies—notably, in the case of the water industry, the US Public Health Service. One might expect that such a situation quickly would be reflected in improved techniques. Unfortunately, this is too often not the case.2 A visit to a new major water treatment plant is an interesting and exciting experience.

One finds accurate and well­designed chemical feeders with automatic controls, completely equipped laboratories, ample facilities for material handling, and instrumentation for communication and control, not only throughout the plant but throughout the entire water system. Approaching the treatment units, however, the calendar rolls back 50 years and one is faced with the melancholy fact that water treatment is still an art and not a science. One sees before him the same old mixing basins, flocculators, sedimentation basins, and rapid sand filters that have served as treatment units for more than five decades. Nature purifies water by settling and filtration and, after all these years, man still continues to do so too.

The water utility engineer has displayed resourcefulness, ingenuity, and imagination in utilizing the many new developments in electronics, but he has been slow in adopting and implementing the results of chemical research. This relative failure results, in part, from a breakdown in communication. Just as the research scientist failed for many years to recognize that Mattson, in 1928, clearly elucidated a theory of the action of alum as a coagulant—a theory that has stood up under the impact of a host of new papers—so the engineer has been slow to realize that many new advances in treatment methods or materials are at his disposal. The conservatism in the design of water treatment units also results from the fact that all too frequently engineers are required by regulatory agencies to follow arbitrary design criteria, most of which have been obsolete for many years.

BETTER COMMUNICATION Better communication between the practicing engineer and the research scientist is needed most urgently. The production of quality water challenges the sanitary engineer to follow closely a host of new developments and discoveries of the research scientists and engineers and to translate these findings into practice as soon as their effectiveness or economy has been determined.

Earlier in 1965, the author had the privilege of participating in an engineering conference in a western state where exactly this was done. In the words of its sponsors3: The development of new ideas is the role of research laboratories the world over. These laboratories are staffed with people capable of investigating new theories and applying these theories to the solution of practical problems. The equipment and facilities are available which enable the full evaluation of the theoretical aspects of any new or improved process. However, before this information can be applied to practical problems, it must be passed on to the practicing professionals. This is the reason for conferences such as the Annual Sanitary Engineering Conference held at the University of Kansas.

It was the purpose of the sponsors of the meeting to assemble people who have been investigating new processes and ideas in areas where problems exist or improvements can be made. This meeting was intended to provide a means for the communication of these ideas.

PA G ES FR O M TH E PA S T | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

59

BETTER TOOLS FOR TREATMENT Better tools for treatment are needed for at least two important reasons. First, United States water quality standards become more rigorous and demanding with each revision. The 1962 USPHS Drinking Water Standards significantly lower the values for the maximum permissable [sic] concentration of seven of eighteen chemical characteristics, add three new ones, and eliminate three which have been found to be of little value. With respect to the criteria set by AWWA Task Group 2225 M, however, the situation is even more challenging:4 Ideally, water delivered to the consumer should be clear, colorless, tasteless, and odorless. It should contain no pathogenic organisms and be free from biological forms which may be harmful to human health or esthetically objectionable. It should not contain concentrations of chemicals which may be physiologically harmful, esthetically objectionable, or economically damaging. The water should not be corrosive or incrusting to, or leave deposits on, water-conveying structures through which it passes, or in which it may be retained, including pipes, tanks, water heaters, and plumbing fixtures. The water should be adequately protected by natural processes, or by treatment processes, which insure consistency in quality.

Few, if any, waters can fully meet such a functional definition of the ideal. There is neither the knowledge nor adequately sensitive laboratory test procedures in all cases to determine whether a given water fully meets such a specification. Water technology and full knowledge of the significance of water contaminants, both biological and chemical, are still insufficient. With the present rapid increase and expansion of such knowledge, these ideals may quickly become outdated and will need reconsideration and modification. On the basis of present knowledge, however, a water would approach the functional ideal if it meets the characteristics outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 of the Task Group Report upgrades each of the six physical characteristics specified in the 1962 Standards and all but two of the ten chemical characteristics, adding a new one to the latter group; it also upgrades all seven nontoxic characteristics and adds two others. It upgrades the bacteriologic standards, adds three new “corrosion and scaling” characteristics, and upgrades two of the three radiologic characteristics.

Second, the task of water treatment is becoming constantly more difficult, because we have developed our best water sources first, and now many of these preferred sources and many of the more recently developed and less desirable sources are polluted, some with types of materials unheard of even a few years ago.

POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS The entire approach to the problem of improving water treatment must be broadened. For example, if asked to list the essential processes necessary for the removal of turbidity or organic color from a soft surface water, almost everyone would answer “coagulation and flocculation, sedimentation and filtration.” Broadly viewed, however, the four steps are really only a single operation, namely, liquid-solid separation. The materials to be separated from water, whether turbidity, organic color, algae, protozoa, or bacteria, are all solids, and the liquid phase, water, is the product to be captured. Such a viewpoint means that the series of operations should be optimized, which might result in the elimination of one or more of these steps from the treatment process. If, for example, the water to be treated is of low turbidity, as many of our major impounded supplies are, the overall process might consist of carefully planned and completely instrumented coagulation and flocculation employing two, three, or even more coagulants and flocculants in very low dosages to produce small, tough flocs that then would be filtered through a special type of filter without any settling whatever. Recent work clearly has shown that water so treated may be successfully filtered through new-type filters at rates two, three, or even four times higher than those that have been considered conventional for many years.

If, on the other hand, a water possesses high turbidity or organic color, efforts might be concentrated on the use of a combination of coagulants, coagulant aids, and flocculants, the 60

PAGE S F ROM T HE PA S T | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

objective being to produce large, tough, dense flocs that would settle rapidly in specially designed basins to yield a very clear supernatant; final filtration, again in high-rate filters, would be merely a final polishing operation. It follows that, in order to employ such new processes, conventional design criteria must be revised fundamentally and that substantial reductions in plant costs can be achieved. More must be learned—much more about the effectiveness of the new organic materials that are becoming available. More flexibility and better controls for the addition of both these and the older materials to the water to bring about coagulation and flocculation must be provided, and new types of filters with continuous monitoring, which will operate at rates far higher than have been considered possible in the past, must be developed.

Engineering Record Collection | https://www.loc.gov/item/oh0123

Photo credit: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American

COAGULATION AND FLOCCULATION Recently, it has been realized that coagulation and flocculation involve entirely different forces and are actually completely separate operations. Both clay turbidity and organic color are present in surface waters as negatively charged colloids, and coagulation is brought about primarily by reducing the repulsive potential of the electrical double layer at the surface of each colloid particle. This means, of course, that a coagulant must be a cationic material of opposite charge to that of the colloidal particle and capable of so reducing the surface charge that Brownian movement and the Van der Waal’s attractive forces come into play and tiny microflocs are formed.

This is coagulation.

Flocculation, on the other hand, involves the binding action of relatively highmolecular-weight inorganic and organic materials which act as linear polymers to bridge and unite the solid particles of the microfloc dispersion into a threedimensional random structure that is initially loose and porous. It seems likely that, in this process, adsorption plays the most important role, for both anionic, or negatively charged materials, and cationic, or positively charged materials, are able to act as flocculants. Activated silica, first introduced by Baylis5 in 1937, is a negatively charged inorganic polymer. Natural polymers such as starch and alginic acid, are sometimes effective flocculants, and recent years have witnessed the introduction of a number of synthetic organic polyelectrolytes, both anionic and cationic, that are excellent flocculants.

POLYMERS The introduction of microelectrophoresis as a new tool to determine the electrophoretic mobility and particle charges of floc particles6 has contributed greatly to the understanding of the complex mechanisms involved in both coagulation and flocculation. As work of this sort has proceeded, it has become increasingly clear that, whereas both anionic and cationic materials can act as coagulant aids or flocculants, positively charged cationic polymers can act as PA G ES FR O M TH E PA S T | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

61

The rapid sand filter, as presently designed and used, has the highest cost–benefit ratio of any unit process of water treatment. Although Baylis8 many years ago showed that, with proper pretreatment of water and increased size of filter media, filtration rates of surface waters greatly 62

PAGE S F ROM T HE PA S T | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Engineering Record Collection | https://www.loc.gov/item/oh0123

DEVELOPMENTS IN FILTRATION

Photo credit: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American

the sole coagulant. Several such compounds now have been developed or are in various stages of development, and work already done has demonstrated that they are dramatically effective in coagulating and flocculating clay turbidity, without the addition of any other material.

Some of these cationic polymers, properly handled, are capable of coagulating and flocculating waters having turbidities of 200–250 turbidity units in dosages as low as 25–100 ppb. The resulting flocs are so dense and heavy that settling is practically complete within 15 min and settled water may have turbidity in the range of 1–5 units.

To comprehend fully what this means, one should take a moment to calculate that these dosages represent only 5–14 oz of polymer per million gallons of water coagulated. It may be possible by their use to reduce substantially the chemical cost of coagulation in the case of many waters. For example, for a 0.125-ppm dosage of a cationic polymer costing $2 per pound, the polymer cost per million gallons of water coagulated would be $2. The cost of a dosage of 1 gpg of filter alum in most parts of the United States would be approximately double that figure. The use of such materials obviously would simplify greatly that most troublesome of all operating problems in water treatment plants, the storage, handling, and feeding of bulk chemicals, and this simplification in turn would be reflected in plant design and cost.

Because of the much more rapid settling of the tough, heavy flocs formed, settling basins could be greatly reduced in size. La Mer7 has studied the effect of a great many of these materials upon filtration rates and has found that almost all of them increase filterability. To date, none of these cationic materials have been approved by the USPHS for use in public water supplies.

One may feel confident, however, that with the demonstrated effectiveness of these materials to spur him on, the polymer chemist will not be long in developing a safe, nontoxic material— if indeed he has not done so already.

could exceed generally accepted standards, the water industry has been lamentably slow in adopting his findings to practice. There still exists on the part of many state regulatory agencies a reluctance to accept filter rates higher than 2 gpm/sq ft for surface supplies.

DUAL-MEDIA FILTERS The next advance in filter design has consisted in the use of two different filter media. Camp9 has been designing anthracite-sand filters for more than 20 years, employing anthracite on top of silica sand. The coarse-grained anthracite medium has been employed to allow deep penetration of floc and correspondingly long filter runs. The finer-grained sand beneath the anthracite serves as a polishing agent to remove most of the floc remaining after the passage of water through the coal. In these earlier types of dual-media filters, relatively thick beds of both media have been used. At the Billerica, Mass., filter plant, for example, Camp used 18 in. of relatively coarse anthracite on top of 30 in. of relatively coarse sand. Although the river water treated is of extremely variable quality, the filter plant effluent has been uniformly good in quality.

No discussion of filtration would be complete without remarking the significant work of Conley and Pitman10 at the eight large filtration plants operated by the General Electric Co. for the US Atomic Energy Commission at Hanford, Wash. It is important to note that the process was evolved for purposes other than removal of turbidity to attain drinking water standards. Because the water is used for cooling reactor tubes, transfer of radioactive materials to effluent discharge would be disastrous. The raw water from the Columbia River contains about 100 ppm of total dissolved solids, a low organic content, and a turbidity value range of 1–1,600 ppm. The Hanford filters are composed of anthracite and sand and have an effective size approaching 1 mm and 0.45 mm, respectively. Beginning in 1956, alum was introduced in the raw water to provide a microfloc. A secondary addition of an anionic polymer in parts per billion doses is made before filtration. The converted filters have a practical capability of 8 gpm/sq ft without deterioration of effluent quality. In general terms, separation without flocculation and settling is practical up to a turbidity of about 100 units.

Of equal importance is the work by Robeck, Dostal, and Woodward11 during 1962–63 on Miami River water. Pilot plant studies made over a 1.5-year period on turbid water from the Little Miami River yielded the following general conclusions: 1. A double-layered bed of coarse media, consisting of 18 in. of coal (effective size, 1.05 mm) on top of 6 in. of sand was able to remove as much or more turbidity, coliform bacteria, poliovirus, or powdered activated carbon as a bed of coal or sand alone. Such a bed also permitted the extension of filter runs.

2. With proper coagulation ahead of the filter, a 6-gpm/sq ft filtration rate was as effective in removing all the above-mentioned test particulates as a 4- or 2-gpm/sq ft rate.

3. When coarse media and high filtration rates were used, adequate floc strength was more important in achieving clarity than settleability. This strength frequently was obtained only by addition of 5–20 ppm of activated silica as a coagulant aid or 0.05–0.2 ppm of a synthetic polyelectrolyte as a filter aid.

4. When the water was relatively clear (<25 turbidity units), the flocculation and sedimentation steps of conventional-treatment design could be omitted if a coarse medium were placed on top of sand.

5. For this particular river water, the inclusion of flocculation and limited sedimentation permitted longer filter runs and better water during winter and flood conditions.

Poliovirus in clear water was found to be more readily removed by fresh, clean, granularactivated-carbon beds than by sand. Carbon exhausted by a high loading of dissolved organic contaminants did not, however, remove much more virus than a similar-size sand or coal medium.

MULTIPLE-MEDIA FILTERS The development of multiple-media filters is now being commercially exploited, 1.0-mm effective-size coal, 0.4-mm effective-size sand, and 0.18-mm effective-size garnet being used.

PA G ES FR O M TH E PA S T | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

63

Because of the different specific gravities of these materials, they stratify to some extent during backwash, although complete stratification is avoided by careful specifications of particle size.

After backwash, the filter is a mixture of coal, sand, and garnet from top to bottom, with coal predominately in the upper layers, sand in the middle layers, and garnet at the bottom. This design appears to be the most practical present approach to the ideal situation of an infinite number of filters in series, with each succeeding filter somewhat more effective than the one immediately preceding. Continuous monitoring of plant effluent turbidity is provided and monitoring equipment is also available for coagulation control. Even with this instrumentation, however, it is obvious that such sophisticated water treatment will require well-trained and highly experienced operators to produce acceptable results.

DISINFECTION BY CHLORINE The disinfection of water with chlorine must be classed as one of the greatest preventive public health measures of all time. Since it was first adopted at Middlekerke, Belgium, in 1902, it has saved countless lives throughout the world. In recent years, however, it has become apparent that chlorine is not the ideal water disinfectant. A committee of special consultants to the US Public Health Service, in a recent report,12 stated that: Chlorine, the disinfectant used almost universally in safeguarding water, is not effective against all microorganisms in the concentrations of chlorine normally used in water works systems. Certain bacteria are resistant or invulnerable to chlorine in the amounts generally applied. Research on new and more effective disinfectants should be supported.

Chlorine’s great chemical reactivity causes still other drawbacks. It reacts readily with ammonia to form chlorine­ammonia compounds, which are relatively ineffective for water disinfection.

Its bactericidal effectiveness is reduced greatly by high pH values. Its ability to react with organic materials by oxidation, by substitution, or by addition constitutes perhaps the greatest drawback to its effectiveness. The ideal disinfectant would be some material, weak chemically and unable to participate in such reactions, but, at the same time, possessing bactericidal, cycticidal, and viricidal properties equal or superior to those of chlorine. . . .

CONCLUSION This discussion has been limited to three areas of water treatment: coagulation-flocculation, filtration, and disinfection. Nothing has been said about the removal of surfactants, pesticide residues, and industrial pollutants; about new methods for iron and manganese removal or complexing; about the removal of tastes and odors; about stabilization. All of these problems, and many more, are being intensively studied; real progress is being made. It seems clear that the years ahead are to witness the development of increasingly sophisticated methods of water treatment which will require better plants and professionally trained and highly skilled operators.

One may see that the water utility industry, custodian of the United States’ most precious natural resource, is emerging from a long period of conservatism and traditionalism in its approach to its technical problems and is entering upon an era during which the results of research will be translated into practice at an accelerated rate. The consulting engineer, moreover, will be permitted to embody in his design the most sophisticated and effective treatments developed by his research counterpart.

One hopes that the state regulatory agencies will direct their efforts toward their major responsibilities—closer and more effective supervision of plant operation, the training, upgrading, and licensing of operators, and comprehensive programs of monitoring water quality. And it must be remembered that, even in an age of automation, the human element is still predominant; it is to be hoped that, as the years pass, the water utility man, whether engineer, superintendent, foreman, or operator, will receive the professional recognition and compensation to which his challenging task entitles him.

64

PAGE S F ROM T HE PA S T | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

REFERENCES

1. Fuller, G. W. Progress in Water Purification. Jour. AWWA, 25:1566 (Nov. 1933).

2. Black, A. P. Challenges of Quality Water. Jour. AWWA, 56:1279 (Oct. 1964).

3. Pfeffer, J. T. Transactions of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Sanitary Engineering. Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, Mo. (1965).

4. Bean, E. L. Progress Report on Water Quality Criteria. Jour. AWWA, 54:1313 (Nov. 1962).

5. Baylis, J. R. Silicate as Aids to Coagulation. Jour. AWWA, 29:1355 (Sep. 1937).

6. Pilipovich, J. B., Et Al. Electrophoretic Studies of Water Coagulation. Jour. AWWA, 50:1467 (1958).

7. La Mer, V. K. & Smellie, R. H. Flocculation Subsidence and Filtration of Phosphate Slimes. J. Colloid Sci., 11:704, 710, 720; 12:230 (1957).

8. Baylis, J. R. Experience With High­Rate Filtration. Jour. AWWA, 42:687 (Jul. 1950).

9. Camp, T. R. Experience with Anthracite-Sand Filters. Jour. AWWA, 53:1478 (Dec. 1961).

10. Conley, W. R. Experience with Anthracite-Sand Filters. Jour. AWWA, 53:1473 (Dec. 1961).

11. Robeck, G. G.; Dostal, K. A.; & Woodward, R. L. Studies of Modifications in Water Filtration. Jour. AWWA, 56:198 (Feb. 1964).

12. Report of the Committee on Environmental Health Problems to the Surgeon General. US Public Health Service Publ. No. 908. US Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1962).

13. Black, A. P. Et Al. Use of Iodine for Disinfection. Jour. AWWA, 57:1401 (Nov. 1965). https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1099

PA G ES FR O M TH E PA S T | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

65

ANNOUNCING A NEW EVENT!

W

ith financing of projects for infrastructure renewal and replacement and compliance

attainment being a significant concern for many water and wastewater utilities, rate increases have been necessary for some utilities to sustainably fund these activities on an ongoing basis.

The inaugural Transformative Issues Symposium on

WHO ATTENDS? ◆ Water utility management and executives, including general managers and finance officers ◆ Water utility board members ◆ Public officials

Affordability is a timely event designed to advance the

◆ Public affairs managers

knowledge and understanding about this important

◆ Consultants

topic. The Symposium will cultivate the exchange

◆ Academics

of ideas between a variety of stakeholders and provide insight into utility experiences, the regulatory landscape, international perspectives and lessons

◆ Local, state and federal government agencies

learned through two technical tracks. An engaging Opening General Session will provide a prelude to the program, which features interactive panel discussions and time for networking with presenters and attendees.

ADDRESSING AFFORDABILITY TRACK INCLUDES Utility Case Studies Addressing Affordability through Third-Party Partnerships Advancing Affordability through Research Are Rates Really the Problem? Leaks, Loans, Landlords & Politics

UNDERSTANDING THE AFFORDABILITY LANDSCAPE TRACK INCLUDES Regulatory Angles State Issues in Affordability Customer Affordability Assistance Funding: Lessons Learned from the Energy Industry The International Challenges and Lessons Learned on Affordability

66

J UN E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 : 6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Jointly presented by

washington, dc august 6–7, 2018

Technical Content Partner

affordability FEATURED SESSIONS Utility Affordability Case Studies In this session, attendees will have the opportunity to hear directly from three utilities and learn how they have addressed affordability challenges. Utilities featured in this session include the City of Detroit, Portland Water Bureau and DC Water.

Philadelphia’s Adaptive Strategy to Balance Financial Resilience and Customer Affordability: A Case Study Sustaining financial resilience and customer affordability increasingly seem to be at odds with each other. The panel will discuss Philadelphia’s holistic approach to driving customer affordability, defensible cost recovery and revenue protection. Featured panelists include Jon Davis, Raftelis Financial Consultants Melissa LaBuda, Philadelphia Water Department Brian Merritt, Black & Veatch Management Consulting, LLC

Addressing Affordabilitiy Through Third-Party Partnerships Partnerships with third-party organizations may be an attractive option for some utilities to consider when addressing affordability challenges. This session will feature representatives from three utilities that have worked with third-party organizations to address local affordabilitiy issues, along with representatives from these third-party partner organizations. Learn about the benefits and challenges that have resulted from these partnerships in a series of informative presentations followed by a panel discussion.

All sessions and events are located at The Washington Court Hotel, Washington, DC.

Register and book housing online at awwa.org/affordabilty

by June 29, 2018, for the best rates.

JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

67

Wiley brings you books in

Water Resource Management

cts of chlorine • new5thadvanc itio quipment, facilities, andEdopera n virus infiltration of water supp White’s Handbook of orine supplies as critical reso Chlorination and the issue of their depletio and Alternative merican and European chlorin actices • biomedical and env Disinfectants ental effects of chlorine • new ances in equipment, facilities Black & Veatch Corporation erations • virus infiltration of pplies • chlorine supplies as c sources and the issue of thei pletion • American and Europ hlorination practices • biome Wastewater Pathogens

Wastewater Bacteria

ISBN: 978-0-471-71042-4

ISBN: 978-0-471-20691-0

White’s Handbook of Chlorination and Alternative Disinfectants, 5th Edition ISBN: 978-0-470-18098-3

T H I R D E D I T I O N

E N V I R O N M E N TA L

ORGANIC CHEMISTRY René P. Schwarzenbach Philip M. Gschwend Dieter M. Imboden

Water Quality Engineering: Physical / Chemical Treatment Processes

Environmental Organic Chemistry, 3rd Edition ISBN: 978-1-118-76723-8

Drinking Water Regulation and Health ISBN: 978-0-471-41554-1

Save 20% on these books! Use promotion code VBP87 when checking out at wiley.com.

For more information on these titles, or to see our full catalogue, visit www.wiley.com.

17 - 320605

ISBN: 978-1-118-16965-0

AWWA CAREER CENTER–

the premier resource to connect career opportunities with highly qualified water talent. ●

●

●

●

●

Search and apply to more water industry jobs than any other job bank.

Upload your anonymous résumé and allow employers to contact you through the Career Center’s messaging system.

Set up Job Alerts specifying your skills, interests, and preferred location(s) to receive email notifications when a job is posted that matches your criteria.

Access career resources and job searching tips and tools.

Have your résumé critiqued by a résumé-writing expert.

LOG ON TODAY! AWWA.ORG/CAREERS

ACE18 JOB & EDUCATION FAIR WED, JUNE 13 2:00–5:30 PM LAS VEGAS

DC Beat WE NDI WI L K ES

Wilkes

Make Water Affordable Again?

C

ommunities are more frequently confronting water affordability issues at the utility and household levels, with multiple stakeholders working to balance affordable rates with the costs of service. For example, the City of Philadelphia, Pa., passed a progressive affordability program in 2017 that used household income as the basis for customer water rates (Nadolny 2017). Other recent municipal efforts in the United States include the work of the Baltimore, Md., city council to craft a water affordability package (expected this year), while in Chicago, Ill., aldermen have discussed ways to insulate low-income residents from water rate increases (Spielman 2017). In an example from Texas, concern over affordability led the City of Austin to explore rate reductions in 2018 for all classes of retail customers (Devenyns 2017).

Given the widespread attention water affordability has recently received and the variety of approaches communities can consider, it’s not surprising that this local issue has caught the attention of some members of the US Congress.

2017 NAPA AFFORDABILITY FRAMEWORK

70

DC BE AT | J UN E 20 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY METRIC The 1997 FCA Guidance, used by USEPA to determine a community’s ability to pay for a project to reduce pollution of waterways by CSOs, relies on a residential indicator (RI)—based on the ratio of total annual wastewater and CSO control costs to the community’s median household income (MHI)—and a financial capability indicator—based on metrics that include bond rating, debt load, unemployment rates, MHI, and property tax revenues and collection rates. The RI uses a level of 2% of MHI to determine affordability for wastewater; in

Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/Sean Pavone

In the 2016 omnibus spending deal, Congress instructed the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to study US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) water affordability guidance and provide a definition and framework for affordability of clean water for a community. NAPA assembled a panel of five academy fellows who directed the work of a study team to conduct a comprehensive literature review, survey, interviews, and a roundtable with stakeholders. The panel developed 21 recommendations for USEPA, summarized in its report, Developing a New Framework for Community Affordability of Clean Water Services (2017 NAPA Affordability Framework; NAPA 2017).

Although the congressional directive and many of USEPA’s existing policies and guidance focus on affordability of controlling combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and application under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the 2017 NAPA Affordability Framework panel widened the scope to look at affordability beyond the CWA. After all, the same ratepayer feels the burden alike for clean water, stormwater, and drinking water needs.

Many of the report’s recommendations are consistent with AWWA’s comments on and critiques of USEPA’s policies regarding affordability. The study focuses on how USEPA calculates the affordability of projects required to bring water systems into compliance with the CWA for CSOs. Ultimately, the report finds that median household income is not an effective indicator of community affordability. In addition, the metrics used by USEPA to address affordability in either the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit process or an enforcement process (such as consent decrees) originating from the 1994 CSO Policy (USEPA 1994), and the subsequent 1997 Combined Sewer Overflows–Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development (1997 FCA Guidance), need to be revised and improved.

other words, a project is affordable if it produces an average sewer bill less than 2% of MHI. AWWA and others have long criticized using this metric to gauge affordability because using MHI as a metric diminishes the impact of high water bills on the lowest-income customers (Teodoro 2018). Additionally, the RI only includes wastewater and CSO costs and does not evaluate all water costs, including drinking water, a metric that would reflect the full cost of water service to the customer. No explanation is provided in the 1997 FCA Guidance or in supporting materials for the choice of standards for the RI—namely, that costs exceeding 2% of household income constitute a high impact, and costs of less than 1% of household income constitute a low impact. In fact, the origination of this threshold is quite obscure.

The use of MHI as an economic indicator appears to have originated with the Farm Home Loan program in 1972 (NACWA 2005). This approach then spread to other programs, appearing in USEPA documents as early as 1984 (USEPA 1984). A 1998 USEPA document on variance technology for drinking water systems indicates the 2.5% threshold for drinking water affordability used by USEPA was derived in part from comparing Consumer Expenditure Survey data gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; alcohol and tobacco, telephone, and energy and fuel expenditures are the reference data used in developing the affordability threshold (USEPA 1998).

In any case, the 2% threshold for wastewater and the 2.5% threshold for drinking water do not appear to be derived from an economic analysis, and further use of MHI as the standard metric for affordability deserves further study. Incorporating these recommendations from the report, and improving USEPA’s water affordability guidelines so that a community’s ability to pay for clean water projects required for federal compliance is more accurately captured, will ultimately benefit customers and the community by extending CSO enforcement deadlines and moving USEPA toward a more holistic view of affordability.

address the ability of water systems to establish CAPs from rate revenues. This is in stark contrast to state regulations addressing energy bills and affordability for low-income customers that exist in nearly every state (AWWA 2017). Although the lack of clear legal precedent in the water sector allows for ingenuity and innovative approaches, it also gives no assurance to a utility on whether a rate-funded CAP is permissible or prohibited. If states follow the recommendation put forth by the 2017 NAPA Affordability Framework, there could be an increase in states adopting more explicit language regarding how a water utility may legally address affordability and assist low-income customers in its service area.

ON CAPITOL HILL AND IN THE NATIONAL DIALOGUE More recent activity on Capitol Hill could result in new legislation concerning water affordability. With an infrastructure package next in line on the congressional to-do list, we may see an increase in discussion and action around affordable water service and CAPs. In January 2018, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on water infrastructure needs and challenges, marking the beginning of Senate focus on water infrastructure in the current session of Congress. Although affordability was not a main topic, an infrastructure bill would be a reasonable and compelling place to embed legislation on affordability issues for either water systems or households.

With an infrastructure package next in line on the congressional to-do list, we may see an increase in discussion and action around affordable water service and CAPs.

CONSUMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Another recommendation of the 2017 NAPA Affordability Framework urged USEPA to “work with local and state governments to eliminate barriers restricting utilities’ ability to develop more efficient and equitable water rate structures, including specific Consumer Assistance Plans (CAPs) for financially distressed lowincome ratepayers” (NAPA 2017, 149). In 2017, the University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center authored a report, funded in part by AWWA, exploring the legal framework, state policies, and barriers to rate-funded CAPs (UNC 2017).

Perhaps the most striking finding in this report is that only a few states have clear laws that specifically

While members of the Trump Administration have talked more about process and permit streamlining, this cabinet has also promised to deliver a trillion-dollar infrastructure investment. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has passed H.R. 3387, the Drinking Water System Improvement Act, a bill that would reauthorize the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan fund program and make some other changes to drinking water policy. This is intended to be the drinking water component of comprehensive infrastructure legislation in the House; however, it does not focus on affordability. Wastewater is under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, D C B EAT | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

71

and this committee is not as far along as the Energy and Commerce group in producing its infrastructure legislation (note that in the Senate, Environment and Public Works has jurisdiction over both drinking water and wastewater). Given these variables and the current political climate, it’s possible any meaningful legislation on water affordability will get lost in the chaos.

Although water service affordability is inherently a local challenge, the contribution of federal mandates to increasing water service costs and the national need for more investment in water infrastructure has set the stage for congressional action. In January 2017, the Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, released a report on infrastructure policy solutions that recommends Congress “examine the growing affordability strain on ratepayers and its impact on water infrastructure maintenance and repair” (PSC 2017). The report also suggests that Congress develop a demonstration program to help states and cities address water affordability for ratepayers.

Along the same lines, draft legislation making its way around Capitol Hill proposes the creation of a new national grant program to help 20 water and wastewater systems address unaffordable water bills through CAPs. The cost of a grant program like this would be very high in comparison with the number of people it could ultimately serve, which will likely make such a program a tough sell for many members of Congress. By contrast, it’s surprising that enormous federal programs such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program exist to address affordability issues in the realms of energy bills and groceries, respectively, but no equivalent federal program is in place to address water and wastewater bills for low-income Americans. Though a national grant pilot program would undoubtedly have a significant effect for some systems over the next decade, it prompts the question, what about the other communities also facing affordability challenges now?

A new and upcoming symposium hosted by AWWA and the Water Environment Federation will attempt to address these issues head-on. The first annual Transformative Issues Symposium (www.awwa.org/ affordability), scheduled for Aug. 6–7 in Washington, D.C., will focus on affordability, with topics such as utility rate setting, infrastructure financing, and legal and regulatory barriers around CAPs. The symposium is a chance for leaders in the water sector to work together on an important issue, identify new concerns, and collaborate to develop solutions. As water professionals come together at events like this to address pervasive affordability issues, their innovations and insights provide the guidance communities need to make water ultimately affordable for all.

72

DC BE AT | J UN E 20 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

—Wendi Wilkes is a regulatory analyst in AWWA’s Government Affairs Office in Washington, D.C., where her work ranges from water system partnerships and affordability policy issues to source water protection efforts; she may be contacted at wwilkes@awwa.org.

Before joining AWWA, Wilkes worked for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, where she served in the Office of Water and coordinated projects for water systems facing severe drought and utilities in the state receivership program. She earned a BA degree in geography from the University of Texas at Austin. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1100

REFERENCES

AWWA, 2017 (7th ed.). Manual of Water Supply Practices, M1.

Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges. AWWA, Denver.

Devenyns, J., 2017. Austin Water Pitches Rate Reductions in 2018.

Austin Monitor, Dec. 18. www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2017/12/ austin-water-pitches-rate-reductions-2018/ (accessed Jan. 10, 2018).

NACWA (National Association of Clean Water Agencies), 2005.

Financial Capability and Affordability in Wet Weather Negotiations.

White paper. NACWA, Washington.

Nadolny, T.L., 2017. For Low-Income Residents, Philadelphia Unveiling Income-Based Water Bills. Philly.com, June 20. www.philly.com/ philly/news/politics/city/for-low-income-residents-philadelphiaunveiling-income-based-water-bills-20170620.html (accessed Jan. 10, 2018).

NAPA (National Academy of Public Administration), 2017. Developing a New Framework for Community Affordability of Clean Water Services. Report for the Environmental Protection Agency. NAPA, Washington.

PSC (Problem Solvers Caucus Infrastructure Working Group), 2017.

Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure. https://katko.house.gov/pscinfrastructure-report (accessed Feb. 5, 2018).

Spielman, F., 2017. Ramirez-Rosa Pushes Water and Sewer Break for Low-Income Chicagoans. Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 27. https:// chicago.suntimes.com/news/ramirez-rosa-pushes-water-andsewer-break-for-low-income-chicagoans/ (accessed Jan. 10, 2018).

Teodoro, M.P., 2018. Measuring Household Affordability for Water and Sewer Utilities. Journal AWWA, 110:1:13. https://doi.org/10.5942/ jawwa.2018.110.0002.

UNC (University of North Carolina), School of Government, Environmental Finance Center, 2017. Navigating Legal Pathways to Rate-Funded Customer Assistance Programs: A Guide for Water and Wastewater Utilities. UNC, Chapel Hill.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 1998. Variance Technology Findings for Contaminants Regulated Before 1996 (EPA 815-R-98-003). USEPA, Washington.

USEPA, 1997. Combined Sewer Overflows–Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development. USEPA, Washington. www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/csofc.pdf (accessed Apr. 27, 2018).

USEPA, 1994. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy; Notice.

59 Fed. Reg. 18688, April 19.

USEPA, 1984. Financial Capability Guidebook (EPA 000-R-84-101). USEPA Office of Water, Washington.

Problems.

Solved.

SURFACE WATER

GROUND WATER

GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON

DBPs Algal Toxins Taste/Odor

VOCs PFCs/PFAS 1,2,3-TCP

The Solution for Simultaneous Removal of Contaminants

For more than 50 years, Calgon Carbon has provided the industry-leading solutions to help utilities solve their water and wastewater challenges, including the superior performance of reagglomerated coal-based granular activated carbon made in the USA. Calgon Carbon also provides a full range of carbon adsorption equipment, Ion Exchange, and Ultraviolet Light Technologies.

Find your solution today at

calgoncarbon.com/gac or call 800.4.CARBON

JOINT RESTRAINT PROTECTION

FLANGE CONNECTION PROTECTION

WATER PIPELINE PROTECTION Denso protects water and wastewater ttings, valves, municipal casting chambers and more from corrosion through our petrolatum tape system.

www.densona.com

Call: 281-821-3355 E-mail: info@densona.com

JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

73

Law & Water D AV I D T. M c G I MP S EY

McGimpsey

The Legal Version of a Main Break

P

ursuant to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) may lend money to rural water and wastewater associations. Specifically 7 U.S.C. § 1926 authorizes the USDA to make or insure loans to these associations to help rural areas meet their water challenges and to encourage water development in rural areas.

One subsection of this statute, namely 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) (Section 1926(b)), protects rural water associations indebted to the federal government from other service providers taking their service territory. An excerpt of the operative language from Section 1926(b) is set forth here:

The language in this section creates a legal issue that boils down to this: What does the word “service” mean?

More specifically, if a Section 1926(b) association provides both water and sewer service, but the association is indebted to the federal government for only one of those services, is the service for which the association is not indebted protected from encroachment by other providers 74

L AW & WAT E R | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT CASE The Eighth Circuit addressed the issue as one of first impression in 2010.1 A case of “first impression” is one in which a legal issue has not been decided by another court—i.e., there is no legal precedent on the issue. This case, referred to hereafter as the Missouri case, involved Public Water Supply District No. 3 of Laclede County, Mo., which was formed in 1967 to furnish drinking water service to the local area. Its charter was amended in 1998 to include the rendering of sewer service. In 2007, District No. 3 received a $2 million loan from the federal government to extend and improve its sewer system. The net revenues of District No. 3’s sewer operations secured the federal loan. District No. 3 held no outstanding federal indebtedness related to water utility projects or secured by its water utility revenues.

At the time District No. 3’s loan from the federal government closed in 2007, the City of Lebanon had been providing water and sewer service to some customers within District No. 3’s boundaries. After District No. 3’s loan closed in 2007, Lebanon extended water

Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/Billion Photos

The service provided or made available through any such association shall not be curtailed or limited by inclusion of the area served by such association within the boundaries of any municipal corporation or other public body, or by the granting of any private franchise for similar service within such area during the term of such loan[.]

of that service? An August 2017 opinion issued by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which encompasses Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, disagreed with a 2010 opinion issued by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which encompasses Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. As they stand, these decisions have resulted in what is called a “circuit split.”

and sewer service to additional customers within District No. 3 by boundaries, but not to customers that were already being served by District No. 3. District No. 3 then filed its Section 1926(b) lawsuit, arguing that Lebanon had violated Section 1926(b) by serving additional customers in District No. 3’s territory. The Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of Lebanon on the specific issue of whether District No. 3’s water utility service rights were protected from encroachment by other utilities, including Lebanon.

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CASE Compare the Missouri case with the Fifth Circuit’s opinion from August 2017,2 hereafter referred to as the Texas case. In the Texas case, the Green Valley Special Utility District, which provides water and sewer services, acquired a federal loan in 2003 to extend its water utility. That loan was secured by Green Valley’s water revenues. In 2016, and while Green Valley’s 2003 loan remained outstanding, a nearby municipality, the City of Cibolo, Tex., applied to the Public Utility Commission of Texas for a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) to provide sewer service in all areas within its corporate boundaries, some of which also were part of Green Valley’s certificated sewer and water service territory.

Green Valley held no outstanding federal indebtedness related to sewer utility projects or secured by its sewer utility revenues. Shortly after Cibolo filed for its CCN, Green Valley brought suit under Section 1926(b). The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Green Valley on the issue of whether its sewer utility service rights were protected from encroachment by other utilities, including Cibolo.3

LEGAL ANALYSIS In both the Missouri and Texas cases, an association provided water and sewer service but was indebted to the federal government for only one of the services.

When a municipality encroached, or attempted to encroach, on the service territory for an association’s utility service that was not subject to a federal loan, the association brought suit. Each association got a different result. To arrive at their legal conclusions in the respective cases, each court used the same basic framework: analyze the plain language of the statute.

In the Missouri case, the Eighth Circuit started by identifying an apparent ambiguity in the “[t]he service provided or made available” language of Section 1926(b). Each side in the Missouri case wanted the court to construe the language differently: Lebanon wanted the court to read “[t]he service provided or made available” as meaning “the financed service provided or made available,” while District No. 3 wanted to the court to read that language as meaning “all services provided or made available.” The court also

acknowledged that when viewed in isolation, the word “service” could be interpreted to include a single service or multiple services.

In ultimately siding with the interpretation advocated by Lebanon, the Eighth Circuit settled on an interpretation based on a comparison with other subsections of 7 U.S.C. § 1926. The Eighth Circuit noted that while Section 1926(b) uses the singular form of “service,” other subsections of 7 U.S.C. § 1926 use both singular and plural forms of the word “service.”

Accordingly, the court found that “the service provided or made available’ is best interpreted to include only the type of service financed by the qualifying federal loan.”4

The language in this section creates a legal issue that boils down to this: What does the word “service” mean?

The Eighth Circuit also determined that the purposes of Section 1926(b) would not be served by adopting the view espoused by District No. 3. The court found that protecting District No. 3’s service area would help the district but would not necessarily encourage rural water development, a key purpose of Section 1926(b). The court noted that other providers could be in a better position to provide services to customers, and if Section 1926(b) protection were extended, it would force those customers into a suboptimal result.

Finally, the Eighth Circuit found that its interpretation would not harm the other main purpose of Section 1926(b)—namely the security for the federal indebtedness. Because District No. 3’s federal loan was secured by the revenues of its sewer system, the court decided that allowing competition for water service would not threaten the security of the federally indebted sewer service.

In the Texas case, however, the Fifth Circuit came to the opposite conclusion. Even though it acknowledged that the Eighth Circuit had addressed the issue already, the Fifth Circuit nevertheless continued with its own analysis, implicitly recognizing that it was not bound to follow the decision of another circuit.

The Fifth Circuit reviewed the plain language of Section 1926(b) by analyzing the three possible ways the word “service” could be interpreted in context: (1) as a noun that refers to a combined water-andsewer service; (2) as a noun that refers to a specific service—either a water or sewer service—made available by a federally indebted utility; or (3) as a noun

LAW & WATER | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

75

that refers to a specific service made available by a federally indebted utility and financed through the federal loan program.5

In rejecting the argument put forth by Cibolo, which mirrored the winning argument in the Missouri case, the Fifth Circuit found that the presence of the word “the” before service was consistent with all of the interpretations of “service” noted here. Accordingly, the court reasoned that the use of the definite article “the” does not limit “service” to a specific service made available by a federally indebted utility that was financed by a federal loan.

The Fifth Circuit also rejected the distinction between the singular and plural usages of “service” that the Eighth Circuit relied upon. The Fifth Circuit examined all uses of the words “service” and “services” throughout 7 U.S.C. § 1926. The court determined that Congress used the word “service” seven times and the word “services” four times in 7 U.S.C. § 1926. The court further analyzed each use of “service” and “services” and found that the use of “service” and “services” had widespread and inconsistent uses, including references to broadband services and services of local economic development organizations. Accordingly, the analysis of how “service” and “services” were used in 7 U.S.C. § 1926 did not “shed much light on the meaning of ‘service’” in Section 1926(b).6 In the end, the Fifth Circuit determined that Green Valley’s interpretation of Section 1926(b) served the purposes of Section 1926(b) better: A utility that is protected from municipal encroachment will be able to achieve greater economies of scale, thereby decreasing its per-user costs, and will be less vulnerable to financial disruptions than would a utility that is not protected from municipal encroachment.7

The court concluded by saying that Congress might have intended Section 1926(b) to be limited as the Eighth Circuit determined, but the plain language of Section 1926(b) contains no such limitation.

CONCLUSION The opposite conclusions of two circuits in interpreting Section 1926(b) on the same legal issue resulted in the circuit split, which is important because it’s one of the factors that can be used to argue that the US Supreme Court should take up the issue. While an appeal to the Supreme Court has been filed by Cibolo, it remains to be seen whether the appeal will be heard. Typically, only a fraction of the cases for which review is sought end up being ruled upon each term. Accordingly, the odds are long against the Texas case being heard by the Supreme Court, but the existence of the circuit split gives it a chance.

76

L AW & WAT E R | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

Absent a final resolution of the Texas case, we are left with the take-away that language matters. Reasonable people (and courts) can come to different conclusions when reading the same word, phrase, or sentence. Thus, when drafting legislation, ensuring clarity is extremely important.

Another take-away is that context matters. For example, in the Missouri case, District No. 3 tried to preclude a utility that was already offering services inside District No. 3’s boundaries from expanding its services even for the “service” that was not subject to District No. 3’s federal loan. That makes it seem like District No. 3 tried to use Section 1926(b) as a sword. The opinion does not address the issue of whether District No. 3 might have acquired the federal loan for express purposes of gaining a competitive advantage over Lebanon, but one could imagine that to have been the case.

Conversely, in the Texas case, Cibolo filed for a CCN at the Public Utility Commission of Texas in areas that were already part of Green Valley’s service area. That case looks more like Green Valley used Section 1926(b) as a shield. When considering whether Section 1926(b) might apply to a specific situation, context is important. Bad facts often lead to bad results. What the US Supreme Court does next in this case may help clear up the uncertainty surrounding Section 1926(b) on this issue.

—David T. McGimpsey is a partner at Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, 212 W. 6th St., Jasper, IN 47546 USA; dmcgimpsey@bgdlegal.com. He counsels clients on regulatory, transactional, and litigation matters involving utilities, businesses, real estate, and energy and advises clients on a range of regulatory and business issues. He has handled major rate cases, service area issues, including 1926(b) litigation, and significant utility acquisitions. McGimpsey received a BA degree in economics from Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Ind., and a JD degree from Maurer School of Law at Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1101

REFERENCES

1. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 3 of Laclede County, Missouri v. City of Lebanon, 605 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 2010).

2. Green Valley Special Util. Dist. v. City of Cibolo, Texas, 866 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2017).

3. Cibolo filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States through a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. As of article submission, the US Supreme Court has not determined whether it will hear the appeal.

4. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 3, 605 F.3d at 520.

5. Green Valley, 866 F.3d at 342.

6. Id. at 343.

7. Id.

2018 AWWA award recipients

AWWA recognizes the contributions of water professionals and AWWA members to the water profession and industry, the association, and Journal AWWA with the following awards, most of which were announced during the 2018 AWWA Annual Conference & Exposition in Las Vegas, Nev., June 11–14, 2018.

AWARDS Abel Wolman Award of Excellence

Eugene A. Glysson (deceased), Michigan Section

A.P. Black Research Award

Charles N. Haas, Pennsylvania Section

Archie E. Becher Jr. Award

Kevin Morley, AWWA staff, Washington, D.C.

AWWA Community Engineering Corps Excellence Award

Lynn Williams Stephens, Pacific Northwest Section

Distinguished Public Service Award

Carolyn Quigley, Intermountain Section

Diversity Award

California Water Service, California–Nevada Section

Honorary Member Award

Francisco Cantu Ramos (deceased), Mexico Section

Jack W. Hoffbuhr Award

Priscilla “Peggy” Guingona, Florida Section

Dr. John L. Leal Award

Daniel Oerther, Missouri Section

John Lechner Award

Chris Hodgson, New England Section

Outstanding Service to AWWA

Gary Lynch, California–Nevada Section

Public Communications Achievement Award

Helix Water, California–Nevada Section

The Regional Municipality of York, OWWA, a Section of AWWA

Publications Award

Carleigh C. Samson, Chad J. Seidel, R. Scott Summers, and Timothy Bartrand: “Assessment of HAA9 Occurrence and THM, HAA Speciation in the United States,” Journal AWWA, July 2017; Lauren W. Wasserstrom, Stephanie A. Miller, Simoni Triantafyllidou, Michael K. DeSantis, and Michael R. Schock: “Scale Formation Under Blended Phosphate Treatment for a Utility With Lead Pipes,” Journal AWWA, November 2017

Volunteer of the Year Award

Sally Mills-Wright, Texas Section

Water Industry Hall of Fame Award

Katie McCain, Texas Section Kerwin Rakness (deceased), Rocky Mountain Section

Water Landmark Awards

Altoona Reservoir System, Altoona, Pa., Pennsylvania Section

City of Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant, Ann Arbor, Mich., Michigan Section

Bay County Water Treatment Plant, Panama City, Fla., Florida Section

Manatee County Dam, Bradenton, Fla., Florida Section

2018 AWWA AWA R D S | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

77

2018 AWWA award recipients DIVISION BEST PAPER AWARDS Distribution & Plant Operations Division

Juneseok Lee and Myles Meehan: “Survival Analysis of US Water Service Lines Utilizing a Nationwide Failure Data Set,” Journal AWWA, September 2017

Engineering & Construction Division

Vanessa C.F. Dias, Marie-Claude Besner, and Michèle Prévost: “Predicting Water Quality Impact After District Metered Area Implementation in a Full-Scale Drinking Water Distribution System,” Journal AWWA, September 2017

Management & Leadership Division

Caroline G. Russell and Kevin M. Morley: “Estimating the National Costs of Regulating Perchlorate in Drinking Water,” Journal AWWA, February 2017

Small Systems Division

Deanna T. Ringenberg, Steve D. Wilson, and Bruce I. Dvorak: “State Barriers to Approval of Drinking Water Technologies for Small Systems,” Journal AWWA, August 2017

Water Conservation Division

Alan C. Lewis, C. Prakash Khedun, and Ronald A. Kaiser: “Coefficients for Estimating Landscape Area on Single-Family Residential Lots,” Journal AWWA, August 2017

Water Quality & Technology Division

Carleigh C. Samson, Chad J. Seidel, R. Scott Summers, and Timothy Bartrand: “Assessment of HAA9 Occurrence and THM, HAA Speciation in the United States” Journal AWWA, July 2017

Water Resource Sustainability Division

Hannah G. Wong, Vanessa L. Speight, and Yves R. Filion: “Impact of Urban Development on Energy Use in a Distribution System,” Journal AWWA, January 2017

Water Science & Research Division

Lauren W. Wasserstrom, Stephanie A. Miller, Simoni Triantafyllidou, Michael K. DeSantis, and Michael R. Schock: “Scale Formation Under Blended Phosphate Treatment for a Utility With Lead Pipes,” Journal AWWA, November 2017

MEMBERSHIP AWARDS Zenno A. Gorder Award

Volunteer: Randy Lusk, Illinois Section

Section Staff: Armando Apodaca, California–Nevada Section

Club Seven Awards Division I:

Texas Section

Division II:

Illinois Section

Division III:

OWWA

Division IV:

Chesapeake Section

Division V:

Missouri Section

Division VI:

British Columbia Section

Division VII:

Mexico Section

Diamond Pin Recruitment Awards

Armando Apodaca, California–Nevada Section

Nicholas S. Hill Jr. Award

North Dakota Section

78

2 0 1 8 AW WA AWARD S | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS First Place Doctoral Dissertation

Nadine Kotlarz, University of Michigan, Michigan Section

Second Place Doctoral Dissertation

Laith Furatian, University of British Columbia, British Columbia Section

First Place Master’s Thesis

Yanting Liu, University of Waterloo, Ontario Section

Second Place Master’s Thesis

Appana Lok, University of Toronto, Ontario Section

SCHOLARSHIPS Abel Wolman Fellowship

Alexander Gorzalski, University of North Carolina, North Carolina Section

LARS Master’s Scholarship

Emily Von Hagen, North Dakota State University, North Dakota Section

LARS Doctoral Scholarship

Daniel Mosiman, University of Illinois, Illinois Section

Holly A. Cornell Scholarship

Brianna Huber, Western Illinois University, Illinois Section

Thomas R. Camp Scholarship

Zachary Hopkins, North Carolina State University, North Carolina Section

American Water Scholarship

Michael Bentel, University of California, California–Nevada Section

Arcadis Scholarship

Kaitlin Mattos, University of Colorado, Rocky Mountain Section

Dave Caldwell Scholarship

Sydney Ulliman, University of Colorado, Rocky Mountain Section

Bryant L. Bench/Carollo Engineers Scholarship Erica Coscarelli, Michigan Technological University, Michigan Section Hazen and Sawyer Scholarship

Hemali Oza, University of North Carolina, North Carolina Section

HDR/Henry “Bud” Benjes Scholarship

Haley White, Tennessee Technological University, Kentucky–Tennessee Section

Mueller Continuing Education Scholarship

Gabrielle Wolff, Oregon State University, Pacific Northwest Section

Neptune Technology Group Scholarship

Grant Simons, University of Michigan, Michigan Section

Charles Roberts Scholarship

Ziyuhan Wang, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania Section

Stantec Scholarship

Conner Murray, Colorado School of Mines, Rocky Mountain Section

SUEZ/Vernon Lucy III Scholarship

Marella Schammel, Towson University, Chesapeake Section

Woodard and Curran Scholarship

Nicollette Laroco, University of Colorado, Rocky Mountain Section

GEORGE WARREN FULLER AWARDS Atlantic Canada Alabama–Mississippi Alaska Arizona British Columbia California–Nevada California–Nevada Chesapeake Connecticut Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Indiana Intermountain Iowa Kansas Kentucky–Tennessee Mexico Michigan Minnesota Missouri

Douglas Brownrigg Hugh Smith Jr. Floyd Damron Marie S. Pearthree Len Clarkson Issam Najm Joe Guistino Rudy Chow Stephen Pratt Carl Larrabee Jr. Brian Skeens No recipient for 2018 Mike Ramsey Martin A. Wessler Gerard Yates Robert Green James Epp Lori Sanborn Florentino Ayala Vazquez Timothy D. McNamara Patrick Shea Jim Urfer

Montana NEWWA, a Section of AWWA Nebraska New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota OWWA, a Section of AWWA Ohio Pacific Northwest Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Québec Rocky Mountain South Carolina South Dakota Southwest Texas Virginia West Virginia Western Canada Wisconsin

Jeffrey M. Ashley Stephen Estes-Smargiassi Robert Pierce Stephen Blankenship William Becker Vicki Westbrook Wei Lin Nick Benkovich Karen Hawkins Bill Evans Steve E. Tagert Exel F. Colon Rivera Christian Sauvageau Mike Berry Douglas B. Kinard Tanya Miller Patty Thomspon Jennifer L. Elms Jeanne Bennett-Bailey Louis Wooten Calvin Sexsmith Patrick S. Planton

2018 AWWA AWA R D S | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

79

2018 AWWA award recipients 2018 SERVICE TO THE WATER INDUSTRY AWARDS 75 YEARS OF SERVICE

50 YEARS OF SERVICE (continued)

City of Pomona, Water Resources Department, California Section Crossett Water Commission, Southwest Section Escanaba Municipal Water Department, Michigan Section Houlton Water Company, New England Section Thompson Pipe Group, Texas Section Village of Greenport, New York Section Westbury Water District, New York Section

Eagle Grove Water Supply, Iowa Section Emmetsburg Municipal Utilities, Iowa Section Greeneville Water Commission, Kentucky–Tennessee Section Honeywell, Florida Section KC Water, Missouri Section King County Water District #20, Pacific Northwest Section Littleton Water Department, New England Section Macon Municipal Utilities, Missouri Section Mayville Utilities, Wisconsin Section MS Consultants Inc., Ohio Section New Braunfels Utilities, Texas Section Northampton Bucks Authority, Pennsylvania Section Platteville Water & Sewer, Wisconsin Section Port Edwards Water Utility, Wisconsin Section Princes Lakes Waterworks, Indiana Section Remington Water Works, Indiana Section Rushville City Utilities, Indiana Section S.E. Connecticut Water Authority, Connecticut Section Stevens Point Public Utilities, Wisconsin Section Strand Associates Inc., Wisconsin Section Suffolk County Water Authority, New York Section Tnemec Company Inc., Missouri Section Town of Forest City, North Carolina Section Town of Holliston, New England Section Town of Tarboro, North Carolina Section US Navy–Public Works Utilities Naval Support Activity, Indiana Section Valparaiso City Utilities, Indiana Section Village of Garrettsville, Ohio Section Weston Water Utility, Wisconsin Section Winamac Water Works, Indiana Section

50 YEARS OF SERVICE Antelope Valley East Kern Water, California Section Appomattox River Water Authority, Virginia Section Arrowbear Park County Water District, California Section Baraboo Water Utility, Wisconsin Section Berlin Water Control Commission, Connecticut Section Broward County Water & Wastewater Services, Florida Section City of Chippewa Falls, Department of Public Utilities, Wisconsin Section City of Eagan, Minnesota Section, California Section City of Fond Du Lac Water Utility, Wisconsin Section City of North Las Vegas Public Utilities Department, California Section City of Prince George, British Columbia Section City of Red Cloud, Nebraska Section City of Santa Monica, Water Resources Division, California Section City of Wadena Utilities Department, Minnesota Section Clyman Utilities Commission, Wisconsin Section Delphi Water Works, Indiana Section Detroit Water & Sewerage Department, Michigan Section

PARTNERSHIP FOR SAFE WATER AWARDS The Partnership for Safe Water is a voluntary program for utilities, with the mission of improving the quality of drinking water delivered to customers by optimizing treatment plant and distribution system operations. More than 225 utilities, serving a total population of more than 100 million, participate in the Partnership’s self-assessment and optimization programs that provide utilities with the tools for improving performance even beyond proposed regulatory levels.

More information about the Partnership for Safe Water is available online at www.awwa.org/partnership.

Directors Award—Treatment Plant Optimization Program, Year 1 Contra Costa Water District, California: City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant Aqua Pennsylvania Inc., Pennsylvania: Main System—Ridley Creek Water Treatment Plant City of Longmont, Colorado: Nelson-Flanders Water Treatment Plant Citizens Energy Group, Indiana: White River Water Treatment Facility

5-Year Directors Award—Treatment Plant Optimization Program Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Maryland: Patuxent Water Filtration Plant Charlotte Water, North Carolina: Franklin Water Treatment Plant City of San Diego, California: Miramar Water Treatment Plant 80

2 0 1 8 AW WA AWARD S | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

PARTNERSHIP FOR SAFE WATER AWARDS (continued) Aqua Pennsylvania Inc., Pennsylvania: West Chester System—Ingram’s Mill Water Treatment Plant Pennsylvania American Water, Pennsylvania: Shady Lane Water Treatment Plant—Home Water System

10-Year Directors Award—Treatment Plant Optimization Program City of San Diego, California: Otay Water Treatment Plant Spartanburg Water, West Virginia: Myles W. Whitlock Jr. Water Treatment Plant Municipal Authority of the Township of Robinson, Pennsylvania: Robinson Township/ Groveton Water Treatment Plant Clifton Water District, Colorado: Charles A. Strain Water Treatment Plant (Clifton Water Treatment Plant) Beaufort Jasper Water and Sewer Authority, South Carolina: Purrysburg Water Treatment Plant Pennsylvania American Water, Pennsylvania: Clarion Regional Water Treatment Plant

15-Year Directors Award—Treatment Plant Optimization Program Bossier City Water Plant, Louisiana: Bossier City Water Plant Manchester Water Works, New Hampshire: Lake Massabesic Water Treatment Plant Charleston Water System, South Carolina: Hanahan Water Treatment Plant Illinois American Water, Illinois: Alton District Water Treatment Plant Cairo District Water Treatment Plant East St. Louis/ Aldrich Water Treatment Plant North Penn and North Wales Water Authority, Pennsylvania: North Penn and North Wales Water Treatment Plant Missouri American Water, Missouri: Jefferson City Water Treatment Plant Montezuma Water Company, Colorado: Montezuma Water Plan

20-Year Directors Award—Treatment Plant Optimization Program City of Tampa Water Department, Florida: David L. Tippin Water Treatment Facility Kentucky American Water, Kentucky: Richmond Road Station Kentucky River Station II Saint Paul Regional Water Services, Minnesota: McCarrons Water Treatment Plant San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, California: Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant Onondaga County Water Authority, New York: Marcellus Water Treatment Plant Dallas Water Utilities, Texas: Elm Fork Water Treatment Plant Chesterfield County Utilities Department, Virginia: Addison-Evans Water Production and Laboratory Facility West Virginia American Water, West Virginia: Huntington Water Treatment Plant Douglasville-Douglas County Water & Sewer Authority, Georgia: Bear Creek Water Treatment Plant Oak Creek Water and Sewer Utility, Wisconsin: Oak Creek Water Treatment Plant

Presidents Award—Treatment Plant Optimization Program Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Maryland: Potomac Water Filtration Plant Municipal Authority of the Township of Robinson, Pennsylvania: Robinson Township/Groveton Water Treatment Plant

2018 AWWA AWA R D S | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

81

2018 AWWA award recipients PARTNERSHIP FOR SAFE WATER AWARDS (continued) 5-Year Presidents Award—Treatment Plant Optimization Program City of San Diego, California: Miramar Water Treatment Plant North Penn and North Wales Water Authority, Pennsylvania: North Penn & North Wales Water Treatment Plant Western Berks Water Authority, Pennsylvania: Western Berks Water Treatment Plant

5-Year Excellence Award—Treatment Plant Optimization Program Chester Water Authority, Pennsylvania: Octoraro Water Treatment Plant

Directors Award—Distribution System Optimization Program

Aurora Water, Colorado City of Raleigh Public Utilities, North Carolina El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board, Texas

5-Year Directors Award—Distribution System Optimization Program Orange Water and Sewer Authority, North Carolina Long Beach Water Department, California Louisville Water Company, Kentucky

Presidents Award—Distribution System Optimization Program Orange Water and Sewer Authority, North Carolina

EXEMPLARY SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AWARD Very Large System Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, Rocky Mountain Section

Large System Clackamas River Providers, Pacific Northwest Section

Small System Rock County Rural Water District, Minnesota Section

BEST IN ADVERTISING AWARD Journal - American Water Works Association Gold Silver Bronze

DN Tanks McWane Sensus, a Xylem brand

Opflow Gold Silver Bronze

AdEdge Water Technologies Clow Valve Company Hach

Sourcebook Gold

VAG USA LLC

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ACHIEVEMENT AWARD For an organization supporting more than 25,000 service connections Helix Water, La Mesa, California The Regional Municipality of York, Newmarket, Ontario Honorable Mention: Illinois American Water, Belleville, Illinois https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1102

82

2 0 1 8 AW WA AWARD S | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

People in the News RECOGNITIONS Water For People’s chief executive officer (CEO), Eleanor Allen, has been appointed to the board of directors at Parametrix—an engineering, planning, and environmental services firm with offices throughout the western United States. Allen joins as the seventh member of the board. Both organizations are purpose-driven and dedicated to improving the quality of life for people around the world. Allen began her career as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic. She then spent nearly 20 years as a consulting engineer with CH2M and Arcadis before being named CEO of Water For People. Her career took her to all regions of the world, with a strong focus in Latin America, where she lived for more than half of her professional life.

The Bonita Springs Utilities Inc. (BSU) board of directors has elected Robert Bachman as BSU’s president, Brian Farrar as vicepresident, and Ben Nelson Jr. as secretary.

Bachman is owner and president of WBG SW Florida Inc. A board member since 2000, he has served previous terms as president, vice-president, and treasurer.

Farrar joined the board in 2016 and is president and managing member of BCF Management Group LLC. A Bonita Springs resident since 1960, Nelson previously served on the board from 1990 to 2001 and rejoined in 2016. He has served previous terms as president and vice-president. He served for 16 years on the Bonita Springs City Council, including two terms as mayor, and has owned and operated Nelson Marine Construction for more than 35 years.

Brad Sanderson, vice-president of Engineering Enterprises Inc. (EEI), received the Donald C. Stone Excellence in Education award from the American Public Works Association’s Fox Valley Branch and its Chicago Metro Chapter. The award recognizes an individual’s outstanding and meritorious achievement in the area of continuing professional education for public works professionals.

Sanderson has served the Fox Valley Branch’s educational needs as a member of the Education Committee for the past four years and more recently has become a

co-chair of the committee. He is also the head of EEI’s Corporate Learning Committee.

TRANSITIONS Alan Plummer Associates Inc. (APAI) has selected Chris Young as the firm’s president and chief executive officer. His 23-year career includes experience in engineering planning, design, and construction management, as well as operations leadership roles with a global engineering firm. During his career, he has led project teams and groups, serving many state and local government clients, while performing wastewater collection, pumping, pipeline, and treatment services. Young also has experience in wastewater master planning and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Consent Decree implementation and program management.

Woolpert has hired Eric Dillinger as vice-president and managing director of strategic consulting, expanding the firm’s planned strategic growth in integrated advisory services for its clients.

Dillinger, who most recently served as the vice-president of Jacobs Buildings and Infrastructure Americas consultancy practice, has more than 30 years of experience providing planning, design, consulting, and advisory services for the infrastructure and built environment.

After 13 years working as the vice-president of business development for Engineering Enterprises Inc. (EEI), Thomas Talsma retired on April 30. He brought more than 30 years of experience in the public works field from the City of Geneva, Ill., when he joined EEI in 2005. Over the years, he has served on numerous technical advisory committees.

Pennoni has hired Thomas Frederick to serve as director of the firm’s water/ wastewater practice. Frederick, who most recently served as deputy general manager for a public water utility organization, will lead Pennoni’s vision and strategy for water/ wastewater services.

He has been a leader in the water industry for more than 35 years and has served in a variety of roles in his career, including as the chief executive and spokesperson for

Sanderson

Young

Dillinger

Talsma

Frederick

P EO P LE IN TH E NEWS | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

83

People in the News a regional wholesale authority in central Virginia. Among his accomplishments is the leadership oversight and strategic direction for Loudoun Water’s Operations & Maintenance and Engineering Divisions, and Potomac Water Supply Program.

Tarallo

Steve Tarallo has joined Dewberry as an associate vice-president and manager of the water/wastewater practice in the firm’s Baltimore, Md., office. With more than 28 years of experience in the municipal water and wastewater industry, Tarallo has been involved in a variety of water and wastewater engineering solutions, including process technology selection and design for advanced treatment, energy efficiency, and resource recovery. His technical expertise includes assessment of treatment deficiencies, development and selection of treatment process alternatives, strategic energy management, life-cycle environmental analyses, life-cycle cost estimating, and

sustainability assessments. Tarallo most recently served as a project director with responsibilities that included project management, business development, client relations, and professional staff oversight and supervision.

OBITUARIES George T. Ayotte, Thomaston, Conn.; Silver Water Drop Award, 2016 Robert L. Champlin, Cheyenne, Wyo.; Recruiting Award 1999, Life Member Award 1998, Honorary Member Award 1991, George Warren Fuller Award 1984 Marilyn Ware, Voorhees, N.J. Derek J. Watts, Tadworth, U.K.; Life Member Award 2005

BLEACH

SAFEGUARDING YOUR COMMUNITY At Olin, we care about your community and understand the importance of keeping drinking water and wastewater safe. As the leading North American bleach manufacturer, we are proud to offer: • Bleach delivery that is reliable, economical, simple, safe and effective • Bleach that is registered by the U.S. EPA under FIFRA and by Health Canada under PCPA and is certified to the quality standards of NSF/ANSI Standard 60 and meets the requirements of AWWA B300 • Extensive manufacturing and distribution network of trucks and rail cars for unparalleled supply capabilities • Lower maintenance than other disinfection options

BETTER BLEACH. BETTER WATER. Find out more at OlinBleach.com or by calling +1 844-238-3445.

Trademark of Olin Corporation or an affiliated company of Olin

®™

84

PE OPL E IN T HE N E WS | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1103

Industry News

Siblings Recognized for Funding Water Wells Around the World Isabelle, Katherine, and Trinity Adams—sisters from Dallas, Tex., aged 14, 12, and 8, respectively—have raised more than $1.5 million to provide clean water to children in developing countries. In recognition of their efforts, the three sisters have been named the 2018 Carter Outstanding Youth in Philanthropy by the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

The Carter Award for Outstanding Youth in Philanthropy honors young people with a proven record of exceptional generosity who demonstrate outstanding civic and charitable responsibility and whose philanthropy encourages others to engage on a community, national and/or international level.

Isabelle and Katherine began the project to help girls in countries who couldn’t attend school because they spent their days hauling (unclean and potentially unsafe) water to their communities. With the Adams sisters’ father having taught them the paper art of origami, and with many origami pieces accumulating in their home, the girls decided to sell them to raise funds to build a water well in Ethiopia.

The girls’ original goal was to raise $500. But the origami ornaments sold out in just one night. After two months, the sisters had raised over $10,000. They continue to use origami to generate funds and awareness of education and funding for clean water.

Isabelle and Katherine are co-presidents of Paper For Water, which was formed in 2011, and Trinity joined recently as director of marketing. The sisters have dedicated more than 4,000 hours of their time to supporting the organization. They have raised more than $1.5 million and have completed more than 160 water projects in 15 countries, including the United States. They have also spoken to thousands of people to increase awareness of water poverty issues around the world.

More than 48,000 individuals now have access to clean water because of the efforts of the three sisters.

In the communities they have helped, the infant mortality rate has decreased, and in places experiencing Ebola virus disease, the disease’s transmission rate has decreased as a result of the health and sanitation training that is implemented before well installation.

Children are now going to school, and have time to play, instead of hauling water.

In 2013, the Adams sisters had the opportunity to travel to India and visit communities where there were projects that Paper For Water had funded.

Isabelle and Katherine met school children whose attendance was improved because they were no longer sick from unclean water. The 2013 trip and several other short trips inspired the sisters’ eight-month trip around the world in 2017. The girls visited projects in South America and Africa.

More information about Paper For Water can be found at www.paperforwater.org.

Katherine (left), Isabelle (right), and Trinity Adams (not pictured) learned the art of origami from their father. The pastime turned into a fundraiser for supplying water pumps to communities needing a reliable water source. Photo courtesy of Sarah Hansen Photography

The Adams sisters founded an organization called Paper For Water in 2011 and have traveled in the United States and to other countries to install water pumps. This photo was taken in the Northern Amazon jungle of Peru near the Ecuadorian border on the Maranon River.

Photo courtesy of Kenneth Adams

Information in Industry News may describe products offered by companies in the water industry. AWWA does not endorse these products, nor is it responsible for any claims made by the companies concerned. Unless noted otherwise, information is compiled from press releases submitted to Journal AWWA.

IND U S TR Y NEWS | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

85

Pet Care Company Reduces Water Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Waste Nestlé Purina is investing in ways to reduce its environmental impact, with the aim of ensuring a healthy future for pets and their owners. Over the past decade, Purina has significantly reduced its environmental footprint in the United States, particularly across manufacturing operations, by working to reduce water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste.

As of year-end 2017, 75% of Purina facilities achieved zero waste to landfill, and the company is on track to be fully zero waste to landfill by 2020. Since 2007, the company has improved its water use efficiency by nearly 25% and greenhouse gas emissions emitted per ton of production by 6.8%.

In addition, Purina is increasing use of renewable electricity across the company. Today, 32% of electricity used at Purina comes from renewable sources, and in 2017, the company purchased enough green power to offset four of its factories. The company’s goal is to procure 100% of its electricity from renewable sources in support of its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Recently Purina joined with other Nestlé companies to enter a partnership agreement with EDP Renewables to leverage wind power. The power purchase agreement will provide approximately 80% of the electricity load for five Nestlé facilities in southeastern Pennsylvania, including two Purina factories.

In addition to making progress toward operational commitments, Purina incorporates environmentally friendly practices in other areas of the product life cycle, such as packaging. Purina has been working toward more sustainable packaging for more than a decade and recently joined with Nestlé in announcing a goal of 100% of the company’s packaging to be reusable or recyclable by 2025.

Purina collaborates with and supports farmers and organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited through projects that promote water quality, wetland conservation, and soil health to help improve the sustainability of agricultural lands where critical ingredients are sourced.

DNA Testing Can Rapidly Solve Legionnaires’ Disease Outbreaks A DNA test method called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) allowed New York City health officials to identify the source of a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak within hours of specimen collection and should be considered in all Legionnaires’ outbreak investigations, researchers said in the April issue of the Journal of Environmental Health. Their study describes the outbreak response and innovative use of PCR rather than the standard method of bacterial culture, which generally takes five to 10 days for a lab to detect the presence of Legionella bacteria, said co-author Christopher Boyd, who led the city’s response to the 2014 Legionnaires’ outbreak as then-assistant commissioner of environmental sciences and engineering.

“By using PCR, we were able to mitigate risks days earlier than if we had relied on traditional culture methods,” said Boyd, who is now general manager of building water health for North America at NSF International. With a PCR test, fragments of DNA are run through a machine called a thermocycler, which heats and cools the sample repeatedly to produce multiple copies of these DNA fragments, amplifying them for analysis in just a few hours.

Boyd, who co-authored the study with Isaac Benowitz from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other researchers, said that while PCR can 86

IN DUST RY N E W S | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

confirm the presence of Legionella bacteria in a water sample, it cannot reliably tell whether those bacteria are alive or dead (like a bacterial culture can). Only live Legionella bacteria can make people sick. But since PCR can be completed in one day, Boyd said the test is a valuable tool during a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak.

In late 2014, he and his team at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene suspected the outbreak of eight Legionnaires’ cases was caused by a building’s cooling tower; a PCR water sample from the tower confirmed the presence of Legionella in a single day, and the city ordered the cooling tower to be shut down and disinfected. Days later, results from a bacterial culture of the water came back to show the Legionella bacteria in the cooling tower were, in fact, alive. Further testing showed these bacteria were the cause of the Legionnaires’ disease outbreak.

Boyd and his team in New York City used PCR successfully during a much larger outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in summer 2015 that killed 16 people and sickened more than 100. Another cooling tower was confirmed as the source.

In addition to PCR testing, Boyd said health departments should have a detailed strategy to deal with Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks, including knowing the location of cooling towers.

BUSINESS BRIEFS American Water representatives celebrated the 10th anniversary of the company’s second entry to the New York Stock Exchange April 19 by ringing the closing bell to commemorate the anniversary.

American Water’s roots date back to the immediate post-Civil War era, as the nation’s growth shifted from rural communities to cities and the need for organized water systems became acute. The American Water Works and Guarantee Company, founded in Pennsylvania in 1886, was one of the first public utility holding companies in the United States, and evolved into the American Water Works & Electric Company in 1914.

The City of Boise (Idaho) and Brown and Caldwell received a national honor in the American Council of Engineering Companies’ 51st Engineering Excellence Awards competition. The Grand Award was presented to the City of Boise and Brown and Caldwell for the Dixie Drain Phosphorus Removal Facility. Treating 130 mil gal of water daily, the facility is the first of its kind in the United States and is considered a model facility in watershed-based approaches to meeting total maximum daily load limits. To reduce the impact of excess phosphorus entering the Boise River, regulations required a 98% phosphorus discharge reduction from Boise’s water renewal facilities. As the city made improvements at its facilities to remove 93% of the phosphorus, upgrades to eliminate the remaining 5% would require costly modifications.

The city implemented a pioneering pollutant offset approach via the Dixie Drain Phosphorus Removal Facility project.

Itron Inc. is working with the City of Fort Smith, Ark., to modernize its water infrastructure with Itron’s smart water solution over the next

two years. Itron’s advanced water communication modules will replace Fort Smith’s aging water infrastructure, nearly half of which have exceeded normal life expectancy. The city will also gain access to daily and hourly interval data for increased billing accuracy, decreased operational expense, and enhanced customer service. The city will install water communication modules and new meters to improve meter-reading efficiency and lower operational costs. The modules will give the utility access to detailed meter data to gain better visibility of its operations.

H2O Innovation Inc. has partnered with Senrio Inc. to integrate Senrio’s Insight software with H2O Innovation’s Intelogx system. The integration of Senrio Insight with Intelogx will allow customers to rapidly respond when atypical patterns of behavior are detected or when unauthorized devices are discovered. After information is analyzed, operators will be provided with continuous surveillance when abnormal behavior is detected.

In other company news, H2O Innovation’s independent subsidiary, Piedmont, recently signed new distribution agreements and won new contracts for its coupling and cartridge filter housing product lines. Piedmont has recently entered into five distribution agreements with partners strategically positioned to support its international growth.

Approximately 300 policymakers, researchers, and industry experts met at the Two Nations One Water: U.S.-Mexico Border Water Summit, a two-day conference held in March at El Paso Water’s TecH2O Learning Center (El Paso, Tex.). Attendees explored long-term water supply strategies for the border’s future. Participants heard from, among other speakers,

negotiators directly involved in the recent Colorado River Agreement —Minute 323, which is an addendum to the 1944 Water Treaty between the United States and Mexico. The binational agreement establishes how the United States and Mexico share water resources from the Colorado River watershed system that encompasses seven US states and two states in Mexico.

Water innovations were discussed, including a research project focusing on water management for the middle Rio Grande area; research showing that brackish water, desalination, wastewater reuse, and aquifer storage are the least expensive short-term opportunities in terms of meeting energy demand; El Paso Water’s reclaimed-water program; and a proposed desalination plant in the Playas de Rosarito, located on the coast of Mexico’s Baja California peninsula.

Global Water Resources Inc. has entered into an agreement with MidFirst Bank, a federally chartered savings association, for a two-year revolving line of credit of up to $8 million. The credit facility, which may be used for acquisitions and general corporate purposes, will bear interest at a rate of the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (commonly known as LIBOR) plus 2.25%.

WinCan sewer assessment and asset management software has added a new Manholes Module so municipalities can integrate manhole inspection into their sewer management workflow. The module imports imagery and geometric data from automated manhole inspection equipment and provides tools to create a virtual manhole into which users can descend, pan, tilt, and zoom to scrutinize defects; attach observations to points and regions of the manhole scan and use measurement tools to quantify

IND U S TR Y NEWS | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

87

observed defects; generate custom reports; and upload inspection results.

(combined with water quality monitoring) to control algae.

Panama City, Fla., has hired Woolpert to implement its Cityworks software solution, which will promote internal and external communications and efficiencies. The city’s utilities department currently uses the Cityworks software; extending the program to the public works and code enforcement departments will allow city staff to work more efficiently. Implementation of the software is expected to take about a year and a half.

Capital expenditures for US municipal water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure will exceed $683 billion over the next decade, according to new forecasts from Bluefield Research. Per capita spending by utility for the 10-year forecast period ranges from a low of $157 in Riverside County, Calif., to a high of $11,117 in MiamiDade County, Fla. The average across the utilities analyzed is $2,621. High per capita spending is often related to specific drivers, including environmental consent decrees to remediate stormwater overflows and acute water quality challenges in cities. With leakage being a key concern in the water industry, investment in pipes continues to dominate water infrastructure spending. The distribution and collection networks for water and wastewater—pipes, pumps, tanks, valves—dominate the forecast, surpassing $375 billion of the 10-year total. Pipes represent 75% of this spending, of which more than 60% is dedicated to rehabilitation of existing networks. Utilities are also prioritizing resiliency with their capital allocations. In the wake of concerns about large storm events, increasing attention has been devoted to wastewater and stormwater impacts on the environment.

The Phigenics Research and Innovation Lab has introduced a testing service called the Next Day Legionella PCR, which detects Legionella DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which is the exponential amplification of a target sequence of DNA. Facility managers and building owners rely on the detection of Legionella sp. DNA for fast, preliminary results to indicate whether building water systems are well managed. The use of PCR in water validation testing was instrumental in allowing New York City health officials to rapidly identify the source of a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak in 2015.

One year after the installation of an LG Sonic MPC-Buoy in Rainbow Lake, a drinking water reservoir that supplies drinking water to 3,000 people in Emmitsburg, Md., the algae control system has proved successful, with control of blue– green algae and a significant reduction of 27% in chemical expenses.

Every summer, Emmitsburg faces algae problems that result in higher chemical demands in the water treatment plant, clogged filters, and increased backwashes. To address this long-term algae problem, the Town of Emmitsburg and Kershner Environmental Technologies, one of the local distributors of LG Sonic in the United States, installed a system that uses ultrasound technology 88

In preparation for the upcoming hurricane season, Bonita Springs Utilities Inc. (BSU; Bonita Springs, Fla.) has purchased additional towbehind generators to enhance the utility’s hurricane preparedness capabilities and assist with operations during emergency situations that may result in extended power outages. BSU’s pre-hurricane planning, action, and infrastructure resulted in successful and sustained operations during Hurricane Irma, and its preparedness plan included switching all plants to generator power before the storm hit in

IN DUST RY N E W S | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

anticipation of losing electricity. All water wells and 332 lift stations throughout the service area lost power. Before the storm, permanent generators were installed at a number of these facilities. During assessments after Hurricane Irma, BSU identified a need to dedicate more generators to water well and lift station operations during and after a hurricane or other emergency. Three new generators will be available for identified master lift stations, and a fourth generator will provide backup power to wells in order to maintain potable water service to members.

The Water Well Trust announced the completion of its 100th water well since the program began in 2012. Funded by US Department of Agriculture Household Water Well System grants and matching funds from Water Systems Council member companies, the Water Well Trust provides low-interest loans for wells for impoverished households where the cost to local governments to supply water to these households is prohibitive. The 100th water well was recently completed in New Mexico. The current Water Well Trust project is expected to provide 25 water wells in 11 southern New Mexico counties, which include “colonias”—nonzoned dwelling areas that do not meet current building code standards. Many colonias do not have access to a safe water supply and need improved water well systems.

CosmosID is the recipient of the 2018 Technology Idol award, presented at the Global Water Summit held in Paris, France. This prize is awarded annually by a panel of judges to a new water technology with greatest potential for positive change in the water industry. Manoj Dadlani, chief executive officer of CosmosID, introduced technology developed to determine microbial contamination of water, using metagenomic sequencing of water microbiota. CosmosID serves the

water community with commercial offerings that include certified endto-end testing by microbiome sequencing at the company’s laboratories in Rockville, Md., and bioinformatics for microbial detection, identification, and characterization.

contract has been signed that will update CWE’s transportation service capabilities.

TaKaDu’s ability to integrate network events from external systems as well as from its own analytics engine.

UGSI Solutions has completed its acquisition of Fluid Dynamics. Fluid Dynamics fields a line of polymer activation equipment for the water industry, providing polymer mixing and blending technologies that help plant operators economize on polymer usage. The combination of Fluid Dynamics and UGSI Solutions’ UGSI Chemical Feed Inc. business creates a set of polymer activation and chemical feed technologies.

Water leaders will meet in Tokyo, Japan, Sept. 16–21, 2018, to discuss solutions to tackle the global water crisis at the World Water Congress & Exhibition 2018, which is organized by the International Water Association (IWA). More than 5,000 leading water experts and industry professionals are expected to convene with more than 250 companies and institutes to learn about the latest global trends, leading practices, innovative technologies, and pioneering science in water and wastewater management. The event fosters and inspires new ideas and new partnerships to help solve the world’s greatest water challenges.

Since emerging under new ownership as Clean Water Environmental (CWE) in September 2017, CWE has been reorganizing operationally and structurally. Initial emphasis has been placed on enhanced adherence to compliance regulations and on improved service to the Ohio communities in which its facilities are located. Physical TaKaDu and Gutermann are teamcapital improvements have been ing up to deliver a comprehensive made to the facilities. CWE has data-driven solution for improving also hired six new staff members, efficiency. TaKaDu’s platform is with further growth expected. being seamlessly integrated with Additionally, a new website Gutermann’s fixed network leak launched in March 2018, and a 1 4/11/2018detection BRAVO pump_7x4.5_Mar2018_ACE_Final.eps 4:11:46 PM technology, leveraging

https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1104

INTRODUCING

SEEPEX’s BRAVO Chemical Metering

BENEFITS  Simplified design reduces installation and operating costs whole process control. These modular and  Less chemical use due to minimal pulsation scalable systems incorporate Systems provide maximum reliability and

progressive cavity Intelligent Metering Pumps and are the most flexible solution for disinfection, pH control and flocculation in your industry.

 NSF/ANSI 61 certified progressive cavity pumps  Single source for pumps and controls For more information visit: www.seepexsales.com/go/bravo

Visit us at AWWA ACE 18 Booth #22017 SEEPEX Inc. sales.us@seepex.com T +1 937 864-7150 www.seepex.com

IND U S TR Y NEWS | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

89

Media Pulse

A Guide to Cyanobacteria: Identification and Impact Mark A. Nienaber and Miriam Steinitz-Kannan Blue–green algae (also known as cyanobacteria) and the toxins they can produce pose serious economic, environmental, and public health problems worldwide. Much of the scientific and public interest in these microorganisms arises from their tendency to undergo explosive population growth and form harmful blooms, which have inflicted damage in industries as diverse as health care, public utilities, agriculture, recreation, real estate, and commercial and sport fishing. Until now, water quality professionals and other individuals tasked with finding and eliminating cyanotoxins have lacked an accessible guide to these potentially deadly microorganisms.

Written for nonspecialists in a clear and straightforward style, this guide will help students, landowners, and citizen scientists identify different kinds of cyanobacteria and understand their impact on waterways, from neighborhood lakes and farm ponds to major river systems. The central feature of

the book is a detailed key that systematically walks the reader through each step of the identification process. This key is linked to an extensive set of photographs and a companion smartphone application to help readers confirm their findings.

Mark A. Nienaber is the sole proprietor of Algae Services and has more than 40 years of experience in algae and vascular plant identification. Miriam Steinitz-Kannan is regents professor emeritus in the Department of Biological Sciences at Northern Kentucky University.

Active in environmental and water quality education, she offers algae workshops for the community and various Ohio River foundations.

Nienaber and Steinitz-Kannan include an ample glossary to help newcomers to the subject get up to speed as well as an in-depth and current bibliography to aid advanced readers in further research. The authors also offer instructions on how to correctly collect and analyze cyanobacteria.

Altogether, this accessible yet comprehensive resource makes important, complex material available to a wide range of professionals and laypeople engaged in combating harmful cyanotoxins.

Available from the University Press of Kentucky, http://kentucky press.com; ISBN: 978-0-81317559-1 (June 2018, soft cover, 212 pp., $20.00).

Water Distribution System Monitoring: A Practical Approach for Evaluating Drinking Water Quality Abigail F. Cantor Updated throughout for this new edition, Water Distribution System

Information in Media Pulse may describe products offered by companies in the water industry. AWWA does not endorse these products, nor is it responsible for any claims made by the companies concerned.

90

ME DIA PUL SE | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Monitoring describes the latest water quality monitoring approaches, techniques, and equipment that will help water utilities achieve compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule, which was published by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1991.

The book addresses numerous other water quality issues. Water quality data are obtained using the approaches presented and are taken

under standardized conditions representative of the complex interactions between water and pipes. The monitoring techniques provide a straightforward, economical approach to routine water quality monitoring in water distribution systems. These are some features of the book: • It describes an economical method for obtaining standardized and representative water samples.

• It demonstrates how both small and large water systems can achieve quality control and process improvements that are similar to the methods used in industry.

• It helps determine the causes of, and control for, lead and copper releases in drinking water systems.

• It explains the optimal ways to interpret and use water quality data.

Available from CRC Press, www.crcpress.com; ISBN: 978-11380-6403-4 (2018, soft cover, 168 pp., $79.95).

• It provides in-depth coverage of wastewater treatment objectives, design considerations, and treatment processes, along with process diagrams.

Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: Theory and Design Examples (two-volume set) Syed R. Qasim and Guang Zhu This book presents the theory involved in wastewater treatment processes, defines the important design parameters involved, and provides typical values of these parameters for ready reference.

Wastewater Treatment and Reuse also provides numerical applications and step-by-step • It includes more than 650 calculation procedures in illustrative example problems solved examples. These are on almost every topic, worked some of the book: out 3371 H&Tfeatures AWWA ad_Layout 1 3/20/15 11:48 AM Page 1 in detail, to enhance

comprehension and deeper understanding of the basic concepts.

• It covers all phases of treatment: preliminary, primary, secondary, disinfection, and natural and advanced treatment processes.

• It offers step-by-step theory and design calculations, equipment selection, unit layout, and operation and maintenance.

• It includes numerous useful appendixes, such as abbreviations and symbols, a list of commonly used chemicals, physical constants of water and solubility, and unit conversions.

Available from CRC Press, www.crcpress.com; ISBN: 978-14987-6200-7 (2018, hard cover, 1,880 pp., $279.95). https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1106

P

U

RE

R

Hungerford & Terry...An innovative leader

E W AT

still setting the standards in water treatment since 1909

A solid reputation built on business ethics that only an employee owned company can provide – Filtration systems to remove iron, manganese, arsenic, and radium – High efficiency ion exchange systems to remove nitrates, perchlorate, chrome-6, color, and hardness – Condensate polishers – Forced draft and vacuum degasifiers – Complete demineralizers

New

New “Plug-&-Play”, low cost, pre-engineered filtration systems

H&T builds water treatment systems that work flawlessly and last a lifetime.

For treatment suggestions, design assistance, sample specifications, typical designs, lab analysis, or pilot testing contact: Hungerford & Terry, Inc. 226 Atlantic Avenue, Clayton, NJ 08312 www.hungerfordterry.com

•

sales@hungerfordterry.com

•

P: 856-881-3200

•

F: 856-881-6859

M ED IA P U LS E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

91

AWWA Section Meetings AWWA Section

2018 Meetings

Section Contact

Alabama–Mississippi*

Oct. 14–16, Birmingham, Ala.

James D. Miller, (256) 310-3646

Alaska*

•

Angie Monteleone, (907) 561-9777

Arizona*

•

Debbie Muse, (480) 987-4888

Atlantic Canada*

Sept. 16–19, Membertou, N.S.

Clara Shea, (902) 434-6002

British Columbia*

•

Carlie Hucul, (604) 630-0011

California–Nevada*

Oct. 22–25, Palm Springs, Calif.

Tim Worley, (909) 291-2102

Chesapeake*

Aug. 28–31, Ocean City, Md.

Rachel Ellis, (443) 924-1032

Connecticut

•

Romana Longo, (860) 604-8996

Florida*

Nov. 25–29, Championsgate, Fla.

Peggy Guingona, (407) 957-8449

Georgia*

July 15–18, Savannah, Ga.

Eric Osborne, (678) 583-3904

Hawaii*

•

Susan Uyesugi (808) 356-1246

Illinois*

•

Laurie Dougherty, (866) 521-3595, ext. 1

Indiana*

•

Dawn Keyler, (317) 331-8032

Intermountain*

Oct. 10–12, Midway, Utah

Alane Boyd, (801) 580-9692

Iowa*

Oct. 16–18, Dubuque, Iowa

David Scott, (515) 283-2169

Kansas*

Aug. 28–31, Topeka, Kans.

Hank Corcoran Boyer, (785) 826-9163

Kentucky–Tennessee*

July 8–11, Nashville, Tenn.

Kay Sanborn, (502) 550-2992

Mexico

Nov. 5–9, San Luis Potosi, Mexico

Alfredo Ortiz Garcia, 52(812) 033-8036

Michigan*

Sept. 11–14, Kalamazoo, Mich.

Bonnifer Ballard, (517) 292-2912, ext. 1

Minnesota*

Sept. 18–21, Duluth, Minn.

Mona Cavalcoli, (612) 216-5004

Missouri*

•

Gailla Rogers, (816) 668-8561

Montana*

•

Robin Matthews-Barnes, (406) 546-5496

Nebraska*

Nov. 7–8, Kearney, Neb.

Mary Poe, (402) 471-1003

New England (NEWWA)*

Sept. 16–19, Stowe, Vt.

Katelyn Todesco, (508) 893-7979

New Jersey*

•

Mona Cavalcoli, (866) 436-1120

New York*

•

Jenny Ingrao, (315) 455-2614

North Carolina*

Nov. 4–7, Raleigh, N.C.

Catrice Jones, (919) 784-9030, ext. 1002

North Dakota*

Oct. 16–18, Grand Forks, N.D.

David Bruschwein, (701) 328-5259

Ohio*

Aug. 27–30, Columbus, Ohio

Laura Carter, (844) 766-2845

Ontario*

•

Michéle Grenier, (866) 975-0575

Pacific Northwest

•

Kyle Kihs, (503) 760-6460

Pennsylvania*

•

Don Hershey, (717) 774-8870, ext. 101

Puerto Rico*

•

Odalis De La Vega, (787) 900-9737

Quebec*

•

Stephanie Petit, (514) 270-7110, ext. 329

Rocky Mountain*

Sept. 15–18, Denver, Colo.

Ann Guiberson, (720) 404-0818

South Carolina*

•

David Baize, (803) 358-0658

South Dakota*

Sept. 12–14, Deadwood, S.D.

Jodi Johanson, (605) 997-2098

Southwest*

Oct. 28–30, Baton Rouge, La.

Don Broussard, (337) 849-0613

Texas*

•

Mike Howe, (512) 238-9292

Virginia*

Sept. 10–13, Virginia Beach, Va.

Geneva Hudgins, (434) 386-3190

West Virginia*

•

Christina Chard, (304) 340-2847

Western Canada*

Sept. 18–21, Winnipeg, Man.

Audrey Arisman, (403) 709-0064

Wisconsin*

Sept. 12–14, Madison, Wis.

Jill Duchniak, (414) 423-7000

*Includes exhibit; for information, call the Section contact (see far right column).

• Indicates that the 2018 meeting has already occurred.

92

AWWA SE CT ION ME E T IN G S | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

Corrigendum Corrigendum—Measuring Household Affordability for Water and Sewer Utilities In “Measuring Household Affordability for Water and Sewer Utilities” by Manuel P. Teodoro, in the January 2018 issue of Journal AWWA (Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 13), Table 3, Figure 1, and Figure 2 and the section “A big-city snapshot” contained inaccurate information as a result of a calculation error. In Table 3, Figure 1, and Figure 2, the values for affordability at the 20th income percentile (AR20) and hours of labor at minimum wage (HM) values

TABLE 3

for San Jose were incorrect. The corrected calculations resulted in the ordinal arrangement for the utilities in both figures to be reordered. The corrected table and figures are republished here. In the section, “A big city snapshot,” the average single-family residential bill should have been $82.92 and the average AR20 should have been 11.3%.

The HM did not change significantly as a result of the recalculations.

Affordability in largest 25 US cities in 2017a Affordability Ratio, Four-Person Household

Population Rank

City, State

Monthly Basic Service Cost $

20th Percentile Annual Income $

Estimated Disposable Monthly Income at 20th Percentile $

AR20 %

Minimum Wage $

HM

1

New York, N.Y.

81.78

18,085

579

14.1

12.00

6.8

2

Los Angeles, Calif.

73.11

19,063

888

8.2

10.50

7.0

3

Chicago, Ill.

47.27

17,386

576

8.2

10.50

4.5

4

Houston, Tex.

74.87

19,109

642

11.7

7.25

10.3

5

Phoenix, Ariz.

39.68

21,401

825

4.8

10.00

4.0

6

Philadelphia, Pa.

58.54

13,546

524

11.2

7.25

8.1

7

San Antonio, Tex.

55.16

19,517

933

5.9

7.25

7.6

8

San Diego, Calif.

108.71

26,381

636

17.1

11.50

9.5

9

Dallas, Tex.

59.82

18,585

685

8.7

7.25

8.3

10

San Jose, Calif.

87.98

33,342

1,188

7.4

10.50

8.4

11

Austin, Tex.

91.20

24,438

1,108

8.3

7.25

12.6

12

Jacksonville, Fla.

68.23

19,817

873

7.8

8.05

8.5

13

San Francisco, Calif.

176.85

24,946

658

26.9

13.00

13.6

14

Columbus, Ohio

106.36

18,784

840

12.7

8.15

13.1

15

Indianapolis, Ind.

97.60

17,395

724

13.5

7.25

13.5

16

Fort Worth, Tex.

66.67

21,817

831

8.0

7.25

9.2

17

Charlotte, N.C.

68.84

23,135

1,044

6.6

7.25

9.5

18

Seattle, Wash.

180.70

27,290

961

18.8

15.00

12.0

19

Denver, Colo.

64.91

21,698

884

7.3

9.30

7.0

20

El Paso, Tex.

54.45

17,879

787

6.9

7.25

7.5

21

Washington, D.C.

112.51

22,526

785

14.3

11.5

9.8

22

Boston, Mass.

99.51

14,913

618

16.5

11.00

9.0

23

Detroit, Mich.

92.68

9,436

379

24.4

8.90

10.4

24

Nashville, Tenn.

65.95

21,153

926

7.1

7.25

9.1

25

Memphis, Tenn.

39.53

14,913

618

6.4

7.25

5.5

25-city average

82.92

20,262

780

11.3

9.19

9.0

AR20—affordability at the 20th income percentile, HM—hours of labor at minimum wage aDoes

not include low-income assistance programs

C O R R IG END U M | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

93

FIGURE 1

Basic water and sewer service AR20 for the 25 largest US cities in 2017 26.9

San Francisco, Calif.

24.4

Detroit, Mich.

18.8

Seattle, Wash.

17.1

San Diego, Calif.

16.5

Boston, Mass.

14.3

Washington, D.C.

14.1

New York, N.Y.

13.5

Indianapolis, Ind.

12.7

Columbus, Ohio

11.7

Houston, Tex.

11.2

City, State

Philadelphia, Pa. Dallas, Tex.

8.7

Austin, Tex.

8.3

Los Angeles, Calif.

8.2

Chicago, Ill.

8.2

Fort Worth, Tex.

8.0

Jacksonville, Fla.

7.8

San Jose, Calif.

7.4

Denver, Colo.

7.3

Nashville, Tenn.

7.1

El Paso, Tex.

6.9

Charlotte, N.C.

6.6

Memphis, Tenn.

6.4

San Antonio, Tex.

5.9

Phoenix, Ariz.

4.8 0

5

10

15

20

Share of Disposable Household Income—% AR20—affordability at the 20th income percentile

94

CORRIGE N DUM | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

25

30

FIGURE 2

Basic water and sewer service HM for the 25 largest US cities in 2017 13.6

San Francisco, Calif.

13.5

Indianapolis, Ind.

13.1

Columbus, Ohio

12.6

Austin, Tex.

12.0

Seattle, Wash.

10.4

Detroit, Mich.

10.3

Houston, Tex. 9.8

Washington, D.C. Charlotte, N.C.

9.5

San Diego, Calif.

9.5 9.2

City, State

Fort Worth, Tex. Nashville, Tenn.

9.1

Boston, Mass.

9.0

Jacksonville, Fla.

8.5

San Jose, Calif.

8.4

Dallas, Tex.

8.3

Philadelphia, Pa.

8.1

San Antonio, Tex.

7.6

El Paso, Tex.

7.5

Denver, Colo.

7.0

Los Angeles, Calif.

7.0

New York, N.Y.

6.8

Memphis, Tenn.

5.5

Chicago, Ill.

4.5

Phoenix, Ariz.

4.0 0

5

10

15

Hours HM—hours of labor at minimum wage

https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1107

C O R R IG END U M | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

95

Product Spotlight ADVERTISING SECTION

Advanced Metering Infrastructure Neptune Build onto a smart city with L900™ technology. Support smart city initiatives with Neptune® L900™ technology—the industry’s first LoRa Alliance™ certified solution for AMI. Build onto existing smart water technology while infrastructure is actively managed and monitored for you. Win your day at neptunetg.com/smartcities and ACE18, Booth #17043.

Corrosion Protection Denso Denso Petrolatum Tapes, which meet AWWA C217 standards, are ideal for pipes, flanges, fittings, valves, and other irregular surfaces above and below ground that are susceptible to corrosion in the water and wastewater industries. They can be easily applied to cold and wet surfaces with minimal surface preparation (SSPC SP 2-3) and no special training required. For more information, call (281) 821-3355, e-mail at info@densona.com, or visit us online at www.densona.com. See us at ACE18, booth #25048.

Water Pumps Xylem Xylem’s Leopold Oxelia is an oxidation-enhanced biologically active filtration system for drinking water. The Oxelia system provides a multi-barrier defense, oxidation plus filtration, which • destroys recalcitrant organic micropollutants, • disinfects, • removes pathogens, • eliminates oxidation and disinfection byproducts, and • produces water with high biostability.

Backed by Xylem’s expertise in ozone and UV treatment, precision instrumentation and the unparalleled filtration capability, the Oxelia system can be configured for the customer’s water matrix, energy, and regulatory requirements for the most cost-effective solution. For more information, visit www.xylem.com/treatment.

96

PRODUCT SPOT L IG H T | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

Buyers’ Resource Guide Find a company or product quickly Visit the Buyers’ Resource Guide online at www.awwa.org/journal

Products and Services Total Water Solutions

rS Wate olutio l n ta ®

s

To

®

BUYERS’ RESOURCE Pr

od

Scan to access online version

Dedicated to the World’s Most Important Resource®

uct

s

&

es

GUIDE v S er

ic

Thank you for doing business with the advertisers and members of AWWA. B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

97

Buyers’ Resource Guide

ADVERTISING SECTION

Analytical Services and Testing Labs LEGIONELLA Special Pathogens Laboratory specializes in the detection, control, and remediation of Legionella and waterborne pathogens. Internationally renowned for clinical and environmental expertise in Legionnaires’ disease prevention, our integrated platform of evidence-based solutions for Total Legionella Control includes Legionella and waterborne pathogen testing, consulting and education, and ZEROutbreak® protection (ASHRAE 188 compliance). (877) 775-7284; www.SpecialPathogensLab.com.

Associations DUCTILE IRON PIPE The Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) provides accurate, reliable, and essential engineering information about iron pipe to water and wastewater professionals. Ductile iron pipe is the best answer to America’s water infrastructure needs, and DIPRA’s mission is to help others appreciate its advantages. Contact us at www.dipra.org.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Certification ACCREDITED PRODUCT CERTIFICATION, ANALYSIS, AND TESTING Water Quality Association’s Product Certification is the recognized label for both Gold Seal and Sustainability Certification. Both programs are accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Standards Council of Canada (SCC) to test and certify products for conformance with the NSF/ANSI standards. Contact us at goldseal@wqa.org.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Certification ANALYTICAL SERVICES, PRODUCT TESTING, AND CERTIFICATION Underwriters Laboratories Inc (UL). UL is your trusted partner for certification of products used in the water treatment and distribution system. UL is a fully accredited, third-party certification body that certifies a wide variety of products that are directly added to or come into contact with drinking water.

For more information visit www.UL.com/water. 333 Pfingsten Rd., Northbrook, IL 60062 USA; (847) 664-3796; waterinfo@ul.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

98

BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N AL AWWA

Chemical Feed Equipment, Systems, and Handling CHLORINE AND CHEMICAL FEED SCALES Force Flow manufactures chemical monitoring and control systems for chlorine, hypo, fluoride, polymer, caustic, and all other chemicals used in water treatment. Weight-based (scales) and ultrasonic systems for monitoring cylinders, ton containers, day tanks, carboys, and bulk storage tanks. Safely and accurately monitor chemical usage, feed rate, and level. Automate day tank refilling with the Wizard ARC Controller, and add chemical feed flexibility with the new MERLIN Automatic Onsite Chemical Dilution System. Contact us for more information at (800) 893-6723 or by fax at (925) 686-6713, or visit www.forceflowscales.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

PRECISION INSTRUMENTS AND DRY CHEMICAL FEEDERS Eagle Microsystems Inc. specializes in the engineering and design of dry chemical feed systems. The VF-100 Dry Chemical Feeder is a rugged directdrive feeder that is available with a wide range of options and accessories to meet any project needs. Eagle Microsystems Inc. also designs and manufactures weighing products, analytical equipment, and process control equipment. Eagle Microsystems Inc., 366 Circle of Progress Dr., Pottstown, PA 19464 USA; phone: (610) 323-2250; fax: (610) 323-0114; Info@EagleMicrosystems.com; www.EagleMicrosystems.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

WATER TREATMENT Blue-White® Industries is a leading manufacturer of peristaltic and diaphragm chemical metering pumps. These pumps are designed to handle challenges associated with chemicals used for the treatment of water and wastewater. They have features and capabilities the industry requires: accurate feed, high pressure ratings, and advanced electronics. (714) 893-8529; sales@blue-white.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Chemicals ANALYTICAL SERVICES AND CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS PROVIDER American Water Chemicals (AWC) manufactures specialty chemicals for pretreatment and maintenance of membrane systems and is ISO 9001:2008 certified. We improve membrane system performance and optimize cost of operation by diagnosing and solving complex problems using advanced analytical methods. AWC is a pioneer in advanced membrane autopsy techniques and investigative services. For more information call (813) 246-5448; info@membranechemicals.com; visit www.membranechemicals.com.

MEMBRANE CLEANERS International Products Corp. manufactures membrane cleaners that restore 100% flux at safe pH ranges. Our cleaners are compatible with UF, RO, and ceramic membranes used for food and beverage, heavy oil, automotive, wastewater, water recycling, desalination, medical, and other applications. For information or free samples, call Michele Christian at (609) 386-8770; e-mail membrane@ipcol.com; www.ipcol.com/cleaners/industries/water-wastewater.

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

99

Chemicals WATER TREATMENT Chemtrade Solutions. Chemtrade Solutions LLC manufactures and markets a variety of inorganic chemicals for our North American municipal and industrial water treatment customers. Products include • Aluminum sulfate (alum) • Aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH) • Polyaluminum choride (PACl/PACs) • Ferric sulfate • Calcium hydroxide • Liquid ammonium sulfate Contact us at WaterChem@chemtradelogistics.com or (800) 255-7589. Visit our website: www.chemtradelogistics.com.

Coatings and Linings LEAD REDUCTION, LEAK PREVENTION AND CORROSION CONTROL The patented ePIPE process restores pipes in place, providing superior leak protection and reduction of lead and copper leaching from underground and in-building water supply pipes. Pipes protected with the ePIPE epoxy-lined piping system reduce leaching of toxic lead and copper into drinking water to well below EPA and WHO cutoff levels. Contact: Virginia Steverson, vsteverson@aceduraflo.com; direct, USA and Canada: 714-564-7730; office: (888) 775-0220; cell: 714-795-4767.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Computer Software and Services COMPLIANCE REPORTING AND PROCESS CONTROL DATA SYSTEMS Water information systems by KISTERS integrate separate water/wastewater databases (SCADA, LIMS, metering, etc.) to improve data quality, save time, and increase ease of water quality compliance reporting. Automate QA/QC, processing, and sharing of information—including stormwater, ecological, GIS, and raster climate data—for collaborative and defensible decisions.

Details at www.KISTERS.net/NA/compliance.

AWWA Service Provider Member

CONSULTANTS Copperleaf provides decision analytics to companies managing critical infrastructure. Our enterprise software solutions leverage operational, financial, and asset data to help our clients make investment decisions that deliver the highest business value. Copperleaf Technologies, 2920 Virtual Way, Ste. 140, Vancouver, BC V5M 0C4 Canada; (888) 465-5323; marketing@copperleaf.com; www.copperleaf.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

100

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R NA L AWWA

Computer Software and Services HYDRAULIC MODELING Bentley’s fully integrated water and wastewater software solution addresses the needs of owner–operators and engineers who contribute to the water infrastructure life cycle. Bentley provides modeling, design, and management software for water distribution, wastewater, and stormwater systems; transient analysis; GIS and mapping; and road and plant infrastructure. For more information, visit www.bentley.com/wtr.

AWWA Service Provider Member

ONLINE COMMUNITY PLATFORM FluksAqua. More than a community of water professionals. Founded in 2015, with offices in Montreal and Paris, our rapidly growing community already receives over 20,000 visitors per month from more than 50 countries while gaining more and more followers. We have the experience of our community at heart. FluksAqua is the world’s first online collaborative platform designed by and for water utility professionals. Our goal is to transform drinking water, water management, and wastewater treatment through the sharing of knowledge and information. For more information, visit www.fluksaqua.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Consultants FULL-SERVICE WATER AND WASTEWATER CONSULTING SERVICES A $2 billion global management, engineering, and development firm, Mott MacDonald delivers sustainable outcomes in transportation, buildings, power, oil and gas, water and wastewater, environment, education, health, international development, and digital infrastructure.

Mott MacDonald in North America (www.mottmac.com/americas) is a vibrant infrastructure development and engineering company with 64 offices.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Contractors FULL-SERVICE SUPPLIER AND INSTALLER Unifilt Corp. Since 1977, with more than 4,000 installations operating worldwide, Unifilt has provided state-of-the-art solutions for potable/ wastewater treatment facilities. Complete packaged solutions (media removal, installation, and guaranteed component compatibility): • Vacuum/hydraulic/manual removal • Hydraulic/manual installation • Underdrain cleaning/evaluation/repair • Evaluation of existing materials/systems • The Unifilt Air Scour • NSF-approved anthracite, sand, garnet, gravel, wheeler balls, and uni-liners that meet or exceed AWWA B100-09.

(800) 223-2882; www.Unifilt.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

101

Corrosion Control TANKS CorrTech Inc. Corrosion understood. Nationwide comprehensive concrete and steel tank services. In-service robotic inspection and sediment removal tank engineering, structural assessments, coating specifications, painting inspection, cathodic protection system design and installation, out-of-service inspections, and washouts. Chemical storage inspection. Phone: (888) 842-3944; fax: (860) 526-5018; pmeskill@corrtech-inc.com; www.corrtech-inc.com.

Corrosion Control, Cathodic Protection Equipment, and Materials GALVANIC ANODES (MAGNESIUM AND ZINC) Interprovincial/International Corrosion Control has manufactured/distributed the following corrosion control products since 1957: • Anodes—magnesium/zinc • Impressed current anodes • Thermitweld products • Test stations, rectifiers • Professional engineering design • Plus many other industry-related products For superior quality and service, contact ICCC, Ontario, Quebec/Maritimes, Alberta: phone: (905) 634-7751; fax: (905) 333-4313. Lewiston, N.Y.: (800) 699-8771. Contact@Rustrol.com; www.Rustrol.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Distribution DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY SUEZ Advanced Solutions (Utility Service Co. Inc.). Our distribution program includes condition assessments, leak location, V&H exercising, pipe rehabilitation, ice pigging, and smart water solutions, helping you reduce costs, improve operations, and make the right decisions to manage your system. Phone: (855) 526-4413; fax (888) 600-5876; help@utilityservice.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

SERVICE LINE CONNECTIONS Whether you are tapping a large-diameter water main or installing a new residential service line on a distribution system, Mueller Co. manufactures a complete line of solutions including drilling and tapping machines, tapping sleeves, tapping valves, service brass, service saddles, meters, setters, and boxes. moreinfo@muellercompany.com; www.muellercompany.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Disinfection Equipment and Systems OZONE The Aqua ElectrOzone™ ozone generation system is applied in potable water, wastewater/water reuse and industrial applications requiring ozone treatment for taste and odor control, bleaching/color removal, oxidation and disinfection. For smaller applications, the Aqua Electrozone M-Series is a modular system capable of ozone production ranging from15 ppd to 540 ppd.

(815) 654-2501; www.aquaelectrozone.com.

102

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R NA L AWWA

Engineering Services WATER AND WASTEWATER Greeley and Hansen is a leader in developing innovative engineering, architecture, and management solutions for a wide array of complex water, wastewater, and infrastructure challenges. The firm has built upon more than 100 years of proven engineering experience in all phases of project development and implementation to become a premier global provider of comprehensive services in the water sector. Dedicated to designing better urban environments worldwide. Contact: Jim Sullivan, (800) 837-9779 or jsullivan@greeley-hansen.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Filtration ACTIVATED CARBON Haycarb USA Inc. is one of the world largest manufacturers of coconut shell– based activated carbons. Our production facilities are NSF and ISO certified and meet AWWA standards. Haycarb has been in the business for over four decades and the products have been proved for drinking water applications.

For more information on Haycarb products, please call toll-free 855-HAYCARB (429-2272).

AWWA Service Provider Member

ADVANCED ARSENIC REMOVAL SYSTEMS ISOLUX® is a proven, affordable well-head water treatment solution designed specifically to remove arsenic. All ISOLUX systems use cartridges filled with a patented zirconium filter media that has been verified for 99% to zero arsenic removal. There’s no backwashing, and practically no maintenance beyond cartridge replacement. (480) 315-8430; sales@isolux-arsenicremoval.com.

BIOLOGICAL FILTRATION AdEdge Water Technologies specializes in the design, manufacturing, and supply of water treatment solutions, specialty medias, legacy, and innovative technologies that remove arsenic, iron, manganese, nitrate, perchlorate, radionuclides, and other contaminants from water for municipal, private, and industrial clients. Please contact us at (866) 8ADEDGE or online at www.adedgetech.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

FILTER HOUSING AND CARTRIDGES Meets AWWA drinking water standards! Harmsco proudly supplies EPA LT2compliant filtration installations across the United States, North America, and the same standards worldwide! For more information on Harmsco products, please call us: (800) 327-3248, email us: sales@harmsco.com, or visit us: www.harmsco.com.

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

103

Filtration FILTER MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION SUEZ Advanced Solutions (Utility Service Co. Inc.) provides filter condition assessments, media sampling, cleaning and replacement, concrete and steel rehabilitation, underdrains, and filter equipment. We handle all your filter needs from a one-time media cleaning to full filter house rehabilitation and maintenance. Phone: (855) 526-4413; fax: (888) 600-5876; help@utilityservice.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

FILTER MEDIA Since 1935 Anthracite Filter Media Co. has been providing anthracite, sand, gravel, garnet, greensand, and activated carbon that meet or exceed AWWA and NSF standards. Most materials are warehoused at several locations throughout the country, facilitating quick delivery. For more information, please contact us at 6326 West Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90043-3803 USA; (800) 722-0407 or (310) 258-9116; fax: (310) 258-9111; www.AnthraciteFilter.com; sales@AnthraciteFilter.com.

FILTER MEDIA Anthrafilter has provided filter media replacement across North America since 1976. We offer service to all types of filters including gravity, pressure, traveling bridge-type systems, and others; underdrain repairs; removal, disposal, supply, and installation; as well as anthracite filter media, filter sands and gravels, garnet, greensand, activated carbon, etc. Our efficient, clean, and safe methods reduce filter downtime. We provide quality, efficiency, and customer satisfaction. USA: phone: (800) 998-8555 or (716) 285-5680; fax: (716) 285-5681. Canada: phone: (519) 751-1080; fax: (519) 751-0617. www.anthrafilter.net.

AWWA Service Provider Member

FILTER MEDIA CEI is your worldwide leader in providing filter media to the water filtration industry. Anthracite, gravel, sand, garnet, greensand plus, activated carbons, resins, and much more. All exceed AWWA B100 Standards. All are NSF approved. USA and Overseas. Same day proposals. Excellent customer service.

We are your “One Company For All Your Filter Media.” Phone: (800) 344-5770; fax: (888) 204-9656; Rick@ceifiltration.com; www.CEIfiltration.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

FILTER MEDIA, ANTHRACITE Carbonite Filter Corp. produces superior-quality anthracite filter media with uniformities of 1.40 or less guaranteed. Carbonite has been used successfully by thousands of municipal and industrial filter plants. Our products meet ANSI/AWWA B100 Standards and are NSF Standard 61 certified. POB #1, Delano, PA 18220 USA; phone: (570) 467-3350; fax: (570) 467-7272; carbon1@ptd.net; www.carbonitecorp.com.

104

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R NA L AWWA

Filtration FILTER MEDIA, ANTHRACITE CEI Anthracite manufactures the highest quality anthracite. Our anthracite is custom manufactured to your size and UC (uniformity coefficient) requirements. Our anthracite can be made to a UC as low as 1.3. Our dry anthracite is only 50 pounds per cubic foot, unlike the water soaked anthracite from other plants. No paying for water weight here. NSF Certified.

Exceeds AWWA B-100 Standards. (570) 459-7005; Rick@ceifiltration.com; www.ceifiltration.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

FILTER SAND AND GRAVEL Southern Products and Silica Co. Inc. Since 1933, SPS has provided high-quality filter media, quartz pebbles, and well gravel packs to our customers. Our materials are rounded quartzite sand and gravel, washed, and screened to size, in compliance with AWWA specifications, and NSF-61 certified. 4303 US Hwy. 1 N., Hoffman, NC 28347 USA; (910) 281-3189, ext. 1; www.sandandgravel.net.

AWWA Service Provider Member

FILTRATION PRODUCTS SAFNA is an ASME and National Board-certified manufacturer of filter housings, tanks, pressure vessels, and RO skids, offering: • Single and Multi-Bag Filter Housings • Single and Multi-Cartridge Filter Housings • Storage Tanks and Pressure Vessels • Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel 304, and Stainless Steel 316 Materials • NSF61 Coatings and Linings • ASME Certification For more information, contact us at (626) 599-8566 or at info@safna.com; www.safna.com.

FULL SERVICE SUPPLIER/INSTALLER Since 1977, with 5,000+ installations operating worldwide in municipal/ industrial applications, Unifilt has provided state-of-the-art manufacturing, distribution, removal, and installation of filtering materials for potable/ wastewater treatment facilities. Whether a system requires minor repairs or major upgrades, we have the experience to diagnose and fix even the most complex problems. Our air-scour solution for filter media cleaning features an introductory trial. Fast, easy installation (no media removal or underdrain replacement required). Made in the USA. (800) 223-2882, www.Unifilt.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

REVERSE OSMOSIS FEED WATER SPACER SWM is the global leader in reverse osmosis feed spacer and center tube technologies with over 40 years of experience. We deliver time-tested quality products and next-generation innovations and solutions to solve your toughest RO membrane challenges. As SWM we now bring even more capabilities to customers. Visit us at www.swmintl.com.

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

105

Gaskets and Sealing PIPE GASKETS Specification Rubber Products Inc. Domestic manufacturer of gaskets and sealing solutions since 1968.

• Barracuda® RJ gaskets in safety orange • Push-on gaskets • MJ and MJxIPS transition gaskets • Filler, flat, and AMERICAN Toruseal® Flange Gaskets • SBR, EPDM, Nitrile, Fluoroelastomer (Viton®, etc.) compounds available • Products are NSF-61 and UL listed and conform to ANSI/AWWAC111/A21.111 • Sold through PVF manufacturers and distributors (800) 633-3415; www.specrubber.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Geographic Information Systems EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS Seiler Instrument is a family owned firm established in 1945. Geospatial scanning, UAV, survey and mapping sales, service, training, and support are what we excel at. Our staff of professionals is committed to a personal hands-on approach and our service excellence goes well beyond just a sale.

(888) 263-8918; solutions@seilerinst.com; www.seilerinst.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Hydrants FIRE HYDRANTS Mueller Co. manufactures a comprehensive range of dry and wet barrel fire hydrants marketed under the trusted brands of Mueller®, US Pipe Valve & Hydrant®, and Jones®. Available in an almost infinite range of configurations, these products are often complemented by hydrant safety devices, indicator posts, and post indicator valves. moreinfo@muellercompany.com; www.muellercompany.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Hydrants, Accessories, and Parts VALVES AMERICAN Flow Control is a division of AMERICAN Cast Iron Pipe Company, founded in Birmingham, Ala., in 1905. In addition to fire hydrants and valves, AMERICAN manufactures ductile iron and spiral-welded steel pipe for the waterworks industry. Contact us at (205) 325-7957 or bmyl@american-usa.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

106

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R NA L AWWA

Instrumentation REMOTE WIRELESS MONITORING Telog by Trimble offers a comprehensive remote monitoring system for water distribution and wastewater collection utilities. Telog solutions provide an automated means of collecting, archiving, presenting, and sharing asset data so utilities can improve operations and fulfill regulatory compliance.

TrimbleWater_ContactUs@trimble.com; www.trimblewater.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT Analytical Technology Inc. designs and manufactures a wide variety of innovative instrumentation for the water and wastewater markets and distributes both domestically and internationally through a system of independent manufacturers’ representatives and distributors. In addition to water quality monitors, ATI also provides a full line of industrial and municipal gas detectors measuring up to 33 different gases.

Collegeville, Pa.; phone: (800) 959-0299; fax: (610) 917-0992; sales@analyticaltechnology.com; www.analyticaltechnology.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Laboratory and Field-Testing Equipment INSTRUMENTATION Myron L® Co.’s ULTRAPEN™ PT1 is a groundbreaking new conductivity/TDS/ salinity pen. The PT1 features the accuracy and stability of benchtop lab equipment with the convenience of a pen. Constructed of durable aircraft aluminum, this pen is fully potted for extra protection with an easy-to-read LCD and one-button functions. The PT1 is an indispensable instrument in the water quality professional’s toolkit. www.myronl.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

RAPID MICROBIOLOGICAL MONITORING SOLUTIONS LuminUltra’s Rapid Microbiological Monitoring Solutions—based on 2nd Generation ATP—afford your team the ability to pinpoint problem areas within a system, apply corrective action (e.g. flushing), and ensure that these actions were effective using a simple 5-minute field test with on-the-spot results. These solutions—including field ready test kits, portable equipment and cloud-based software—can save you a tremendous amount of time, money and water. As such, it is an ideal complement to your water management plan. Ask us how at sales@luminultra.com AWWA Service Provider Member

ACOUSTIC LEAK DETECTION Echologics provides high-quality and actionable information about buried water distribution and transmission main infrastructure, helping to optimize capital investments and repair and rehabilitation programs; this safely extends the operating life of critical water main assets. Echologics is a leader in pipe condition assessment, leak detection, and continuous leak monitoring solutions. Contact: Stadnyckyji@echlogics.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

107

Leak Detection LEAK DETECTION SubSurface Leak Detection offers the most sensitive leak noise correlators, correlating loggers, and water leak detectors available. Choose the DigiCorr correlator, the LC-2500 correlator, the ZCorr correlating loggers, or any of our five different water leak detectors. (775) 298-2701; www.subsurfaceleak.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

WIRELESS LEAK DETECTION AND MONITORING Trimble’s wireless leak detection and monitoring solution provides a fixed and mobile leak detection and monitoring system for identifying and locating leaks, and scheduling and tracking necessary repairs. The solution helps reduce costly pipeline bursts, leakage, and nonrevenue water. TrimbleWater_ ContactUs@trimble.com; www.trimblewater.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

WATER NETWORK MONITORING Fluid Conservation Systems is the instrumentation expert for water loss recovery. Our combined experience, technical expertise, and unrivaled wireless monitoring solutions have made us world leaders within the drinking water industry with a reputation for innovation, quality, and service. We specialize in premier water network monitoring solutions by offering a complete set of equipment for virtually all leak detection and pressure management needs. For more information call (800) 531-5465, e-mail sales@fluidconservation.com, or visit www.fluidconservation.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Meters ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE The Mi.Net® system links meters, distribution sensors, and control devices in an efficient wireless network for real-time access. This smart, migratable solution provides the ultimate in flexibility and scalability, allowing you to cost-effectively add advanced capabilities to fixed networks or drive-by solutions without replacing the entire system. (800) 323-8584; www.muellersystems.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

AMI IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE SUEZ Advanced Solutions (Utility Service Co. Inc.) offers a risk-free, turnkey financed solution that bundles meters with AMI technology, installing and integrating into your existing system. Then, we take care of your system during its lifetime. Phone: (855) 526-4413; fax (888) 600-5876; help@ utilityservice.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

108

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R NA L AWWA

Meters AMR/AMI Kamstrup is a world-leading supplier of ultrasonic meters and meter reading solutions. For 70 years, we have enabled utilities to run better businesses while inspiring smarter, more responsible solutions for the communities you serve. We are opening a new US production facility in 2018 to meet the high demand for our metering solutions. To learn more, call (404) 835-6716; e-mail info-us@kamstrup.com, or visit kamstrup.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

AMR/AMI SYSTEMS Sensus helps a wide range of public service providers—from utilities to cities to industrial complexes and campuses—do more with their infrastructure. We enable our customers to reach farther through the application of technology and data-driven insights that deliver efficiency and responsiveness. We partner with them to anticipate and respond to evolving business needs with innovation in sensing and communications technologies, data analytics, and services. Learn more at www.sensus.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

AMR/AMI SYSTEMS Formed in 1903, the Zenner/Minol group is a global company focused on meter production, AMR/AMI systems, and sub-metering contracts.

Zenner/Minol serves customers in 90 countries with plants on five continents including the United States. Zenner USA, 15280 Addison Rd., Addison, TX 75001 USA; phone: (855) 593-6637; fax: (972) 386-1814; marketing@zennerusa.com; www.zennerusa.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

AMR/AMI SYSTEMS FOR WATER Win your day with Neptune® technology designed and engineered for the business of water. Achieve more with infrastructure and reap AMI benefits without operational burdens. Empower teams with metering solutions and actionable data to stay responsive, lean, and resourceful. Learn more about connecting to what’s next in water at neptunetg.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

AMR/AMI, METER DATA MANAGEMENT, AND LEAK DETECTION Master Meter is a high-service solutions provider specializing in advanced digital water metering, data delivery, and utility intelligence software. Our innovative smart water and IoT technologies portfolio helps utilities manage a dynamic business environment, and their rapidly evolving role within a smart cities strategic plan. For more information, call (800) 765-6518 or visit www.mastermeter.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

109

Meters METERS, AMR/AMI, AND ANALYTICS Badger Meter is an innovator in flow measurement, control and communication solutions, serving water utilities, municipalities, and commercial and industrial customers worldwide. The company’s products measure water, oil, chemicals, and other fluids, and are known for accuracy, long-lasting durability, and for providing and communicating valuable and timely measurement data. For more information, call (800) 616-3837; www.badgermeter.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

WATER UTILITY GASKETS Specification Rubber Products Inc. Domestic manufacturer of gaskets and sealing solutions sinc 1968.

• Patented MeterSeal™ molded gaskets have a molded bulb on the ID to help with mismatched faces and uneven torque on bolts.

• Drop-in MeterSeal™ gaskets and traditional drop-in meter gaskets have a patented tab to assist with installation.

• Both styles meet the physical properties specified in Table 4 of ANSI/AWWA C111/A21.11.

• Made in the USA, NSF-61 certified.

(800) 633-3415; www.specrubber.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Pipe CLEANING TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT Pipeline Pigging Products Inc. Our Municipal Series Poly Pigs are internal pipeline-cleaning devices that are propelled by line pressure to remove flow-restricting deposits. All have the ability to negotiate short-radius bends, tees, valves, and multidimensional piping. Call (800) 242-7997 or (281) 351-6688 for distributor or factory-certified service information; www.pipepigs.com.

DUCTILE IRON PIPE AMERICAN Ductile Iron Pipe is a division of AMERICAN Cast Iron Pipe Company, founded in Birmingham, Ala., in 1905. In addition to ductile iron, AMERICAN manufactures spiral-welded steel pipe, fire hydrants, and valves for the waterworks industry. Contact us at (205) 307-2969 or jordanbyrd@american-usa.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

JOINT RESTRAINT EBAA Iron Inc. is the leader in pipe joint technology, manufacturing, and specializing in pipe restraints and flexible expansion joints for the water and wastewater industry. With products that save time and money, EBAA is 100% AIS compliant and 100% Made in the USA! Products: • Joint restraint for ductile iron, steel, PVC, and HDPE pipelines (MEGALUG® mechanical joint restraint) • Flexible expansion joints • Restrained couplings • Restrained flange adapters Contact us at (800) 633-9190; contact@ebaa.com; www.ebaa.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member 110

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R NA L AWWA

Pipe PIPE CLAMPS AND COUPLINGS Krausz Industries, the creator of HYMAX, develops, designs, and manufactures market-leading couplings and clamps for connecting and repairing pipes for both potable water and sewage. In more than 90 years of industry leadership, and millions of installations, Krausz has earned a solid reputation for providing products that meet installers’ field needs. Phone: (855) 457-2879; fax: (352) 304-5787; info@krauszusa.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

PIPE JOINT MATERIAL Mercer Rubber Company manufactures rubber expansion joints for the water and wastewater treatment, power, industrial, and chemical industries as well as HVAC commercial and marine work. Our specialty is developing custom products for a specific job, from a single small joint to hundreds of large-diameter joints. info@mercer-rubber.com; www.mercer-rubber.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

PIPE, PVC Diamond Plastics Corp. manufactures gasketed PVC pipe in diameters from 1½ in. through 60 in. for water distribution, transmission, irrigation, drainage, and sewage applications, including AWWA C900 products from 4 to 60 in.

With seven plants across the United States and more than 30 years of experience in production, Diamond is one of the largest manufacturers of quality pipe products in North America. POB 1608, Grand Island, NE 68802 USA; (800) PVC-PIPE; diamondplastics@dpcpipe.com; www.dpcpipe.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

PIPE-JOINING MATERIALS X-Pando Products Co. is the manufacturer of unique sealing compounds that expand as they set, and can be used on most threaded pipes and fittings for most liquids, gases, and liquid gases at high pressures and temperatures.

Nontoxic, UL® certified to NSF/ANSI 61 and 372. Meets requirements of FDA, USDA, NASA, and API. X-Pando Special No. 2 for use on cement-lined pipes to be welded. 204 Stokes Ave., Ewing, NJ 08638 USA; phone: (609) 394-0150; fax: (609) 989-4847; sales@xpando.com.

PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT For utilities with aging pipeline infrastructure, Echologics’ condition assessment technology determines the structural strength of buried assets and helps optimize rehabilitation and replacement programs. ePulse® condition assessments use acoustic signals and advanced computer algorithms to assign pipe “grades” based on the actual condition of each segment. (866) 324-6564; www.echologics.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

111

Pumps PUMPS While in the business of making water work for you, look to A.Y. McDonald to provide the pumps you need, ranging from boosters to submersibles. As the leading manufacturer and distributor of water works, plumbing, pumps, and high pressure gas parts, learn more about A.Y. McDonald by calling (800) 292-2737.

AWWA Service Provider Member

PUMPS Gorman-Rupp manufactures a complete line of sewage pumping systems and pressure booster/water reuse stations, including pumps, motors, and controls.

Our ReliaSource® line of lift stations provides dependability and ease of service, and our commitment to total system responsibility means you make only one call to source and service your entire system. Please contact Vince Baldasare at (419) 755-1011 or grsales@gormanrupp.com, or visit www.GRpumps.com.

PUMPS SEEPEX Inc. develops, manufactures, and globally markets progressive cavity pumps for delivering low to highly viscous, aggressive, and abrasive media.

SEEPEX offers pre-engineered chemical metering systems for use in a wide variety of chemical dosing and water treatment applications, including sodium hypochlorite disinfection processes. The fully packaged skids are available with SEEPEX’s NSF/ANSI 61 Standard-certified metering pumps. SEEPEX Inc., 511 Speedway Dr., Enon, OH 45323 USA; phone: (937) 864-7150; fax: (937) 864-7157; sales.us@seepex.com; www.seepex.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Safety Equipment and Devices CHLORINE EMERGENCY SHUTOFF SYSTEMS Halogen Valve Systems is the leading manufacturer of electronically actuated emergency shutoff systems for chlorine and sulfur dioxide 150 lb cylinders and ton containers. In the event of a leak, the controller receives a signal from a leak detector or panic button and instantly sends a signal to the actuators, closing all valves within seconds.

• Eclipse™ Actuators for ton containers and 150 lb cylinders • Terminator™ Actuators for ton containers and 150 lb cylinders • Hexacon™ Controller for controlling up to six Eclipse actuators • Duplex™ Controller for single & dual Eclipse applications • Gemini™ Controller for single & dual Terminator applications 17961 Sky Park Circle, Ste. A, Irvine, CA 92614 USA; phone: (949) 261-5030; fax: (949) 261-5033; info@halogenvalve.com; www.halogenvalve.com.

112

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R NA L AWWA

Safety Equipment and Devices DISINFECTION EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS TGO Technologies Inc. ChlorTainer is a high-pressure containment vessel into which a 1-ton or 150-lb chlorine gas cylinder is processed. If the cylinder should leak, chlorine gas is contained within the vessel and processed at a normal rate. All of the chlorine gas is used, and no hazardous waste is generated. Phone: (800) 543-6603; fax: (707) 576-7516; sales@tgotech.com; www.chlortainer.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

LADDER SHIELDS R B Industries. Our trademarked Ladder Gate® Climb Preventive Shield controls access to fixed ladders on tanks, towers, buildings, and other structures. The angled sides prevent reaching around the shield to gain access to the ladder.

Sturdy, maintenance-free. Easily installed. Visit us at www.laddergate.com.

PIPE TOOLS ICS, Blount Inc. ICS® is a world leader in concrete and pipe power cutters and equipment including the patented PowerGrit® diamond chains designed to cut through pipe from one side and not worry about the kickback that can happen with a traditional circular blade saw. Contacts: Jessica Gowdy DeMars, (503) 653-4687; Joe Taccogna, (503) 653-4644. 4909 SE International Way, Portland, OR 97222-4601 USA; (800) 321-1240; marketing@icsdiamondtools.com; www.icsdiamondtools.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Tanks ASSET MAINTENANCE, REHABILITATION, AND HIGH-PERFORMANCE COATINGS SUEZ Advanced Solutions (Utility Service Co. Inc.) created the Tank Maintenance Program over 30 years ago, delivering peace of mind by providing financed rehabilitation and maintenance—including all repairs, lifetime coatings warranty, annual condition assessments, emergency services, and all future renovations.

Phone: (855) 526-4413; fax: (888) 600-5876; help@utilityservice.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

DEMOLITION Allstate Tower Inc. is your first choice for steel storage tank, stack, or tower dismantling. With more than 75 years of combined knowledge and experience, we can dismantle your structure to meet your expectations. POB 25, Henderson, KY 42419 USA; phone: (270) 826-9000, ext. 4601; fax: (270) 827-4417; sales@watertank.com; www.allstatetower.com.

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

113

Tanks PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DN Tanks specializes in the design and construction of AWWA D110 prestressed concrete tanks for potable water, wastewater, chilled water, and other liquids. DN Tanks is the largest producer of wire- and strand-wound prestressed concrete tanks in the world and provides large-scale construction capacity, unmatched technical expertise, and proficiency in multiple types of proven tank designs to provide customized liquid storage solutions for their customers. (855) DNTANKS; www.dntanks.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

STEEL WELDED Caldwell Tanks Inc. has turnkey design–build capabilities that enable us to provide solutions to our customers, no matter the size or scope. Being the only contractor that constructs all styles of elevated tanks, the options are almost limitless. Our award‐winning tanks are constructed on a towering tradition of 130 years of excellence. Phone: (502) 964‐3361; fax: (502) 966‐8732; Sales@CaldwellTanks.com; www.CaldwellTanks.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

TANK COVERS Apex Domes represents the pinnacle of precision-engineered aluminum geodesic covers. Apex Domes are fully compliant with AWWA specifications.

Constructed entirely out of aluminum, utilizing proprietary component fabrication, Apex Domes are corrosion resistant, virtually maintenance free, and designed for extended service life. Apex domes are available for new construction, retrofit applications, customized designs, and include specialized coating and interior insulation options. Dome sizes range from 12 to 1,000 feet in diameter. When you specify Apex Domes, you get the strongest space frame design, clear span construction, factory direct installation, watertight design, and a superior dome design built to reduce vapor loss. Project pricing is competitive with any supplier. Connect with Apex Domes—aluminum covers that outperform! (620) 423-3010; www.AluminumDomes.com, apexdomes.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

TANK COVERS CST Industries celebrates 125 years as the world’s largest designer and manufacturer of custom aluminum domes and covers for all water/wastewater applications. CST’s OptiDome® is a flush batten aluminum dome that features an enclosed gasket design protecting against ultraviolet exposure and sealant degradation. Exposed and non-exposed sealant designs are available around the nodes. OptiDome meets design codes such as Eurocode, Aluminum Design Manual 2010, IBC 2012, and AWWA-D108. CST Industries, 498 N Loop 336 E, Conroe, TX 77301 USA; (844) 44-TANKS; www.cstindustries.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

114

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R NA L AWWA

Tanks TANK ERECTION International Tank Service Inc. is a full-service tank construction company specializing in • Field-erected storage tanks • Water standpipes, reservoirs, and aboveground storage tanks • Tank modification and repair • Foundations • Tank jacking and leveling • AWWA, API, and FM Codes Our professional experience, knowledge, and dedication make us the best choice for your next tank project. 1085 S. Metcalf St., Lima, OH 45804 USA; phone: (419) 223-8251; fax: (419) 227-4590; butch@ITStank.com; www.ITStank.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

TANK ERECTION, RESTORATION, AND INSPECTION Classic Protective Coatings Inc. specializes in superior-quality water storage tank rehabilitation; offers safety, security, mixing system mechanical upgrades, or elevation changes; and provides the largest high-production welding, sandblasting, waterblasting, industrial coating, and containment equipment nationwide. Our crews hand-paint complex logos. Classic Protective Coatings Inc., N7670 State Hwy. 25, Menomonie, WI 54751-5928 USA; phone: (715) 233-6267; fax: (715) 233-6268; www.classicprotectivecoatings.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

TANK ERECTION, RESTORATION, AND INSPECTION—ELEVATED CHANGES Pittsburg Tank & Tower Co. is a full-service provider of elevated and ground storage tanks as well as inspection and maintenance of existing tanks. We work in all 50 states and provide you with the expertise needed to complete the task required with safety and quality being the top priorities. Tank modification on tanks from 5,000 gal to 5 mil gal capacity. Our patented Cobra tank solution provides stainless steel GST that never requires maintenance. POB 913, Henderson, KY 42419-0913 USA; phone: (270) 826-9000, ext. 4601; fax: (270) 767-6912; sales@pttg.com; www.watertank.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

TANK INSPECTION, WET OR DRY, AND CLEAN-OUTS—USED, ELEVATED Pittsburg Tank & Tower Co. provides interior in-service inspections performed by our remotely controlled submergible robot and exterior inspections by personnel trained in OSHA regulations. Inspections meet tank inspection requirements of AWWA, NFPA, USEPA, and OSHA. Owner receives a bound report with recommendations and cost estimates, a video of the interior, and pictures of the exterior. 1 Watertank Place, POB 913, Henderson, KY 42419-0913 USA; phone: (270) 826-9000, ext. 4601; fax: (270) 767-6912; sales@watertank.com; www.watertank.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

115

Tanks TANKS—BOLTED Tank Connection specializes in providing high-quality storage tank and aluminum dome options for water storage applications. Tank Connection’s precision-bolted RTP is the #1 bolted tank design selected worldwide. Tanks are designed to meet a wide range of standards including AWWA, AISC, NFPA-22, and FM requirements.

The proprietary fusion epoxy powder and advanced glass coating technologies are superior to all other coatings available in the market. Tank Connection operates multiple ISO 9001-certified QMS storage tank manufacturing facilities in the United States. Contact the experts in liquid storage to find practical solutions to all of your storage related needs. Tank Connection, Parsons, KS 67357 USA; (620) 423-3010; www.tankconnection.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

TANKS—STEEL, BOLTED CST Industries celebrates 125 years as the world’s largest manufacturer of factory-coated storage tanks for municipal and industrial water and wastewater applications. CST manufactures Aquastore® glass-fused-to-steel (enamel) coated, TecTank™ (formerly Columbian TecTank®) epoxy-coated, stainless steel, and galvanized tanks. Tanks are manufactured in US ISOcertified facilities and meet all standard design codes such as AWWA D103, ANSI/NSF Standard 61, AISC, FM codes, and NFPA Standard 22. CST Industries, 903 E 104th St., Ste. 900, Kansas City, MO 64131 USA; (844) 44-TANKS; www.cstindustries.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

TANKS—STEEL, BOLTED Tank Connection specializes in providing high quality storage tank and aluminum dome options for water storage applications. Tank Connection’s precision-bolted RTP is the #1 bolted tank design selected worldwide. Tanks are designed to meet a wide range of standards including AWWA, AISC, NFPA-22, and FM requirements.

The proprietary fusion epoxy powder and advanced glass coating technologies are superior to all other coatings available in the market. Tank Connection operates multiple ISO 9001-certified QMS storage tank manufacturing facilities in the United States. Contact the experts in liquid storage to find practical solutions to all of your storage related needs. Tank Connection, Parsons, KS 67357 USA; (620) 423-3010; www.tankconnection.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

WATER STORAGE CST Industries, the manufacturer of Aquastore®, celebrates 125 years of business.

Aquastore storage solutions include tanks, reservoirs, standpipes, and composite elevated tanks. Aquastore’s Vitrium™ glass-fused-to-steel/enamel coating and Edgecoat II™ technology is a low-maintenance, NSF-approved coating that never needs painting. Aquastore tanks have low life-cycle costs and meet all standard design codes such as AWWA D103, ANSI/NSF Standard 61, AISC, FM codes, and NFPA Standard 22. CST Industries, 345 Harvestore Dr., DeKalb, IL 60115 USA; (844) 44-TANKS; www.aquastore.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

WATER STORAGE Westeel’s water storage tanks and ponds are a durable, cost-effective means to store water for firefighting, rainwater collection, agriculture, municipal and residential reserves, greenhouses, and garden centers. Easy to erect and expand, they are a highly cost-effective option when flexibility and cost of installation and transportation are key factors. Westeel.com. 1-888-WESTEEL (937-8335).

116

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R NA L AWWA

Tanks WIRE-WOUND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE Preload is the world’s leader in wire-wound prestressed concrete tank design and construction. Since 1930, Preload’s tanks have met the water storage and wastewater treatment needs of thousands of communities and businesses. Our tanks are offered in a wide variety of custom dimensions and sizes with architecturally styled treatment that complements any environment. Built to the AWWA D110 Standard and ACI 372, Preload tanks require no routine maintenance, thereby providing a long service life and superior return on investment. (888) PRELOAD; www.PRELOAD.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Treatment Plant Equipment TOOLS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES For 180 years, Pollardwater has been a leading supplier for water and wastewater operations with quality products at an affordable price. Our catalog and eCommerce capabilities make it easy for our customers to do business the way they want, with seamless product ordering and account management. For more information, or to request a free catalog, contact us at (800) 437-1146; info@pollardwater.com; or visit www.pollardwater.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

WATER AND WASTEWATER USABlueBook is the water and wastewater industry’s leading source for MRO equipment and supplies. Thanks to a nationwide distribution network and extensive selection of over 64,000 products, 95% of USABlueBook customers receive in-stock orders in one to two days. Request your free catalog today— call (800) 548-1234 or visit www.usabluebook.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Valves CONTROL VALVES Singer™ automatic control valves are available for pressure, flow, pump, altitude, and relief applications. Whether it is water loss management in Asia or urban distribution demands in the United States, we provide water loss management solutions to governments, cities, and contractors around the world. For more information, contact singer@singervalve.com; www.singervalve.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

LINE STOP EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES

Advanced Valve Technologies supplies line stop equipment including the EZ™ insertion valve. Quick, economical, and under-pressure installs feature removable bonnets for either permanent valves or temporary line stops.

One-hour installation for sizes 4–12 in., about 4 hours for sizes 14, 16, 20, and 24 in. 800 Busse Rd., Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 USA; (877) 489-4909; www.avtfittings.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

117

Valves PRESSURE-REDUCING CONTROL VALVES OCV Control Valves manufactures valves for water management and water conservation control, sizes 1¼ to 24 in. Common applications include reducing, pump control, electronic, level control, and relief/surge.

Certifications include ISO 9001, NSF/ANSI 61-G, and ARRA/AIS compliant.

Visit us online at www.controlvalves.com for ValveMaster, our sizing software. For more information contact us at (888) OCV-VALV, (918) 627-1942, or sales@controlvalves.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

VALVE INSERTION EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Advanced Valve Technologies machines and manufactures the highest-quality insertion valves, installation equipment, and custom components for professional installers. The EZ™ line of insertion valves is offered through 24 in. 800 Busse Rd., Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 USA; (877) 489-4909; www.avtfittings.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

VALVES In the market for water works or plumbing valves? Find all you need in one place: A.Y. McDonald. Get more from each of our product lines, including water works, plumbing, pumps, and high pressure gas, by reaching out to our customer service department at (800) 292-2737.

AWWA Service Provider Member

VALVES Flomatic Corp. is a leading worldwide manufacturer of high-quality valve products for water and wastewater since 1933. We specialize in check valves, silent check valves, butterfly valves, plug valves, automatic control valves, and air/vacuum valves. Compliant with ARRA and new low-lead laws and NSF/ ANSI 61. Phone: (800) 833-2040; fax: (518) 761-9798; flomatic@flomatic.com; www.flomatic.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

VALVES Entering our 24th year, NAPAC Inc. is the master distributor of the United brand gate valve, check valve, hydrant and utility fitting lines. Through multiple distribution centers, we provide quality inventory and service for our domestic and international waterworks, wastewater, and fire protection clients. Contact us at sales@napacinc.com or (800) 807-2215; www.napacinc.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

VALVES Val-Matic® Valve & Manufacturing Co. is an ISO 9001:2008-certified company, with a complete valve line that is NSF/ANSI 372-certified lead-free. NSF/ANSI 61-certified air valves feature T316SS trim/floats. Non-slam check valves with low head loss. Standard and 100% port Cam-Centric® Plug Valves. NSF/ANSI 61 Certified American-BFV® Butterfly Valves feature field-adjustable/ replaceable seats. Ener•G® efficient AWWA ball valves for pump control applications. FloodSafe® inflow preventers protect potable water systems.

(630) 941-7600; valves@valmatic.com; www.valmatic.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member 118

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R NA L AWWA

Water Treatment ADVANCED ARSENIC REMOVAL SYSTEMS ISOLUX® is a proven, affordable well-head water treatment solution designed specifically to remove arsenic. All ISOLUX systems use cartridges filled with a patented zirconium filter media that has been verified for 99% to zero arsenic removal. There’s no backwashing, and practically no maintenance beyond cartridge replacement. (480) 315-8430; sales@isolux-arsenicremoval.com.

INTEGRATED TREATMENT SOLUTIONS AdEdge Water Technologies specializes in the design, manufacturing, and supply of water treatment solutions, specialty medias, legacy, and innovative technologies that remove arsenic, iron, manganese, nitrate, perchlorate, radionuclides, and other contaminants from water for municipal, private, and industrial clients. Please contact us at (866) 8ADEDGE or online at www.adedgetech.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

METERING PUMPS ProMinent Fluid Controls Inc. are experts in chemical feed and water treatment.

The reliable solutions partner for water and wastewater treatment and a manufacturer of components and systems for chemical fluid handling. Based on our innovative products, services, and industry-specific solutions, we provide greater efficiency and safety for our customers—worldwide. Phone: (412) 787-2484; fax: (412) 787-0704; sales@prominent.us; www.prominent.us.

AWWA Service Provider Member

RADIUM, URANIUM, AND OTHER SELECT CONTAMINANTS Water Remediation Technology LLC (WRT) provides cost-efficient water treatment processes and proprietary treatment media for the removal of radium, uranium, ammonia, chromium, strontium, arsenic, and other select contaminants. WRT’s full-package solutions represent the most efficient and environmentally progressive services in the industry for meeting regulatory compliance standards. Contact Ron Dollar, V.P. Sales & Marketing, info@wrtnet.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

WATER TREATMENT Hungerford & Terry Inc. For more than 100 years, an innovative manufacturer of filtration systems to treat for iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide, arsenic, and radium. High-efficiency ion exchange systems to treat for hardness, nitrates, perchlorate, etc. Forced draft/vacuum degasifiers, condensate polishers, and demineralizer systems. (856) 881-3200; sales@hungerfordterry.com; www.hungerfordterry.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member

Well Systems and Equipment ASSET MAINTENANCE, REHABILITATION, AND DRILLING SUEZ Advanced Solutions (Utility Service Co. Inc.) provides well and pump rehabilitation and maintenance. The innovative asset maintenance solution provides ongoing well, pump, and motor rehabilitation. The program guarantees the well and pump yield for a flat annual fee. Phone: (855) 526-4413; fax: (888) 600-5876; help@utilityservice.com.

AWWA Service Provider Member B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | JU NE 2018 • 110: 6 | JO U R NA L AWWA

119

Advertisers AdEdge Water Technologies www.AdEdgetech.com American Ductile Iron Pipe www.american-usa.com

11

Cover 4

Badger Meter Inc. www.badgermeter.com

3

Journal Best in Advertising www.awwa.org/advertise

Cover 2

Krausz USA www.krauszusa.com

65

M&H Valve, a Div. of McWane www.mh-valve.com

Cover 3

Calgon Carbon Corp. www.calgoncarbon.com/gac

73

Neptune Technology Group Inc. www.neptunetg.com/AMInetworks

5

Career Center www.awwa.org/careers

69

Olin Chlor Alkali Products www.Olinbleach.com

84

Operator Certification Exam Prep www.awwa.org/wso

57

Carollo Engineers Inc. www.carollo.com

7

Denso North America www.densona.com

73

HF scientific www.HFscientific.com

41

Red Valve Co./Tideflex Technologies www.redvalve.com

Hungerford & Terry www.hungerfordterry.com

91

SEEPEX 89 www.seepex.com

John Wiley & Sons Inc. www.wiley.com

68

WSP USA www.wsp.com/usa

Partnership for Safe Water www.awwa.org/partnership www.awwa.org/partnershipforcleanwater

This shall constitute official notice of the availability of the following new or revised AWWA standards.

The effective date of these standards shall be the first day of the month following notification of the availability in Journal - American Water Works Association. To obtain copies of these or any AWWA standards, contact the AWWA Customer Service Group at (800) 926-7337.

These standards have been designated American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute.

The date of ANSI approval is shown in parentheses.

ANSI/AWWA B504-18

ANSI/AWWA B702-18

ANSI/AWWA C221-18

Standard for Sodium Fluorosilicate (Feb. 27, 2018)

Standard for Fabricated Steel Mechanical Slip-Type Expansion Joints (Feb. 14, 2018)

6666 West Quincy Ave. Denver, Colorado 80235 (303) 794-7711 www.awwa.org

12 0

ANSI/AWWA F120-18 Standard for Ozone Systems for Water (Mar. 16, 2018)

Save more than 70% with an annual Standards subscription!

Your initial purchase includes a full set of current Standards (more than 175) plus all revised and new Standards published during the following 12 months (20–30 Standards).

Go to www.awwa.org/standards.

ADVE RT ISE RS | J U N E 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :6 | J O U R N A L AW WA

25

9

STANDARDS OFFICIAL NOTICE

Standard for Monosodium Phosphate, Anhydrous and Liquid (Feb. 27, 2018)

1

Help is never far away.

No neighborhood is complete without the service of an M&H fire hydrant. For more than 100 years, M&H has been providing communities across the country with dedicated, dependable fire protection.

American made with unparalleled durability, our hydrants conform to AWWA, NSF, UL, and FM requirements. From our family to yours, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re proud to protect what matters most.

Visit us at AWWA ACE18 booth #23033 M& H Val ve Co mp a ny | www.mh -va lve.com M&H Valve is a division of McWane, Inc. | McWane. For Generations.

> >