meeting minutes january 13th, 2011 denver water recycling … · 2015-11-17 · meeting minutes –...

MEETING MINUTES – January 13th, 2011

Denver Water Recycling Plant

1. CDPHE Update (via Joint Reuse Committee)

a. Summarized informational hearing held in December 2010, primarily guidance

on new uses from Water Quality Control Commission. Water Quality Forum

workgroups are scheduled through April 2011 and details can be found at the

following website:

http://projects.ch2m.com/cwqf/Workgroups/reg84.asp?StartFolder=./Content

/reg84/Meetings

2. Direction and Coordination of Joint Reuse Committee and WateReuse CO

a. Discussed overall structure and interaction between the RMSAWWA/RMWEA

Joint Reuse Committee and WateReuse CO Section; outcomes are

summarized below:

i. Both groups will be maintained.

ii. Administrative items (e.g., meeting agenda, minutes, mailing lists) will

be managed by WateReuse CO.

iii. The Joint Reuse Committee Chair position will be maintained, with the

primary responsibility of acting as a liaison between the reuse

community and RMSAWWA/RMWEA. This position will continue to

attend meetings of the RMSAWWA/RMWEA Joint Governing Board to

provide updates.

iv. All WateReuse CO positions as outlined in bylaws will be maintained.

3. Rocky Mountain Reuse Joint Committee Web Page

a. Working on getting link to new web page activated and also adding link to

committee page from Rocky Mountain Section AWWA website.

4. EPA Guidelines Update (see attachment below)

5. WateReuse CO Annual Report (see attachment below)

6. Election of WateReuse CO Officers

a. Tara Kelley – Secretary

b. Steve Ravel – Director at Large (pending HMM/Arber 2011 membership)c. Abigail Holmquist - President

7. WateReuse CO Treasurer’s Report (see attached)

8. WateReuse CO National Representative Report (see attached)

http://projects.ch2m.com/cwqf/Workgroups/reg84.asp?StartFolder=./Content/reg84/Meetings

http://projects.ch2m.com/cwqf/Workgroups/reg84.asp?StartFolder=./Content/reg84/Meetings

a. Jenny Fifita provided a reminder that the WateReuse Research Foundation

Conference and the Annual Symposium will be held in May and September of

2011, respectively.

9. WateReuse CO Subcommittee Updates

a. Membership – Jenny Fifita gave update on coordination with national

membership committee. One key item that national committee is working on

is a standard survey and introductory presentation for potential WateReuse

members. In CO, one task is to identify reclaimed water providers who are

not members. Action: Jenny to write up action plan for this committee.

b. Regulations & Local Codes – Tara Kelley provided action plan (see attachment

below). Scott Lehman volunteered to lead effort investigating home water

softener issues. Action: No further actions identified; most action items are

being addressed via Regulation 84 update.

c. Public Relations – Abbey Holmquist gave update that overall goal for this

subcommittee is to develop relationships with customer groups rather than

general public. Primary audience is landscape/irrigation industry. Bret

Eastberg and Nicole Poncelet-Johnson volunteered to assist with this

subcommittee. Action: Abbey to distribute action plan to new subcommittee

members.

d. Potable Reuse – No report. Action: Richard Leger to write up action plan for

this committee.

e. Graywater and non-traditional uses – No report. Action: Brian Good/John

Rehring to write up action plan for this committee.

f. Local conference – Group decided that reuse workshop would not be

scheduled for 2011 and that coordination with annual Rocky Mountain Section

Conference would be pursued (9/18-9/12 in Loveland, CO). Other similar

opportunities identified were PWO meetings, operator training, etc. Action:

Jodi Villa to coordinate with conference planning committee on providing a

water reuse track at the conference and solicit abstracts from water reuse

community.

g. Facilities database – No update. Action: Vinnie Hart to write up action plan

for this committee.

EPA GUIDELINES BRAINSTORMING FORUM WQTC, Savannah, GA

November 18, 2010

Participation Meeting Notes

Slide 1: U.S. EPA Water Reuse Guidelines Update -We Need Your Input! Bob Bastian indicated that the goals for today were to 1. Draft a Table of Contents 2. Create a format that is useful to the industry that leverages technology, and 3. Encourage continued participation Slide 2: FORUM Introduction/Background Bob Bastian presented history of Guidelines document.

1980 - Office of Research and Development Research report 1992 - Update format in purple series with format intended for State regulatory use

Slide 3: How Current Guidelines Document Was Developed Bob Bastian described development of the 2004 document. This version incorporated the information from three National Academy studies, ultraviolet versus chlorination for disinfection, introduced discussion on emerging contaminants and a big interest in presentation of case studies. The 2004 Update was possible because of a 1985 Act that created the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) process of public/private partnerships. In the late 1990’s, there was a lot of competition for federal funds, primarily for stormwater research. CDM approached EPA about using the CRADA process and that worked out in 2004 and is the contracting vehicle for this update. Slide 4: CRADA Sponsor Roles for 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse Other drivers for the current update include a Presidential Executive Order directing federal facilities to be more water and energy efficient, the drive towards more LEED certified facilities, and interest from EPA and USAID to update the document. Slide 5: Goals for Update - 2004 Guidelines for Water Reuse Bob Bastian mentioned the National Academy Study evaluating the role of water reuse in our water supply strategy is bringing into focus the connection between the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act as a Total Water Management approach. Wetlands for buffers to indirect potable or unintended downstream reuse in the potable water supply are becoming more common to enhance stream and water supply; there is also increasing interest in greywater and

EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse Brainstorming, WQTC November 18, 2010 Page 2

harvested stormwater and how these practices fit into the overall water resources management picture. Finally, the advanced treatment technologies demonstrated in the Orange County Groundwater Replenishment Project is leading to more indirect potable augmentation projects and this document can assist in providing guidelines for others. Slide 6: Format for Current Guideline Development David Zimmer facilitated group input. There will also be a web-based access for the public in addition to the controlled eRoom for Guidelines participants (authors/contributors/reviewers). David Ammerman suggested there be an Index in the next Guidelines. Slide 7: Potential Guideline Focus Areas David Zimmer raised a question of whether the current Introduction created a business case for use of reclaimed water. As follow-up, Kati Bell suggested the current document does not address Energy Drivers; David Ammerman suggested energy could be included in the current Chapter 3. Steve Via expressed the idea of taking major areas such as indirect and direct potable reuse, ASR, microconstituents, energy, etc. and weaving these threads throughout the document instead of presenting these items as disconnected chapters. Rod Reardon expressed that this discussion might be appropriate as an introductory chapter. Joan Oppenheimer asked the group about we were so dichotomous about the public acceptance of reuse when the public has widely received solid waste recycling. Channah Rock indicated that in Arizona there is 85% onsite/greywater reuse; we could possibly use that model as an example of public acceptance. Both Rod Reardon and David Ammerman commented that stormwater reuse is a big issue in Florida with competition between stormwater and reclaimed water in reuse; they both suggested how this is managed as a focus area for the update. Peter McCornick suggested we should address climate change; Steve Via suggested we address climate change as part of Sustainability and Resilience to avoid some of the political connotations associated with climate change. Allegra da Silva thought that the public acceptance piece of reuse might be better documented in this update; an explicit discussion of public participation processes to address behavior changes should be provided. In response, Bob Bastian suggested that the Australia model for reuse be evaluated as a model for public acceptance.


Jim Dobrowolski indicated that there has been a lot of effort invested in the acceptance/adoption of guidelines for producers of fresh vegetables and that the FDA is working on standards; maybe a case study on agricultural reuse for food producers could help draw this concept out. There was a case study in Jordan in the previous Guidelines but it would be beneficial to include a US case study on this topic as well. Bob Bastian raised a question of whether we were doing a design manual - the group consensus was to reference existing design manuals. Slide 8: 2004 EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse Table of Contents Valerie Rourke asked if there would be any attempt to achieve consistency from state to state in the guidelines with respect to presenting regulations. Don Vandertulip noted there had been healthy disagreement among friends on the water quality standards for various applications so the only consistency would be in all matching what might be determined as the “best” state regulation. David Ammerman indicated this would be a hard goal to achieve. Bob Bastian indicated that reuse regulations started as disposal regulations, typically for land treatment, and all the necessary parts of a regulation are included in the Guidelines but one might have to sort them out. Kerri Jean Ormerod and Channah Rock indicated the Arizona Health Department and Department of Environmental Quality have different water quality criteria and application standards which creates problems at the state level. Josh Dickinson reminded the group that the WateReuse Association had compiled a white paper on national regulations, versus the concept of guidelines and this document should be referenced either in the Introduction or in the Regulations Chapter; this document is also a good reference for addressing public acceptance and understanding and could serve as a “how-to” for agencies to build consensus in the planning process. As a follow-up, Valerie Rourke suggested that the document include a “Model State Regulatory Framework” instead of addressing or referencing specific regulations because different states have different needs with respect to regulation. Steve Via suggested the Regulations chapter could weave the TWM and energy concepts into the discussion but this document should keep focus on water reuse. Slide 9: Should These Chapters be Eliminated or Expanded? 1. Introduction Joan Oppenheimer suggested that the Introduction might be better presented as a Rationale which clearly outlines why we need reuse; what are the issues; how do we set the stage for public acceptance; and, present the business case for water reuse. Rod Reardon further suggested expanding the discussion on the Total Water Management (TWM) concept in the Introduction/Rationale. Bob Bastian indicated that the National Academy study on the role of reclaimed water in managing future water supplies was expected the end of 2010 but will likely not be available until May 2011; this document will be helpful in identifying the overall role of reuse.


Valerie Rourke asked what EPA’s position was on water reuse. Bob Bastian responded with reference to the Forward to the Guidelines which was signed by EPA Administrators; this statement encourages reuse and has supported California expansion of Indirect Potable regulations in the Title 22 regulations. Steve Via suggested the document should not be a reuse “sell job” but provide information that is part of the TWM toolbox; he also questioned whether we should bring in the Potable Water Regulations. Steve also indicated that there was interest in pulling the EPA Office of Groundwater/Drinking Water into the process. With regard to agricultural regulations and standards, Jim Dobrowolski indicated there are already regulations for reuse water quality for fresh vegetable production/irrigation following the 2006 spinach incident; there are now very stringent water quality standards for irrigation water. This information should be captured in this update. Jim Dobrowolski suggested there has been a lot of work since 2004 on public acceptance and perception and the Introduction/Rationale should point readers to new issues and help the reader with where the new hot topics are discussed within the document. Slide 10: Should These Chapters be Eliminated or Expanded? 2. Types of Reuse Applications Steve Via indicated that an introductory section should be provided to clearly define terminology to educate the reader and also use this section to say to the reader what we are discussing in this chapter. Allegra da Silva requested more case studies that describe problems encountered and solutions. The format of the case studies could be a one- or two-page fact sheet or abstract with a link to full manuscripts/descriptions. Another option that was discussed was to include a CD in the sleeve of the hard copy to allow this format. -Channah Rock requested more edible crop case studies -Kerri Ormerod said graywater is big in Arizona; in response, Josh Dickinson indicated the graywater and purple pipe issues had been a big issue nationally and Don Vandertulip has been working on it. Also, Don Vandertulip indicated that there is unfortunately no single solution and that Karen Dotson with City of Tucson will be included in this effort to provide some guidelines. -Steve V. indicated there must be good definitions to avoid confusion. -David Ammerman responded to the bullet on industrial process water by suggesting the previous guidelines were structured around municipal reuse and we should exclude industrial reuse.In response, Bob Bastian suggested we could link to the EPA Industrial Wastewater Effluent Guidelines. Also, Valerie Rourke suggested a link to state regulations. -Allegra da S. suggested inclusion of aquaculture. In response Bob Bastian suggested that there are current regulations that are not current in the 2004 Guidelines, but these could be referenced


in the update. Also, Jim Dobrowloski said hydroponics could be included as an expansion to Section 2.3. In general, there was discussion that Section 2.3 (Agricultural Reuse) needed to be expanded, particularly with regard to edible crops. Also, with regard to this Chapter, there was discussion on making sure that we integrated our efforts with other agencies, in particular USDA. -There was discussion that Habitat Restoration could be expanded, possibly as a case study. Joan Oppenheimer recommended inclusion of a matrix table for Chapter 2 since there is a lot of duplicate text with little consistency; for example, not all areas have a discussion of “demand” or critical design criteria. Joan said there was a lot of text on groundwater but only one sentence on potable reuse. David Ammerman indicated there is a lot of text on groundwater use due to soil aquifer treatment documentation and little on potable reuse as it was not a common topic in 2001-2. Slide 11: Should These Chapters be Eliminated or Expanded? 3. Technical Issues in Planning Water Reuse Systems Kerri Ormerod indicated that data tracking guidance would help them in Arizona (number of permits, types of reuse, number of customers, volumes, etc.). Bob Bastian responded that Florida had good annual reports from DEP based on requirements for utilities to report the data to the state; he also raised the question that possibly Florida requirements for data tracking could be used as the guideline. Don Vandertulip mentioned the WateReuse Association Database of projects that is being updated. Josh Dickinson suggested a section on reuse application data tracking; the previous Guidelines had an inventory in APPENDIX D, however, WateReuse Association has compiled a database of projects that could be referenced. This information could go in this section or in the regulatory framework section. However, Josh indicated most of the information was developed for member use, but certain preformatted reports are on the public web page so there would need to be some definition to control expectations. Don Vandertulip as follow-up noted there could be several references to documents or web sites where there might be a fee for some information and we should consider this in development of many sections; Steve Via would like to see the references identified as either free or for purchase. Channah Rock asked that the Guidelines address active management of a reclaimed water distribution system to maintain water quality. The group discussion identified this particular topic as an implementation/management topic and this might need its own section/chapter. There are some Best Management Practices that are described in the AWWA Reuse Manual; however, this topic needs to be expanded. There was also discussion on retrofitting systems to provide reuse that could be included in this section/chapter. Josh Dickinson indicated there is a new


WateReuse Association Manual “How to Develop a Water reuse Program” that could be referenced here. Shivaji Deshmukh commented that public involvement and project cost were the two biggest issues on the Orange County GWR project. This brought forward additional discussion on project lifecycle analysis, triple bottom line accounting, and consideration of greenhouse gas emissions. Diana Mills suggested we include project cost in the chapter on rates. David Zimmer asked for clarification if this would include combining cost and rates and re-title the chapter on Funding (Chapter 6). Jim Dobrowoloski suggested this would be a good chapter to bring in drought proofing and climate change. Slide 12: Should These Chapters be Eliminated or Expanded? Human health or aquatic health risks from emerging contaminants (EDC’s, PAC, PCP, PPCP, etc.) David Ammerman said we should not make this guideline a Wastewater 101 text book; instead delete the text on conventional treatment, or include by reference, and include discussions on other advanced treatment technologies including filtration, membranes, energy savings from satellite plants, etc. Valerie Rourke also suggested that an introductory section to this chapter could include discussion of integrated planning, although others in the group suggested that specific information on planning go in a separate section. Kati Bell said the current document had only four pages of text on “Designer Water” including the AOP process. Don Vandertulip suggested that treatment discussion could start at filtration and include membranes and AOP processes as these go beyond conventional treatment processes. There is some discussion of this in a WateReuse document that could be incorporated by reference. Jim Dobrowloski said we should expand our review of the emerging contaminants. Joan Oppenheimer indicated that Jorg Drewes had prepared an initial list of emerging contaminants that many researchers are using as a screening tool in California. Rod Reardon suggested we consider using international standards for many of the emerging contaminants. Don Vandertulip noted that with nearly 100,000 contaminants, it is difficult to have uniform standards and agreement on risk. However, David Ammerman suggested we include discussion of Risk Assessment methods. Bob Bastian said the discussion should start with the Precautionary Principal and include reference to risk assessment from the NAS study; this expert committee should be addressing the


big issues with this class of contaminants. However, we should possibly evaluate their risk assessment in this document. Joan Oppenheimer suggested we could plant a seed of public environmental responsibility in this document by identifying the types of drugs we know are easy to treat and also identify those we cannot effectively treat. One solution is to develop an outline of opportunities to deal with this issue as a public participation issue. Don Vandertulip suggested we discuss and reference the FDA Do Not Flush campaign and recent drug take-back program. Valerie Rourke suggested we highlight the multiple barrier approach for treatment of these contaminants. Slide 13: Should These Chapters be Eliminated or Expanded? 4. Water Reuse Regulations and Guidelines in the US Jim Dobrowloski indicated that we should expand or review the agricultural guidelines, possibly linking to the USDA webpages. Kati Bell indicated there are IWA efforts to identify regulations in other countries and we might be able to work cooperatively with IWA. Don Vandertulip questioned whether we should include reference to potable water regulations when discussing the indirect and potable reuse Guidelines. Bob Bastian asked if we were going to discuss pipe to pipe potable reuse. Group consensus was that this topic should be expanded in this update. Slide 14: Should These Chapters be Eliminated or Expanded? 5. Legal and Institutional Issues Allegra da Silva suggested we cross reference case studies that cover multiple topics, include a model ordinance and check list for system development in other countries. There are also international regulations/standards/guidelines that need to be considered including those from WHO, FAO, etc. International case studies could be cross referenced to other sections of the report. Jim Dobrowoloski suggested that international legal and institutional issues be discussed in a short paragraph in Chapter 5 with reference to Chapter 8. Jim also suggested that we add input from an environmental attorney. Rod Reardon mentioned he could give Kati Bell the name on one environmental attorney. David Ammerman also indicated that David Chiles was another reference that David could access for this effort. Slide 15: Should These Chapters be Eliminated or Expanded?


6. Funding Water Reuse Systems Don Vandertulip raised the question of including discussion on Triple Bottom Line approach in the Funding Chapter. Much of the funding topic had already been discussed in other sections; but the discussion is summarized here for clarity: Shivaji Deshmukh commented that public involvement and project cost were the two biggest issues on the Orange County GWR project. This brought forward additional discussion on project lifecycle analysis, triple bottom line accounting, and consideration of greenhouse gas emissions. Diana Mills suggested we include project cost in the chapter on rates. David Zimmer asked for clarification if this would include combining cost and rates and re-title the chapter on Funding (Chapter 6). The consensus was that this chapter should provide a broader overview of reuse as part of the Total Water Management solution of which funding and other environmental costs should be considered. Additional discussion included an interest in covering how to “attract” reuse customers; Josh Dickinson indicated that some of this discussion had already been provided in a previous WateReuse document that could be referenced. Allegra da Silva also mentioned that reuse in developing economies would only happen if this practice is economically feasible. Some discussion was provided on whether ARRA or Title 16 funding should be specifically addressed; the group consensus was not to include these as sections in the text, but possibly to include case studies of these types of funding mechanisms. Slide 16: Should These Chapters be Eliminated or Expanded? 7. Public Involvement Programs Overall the group had consensus that this Chapter needed significant expansion; the need for identifying specific case studies was highlighted. This would provide the opportunity to bring in the concept of integrated water resource planning though a case study. Also, case studies on “lessons learned” would be a valuable addition to this topic. The chapter should include a list of resources or links to materials that can be used for public participation campaigns. Channah Rock asked that we include stormwater and graywater in public involvement and not limit the discussion to reclaimed water. This would include discussion on integrated water management and links to other documents.


Steve Via suggested we change the document to be more inclusive of public involvement and Jim Dobrowolski suggested adding a section on “Public Adoption.” Allegra da Silva indicated that there is a need to discuss where and what is moving the public perception to acceptance. Allegra has also provided separate written comments/feedback that will be incorporated in the table of contents through the Steering Committee review process. Jim Dobrowloski mentioned that Mark Milan had prepared a good public perception piece that could be included in this Chapter and he also indicated that building relationships should be included - possibly the chapter title could be “Integrated Communications and Relationship Building.” This chapter may better be formatted to address communications with various groups including: regulators, the public, media, businesses/industry, etc. Also, Channah Rock suggested we include discussion on anti-development and cultural issues with respect to impact on reclaimed water use, such as the Native American lawsuits in Arizona over snowmaking. Slide 17: Should These Chapters be Eliminated or Expanded? 8. Water Reuse Outside the US Rod Reardon suggested we include an overview with number of systems in other countries and volume of reclaimed water in use. Bob Bastian suggested we highlight countries with high percentage reuse like Israel at 80%; Jim Dobrowloski indicated that some claim Jordan is reusing 100%. Allegra da Silva said the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) is looking at the number of systems and percent usage and she will check on availability of this data; Allegra said this information would be a help to AID Mission staff in country to see the scope of use. Allegra also indicated it would help regulators in other countries to have case studies that discuss regulations, monitoring and enforcement of the regulations, especially discussion of bringing products to markets. Allegra has also provided separate written comments/feedback that will be incorporated in the table of contents through the Steering Committee review process. . Rod Reardon said he has seen an unrealistic expectation between international regulations and the actual treatment capacity, for example, specifying MBR systems to remove helminth eggs. Allegra da Silva said she would like to see a more country specific level of treatment and research needs. In response, Kati Bell said we should include discussion here for international applications where there is a topic gap in other chapters. Jim D. said the current international country list appears alphabetical and asked if other geographic parameters could be considered. Bob Bastian responded that the alphabetical list avoided other issues. There was group consensus that the case studies should be expanded and some of the areas that should be highlighted in this chapter, with a focus on successes and constraints in each area, include:

1. Regulatory trade-offs


2. Challenges of monitoring and enforcement 3. Implementation

Steve Via suggested we include a matrix for case studies to aid in the print version. Additional discussion of “non-treatment” options should be provided which would address “unplanned reuse.” The WHO guidelines are structured in this manner, but are somewhat limited. Slide 18: Should These Chapters be Eliminated or Expanded? Appendices The group consensus was that the Appendices should be primarily comprised of case studies that could be referenced by number/name or by smart links in the electronic version to the relevant sections of the document. A matrix of case studies by category may also be helpful. Bob Bastian noted that the 2004 Guidelines could be included by link electronically or on a CD that could be included in the hard copy sleeve. Rod Reardon indicated that he thought there was a mismatch of standards with projects and that there needs to be a better discussion of scaleable options for projects and identification of where reuse options don’t exist. Other Feedback Identification of technology gaps is important in this update; this has been identified in other sections, but is clearly a need in this document. Slide 19: Contributor Roles David Zimmer reminded attendees to turn in volunteer information forms. Slide 20: Projected Development Schedule Not discussed due to time constraint

Memorandum

To: WateReuse CO Members

From: David Takeda, Leonard Rice Engineers

Date: December 8, 2010

Subject:

Attachment:

EPA “Guidelines for Water Reuse” – 2012 Update

Summary of November 18, 2010 Workshop in Savannah, GA

Meeting minutes as compiled by CDM

This memorandum provides a brief summary of what was discussed at the Workshop. This workshop followed similar worksh ops conducted earlier t his year in the United States. The intent of these workshops was to gather input on any revisions to the 2012 document. The discussions were “big picture” and conceptual, and did not focus on specif ic details. T his workshop will be followed by two others to be conducted in international locat ions (Jordan and Singapore). The comments and sugges tions from the fi ve workshops will be used to frame the process for updating the document.

Highlights of the Workshop:

The works hop was con ducted at t he Westi n Hotel in Savanna h, GA from 8:30 am to 11:30 am on November 18, 2010.

Approximately 25 prof essionals a ttended th e workshop. The attendees consisted of regulators (EPA and State), aca demics, organizations (AWWA and WateReuse) and consultants. Individuals appe ared to represent Florida, California, Virginia, Arizona and Colorado. Other states may have been represented.

The 2012 update will be coordinated by EPA and CDM. An “E-room” will be created which will allow for the posting and distribution of items in a

secure forum. Attendees of this workshop will be provided with a login and password to the E-room.

The first topic was a review of the 2012 update process. The discussion then moved to look ing at the 2004 document, and wha t

changes/additions/deletions should be considered for the 2012 update. Each chapter was discussed by the attendees. In addition, comments from the previous

workshops were shared. The following subjects were mentioned fo r more detailed text in the 2012 do cument:

ASR, graywater, rainwater ha rvesting, I PR/DPR, climate change and emerging contaminants.

It was suggested that the 2012 document include an appendix and definitions section. The format of the 2012 document was discussed. The do cument may be an update to

the 2004 guidelines, a new document, or a main document with several smaller documents focused on a specific topic. A particular format was not emphasized.

The attached CDM minutes provide details on the discussions of the individual chapters. Throughout the work shop, agri cultural use w as menti oned many ti mes. Thi s may be

addressed by other regulations, but som e felt there were still some gaps or contradictions between these various regu lations and the 2004 EPA document. Others felt that gaps and contradictions between various regulations should be addressed in the 2012 update.

I had to leave at 11:30 am and at that time, the workshop was not finished.

2010 WateReuse CO Annual Report

Presented at

WateReuse CO Annual Meeting

January 13th, 2011

1. WateReuse CO meetings were held on the following dates:

January 7, 2010

March 4, 2010

May 6, 2010

July 1, 2010

September 2, 2010

November 4, 2010

2. A planning workshop was held on August 3, 2010 to discuss issues to be addressed

by WateReuse CO and prioritize these issues. Subcommittees were formed as a

result of this workshop as follows:

Membership

Regulations & Local Codes

Public Relations

Potable Reuse

Graywater and non-traditional uses

Local conference

3. Three new members joined the WateReuse CO section.

4. Approximately half of Colorado reclaimed water providers participated in an update

to the national facilities database.

5. An update to the Colorado State regulations for reclaimed water commenced in

September 2010 and is on going to address issues related to ground water quality,

utility/end-user requirements, and approved uses of reclaimed water.

2:29 PM 01/10/11 Accrual Basis

WateReuse Association CO Section - 2010 Income Statement

January through December 2010

Page 1 of 1

Jan - Dec 10

Income

4300 · MEMBERSHIP DUES

4311 · 30% of CO Member Dues 9,289.28

Total 4300 · MEMBERSHIP DUES 9,289.28

4325 · State Section Membership

4325.60 · Colorado 1,250.00

Total 4325 · State Section Membership 1,250.00

Total Income 10,539.28

Expense 0.00

Net Income 10,539.28

2:29 PM

01/10/11

Accrual Basis

WateReuse Association

Balance Sheet As of December 31, 2010

Page 1 of 1

Dec 31, 10

ASSETS

Cash 22,745.43

TOTAL ASSETS 22,745.43

LIABILITIES & EQUITY

Liabilities

Current Liabilities

Other Current Liabilities

2400 · Pre-Paid Dues

2408 · Pre-Paid Dues - WateReuse CO 1,113.03

Total 2400 · Pre-Paid Dues 1,113.03

2416.10 · Pre-Paid SS Membership

2422 · Pre-Paid SSM - CO 750.00

Total 2416.10 · Pre-Paid SS Membership 750.00

Total Other Current Liabilities 1,863.03

Total Current Liabilities 1,863.03

Total Liabilities 1,863.03

Equity

3210 · WateReuse CO Reserves 10,343.12

Net Income 10,539.28

Total Equity 20,882.40

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 22,745.43

Sustainable Solutions for a Thirsty Planet

November 5, 2010

To: WateReuse Association Board of Directors

From: Wade Miller, Executive Director Subject: Progress Report – September 3-November 5, 2010 This is the fourth progress report of 2010. The report covers activities from early September through today’s date. Membership Development and Dues Status

WateReuse has gained 58 new members in the first 10 months of 2010, including five since the September 12 Board meeting. Prominent new members since the last progress report include the Arizona American Water Company and Meridian Metropolitan District (CO). The membership dues budget for 2010 is $752,439. The Association has received $839,616 in 2010 dues to date. Total dues received amount to 112% of budget. A total of 403 members have paid dues as of today’s date. Last year at this time, we had received $829,017 from 386 members. Although we have far exceeded the dues budget for 2010 and gained lots of new members, we have been forced to put 38 members on the “inactive list.” We removed many fine organizations from our active membership list at the end of September, including some (e.g., Pinellas County, Kimley-Horn & Associates) who had been members for more than a decade. Staff will be sending out 2011 dues letters and invoices during the week of November 8. Summary of 2010 WateReuse Symposium The total number of registrants at the 2010 Symposium in Washington, DC was 480. This is a decrease of approximately 14% from the total number of registrants at the 2009 Symposium in Seattle. Other quantitative measures include the following: 1) number of exhibitors (29 in 2010 vs. 34 in 2009); 2) Sponsorships (up by $8,000 from 2009); 3) hotel pickup (approximately6 86% of contracted room block) and 4) profitability ($71,275 versus $101,828 in 2009). The bottom line is that the number of paid registrants was down significantly from 2010 while costs in Washington, DC (especially for food and beverages) were much higher than in Seattle. There has been much speculation as to why the Symposium did not attract more registrants and several observations are noteworthy. First, there were a number of competing conferences, either during the same week (IFAT in Munich) or the following week (IWA in Montreal, Virginia WaterJAM). Second, engineering firms in the area either do not specialize in reuse and/or desalination or are experiencing tough economic times. Third, the number of registrants from Florida was extremely low; reasons offered are the state’s challenging economy, travel restrictions, and the fact that the WateReuse Research Foundation held its conference in Tampa earlier in 2010.

Suffice it to say that 2010 was a bit of a wake-up call and demonstrates that even two hot issues such as water reuse and desalination are not immune to economic woes and less than optimal conference locations. In 2011, the Symposium will be in Phoenix. With California, Nevada, Texas, and Colorado within easy proximity, coupled with the substantial interest in both reuse and desalination in the arid West and Southwest, our registrations numbers should return to the 600-700 range. We’re also going to change the format somewhat in order to reduce costs. One significant change will be to eliminate the awards luncheon and integrate the awards ceremony into the opening general session. Other changes are being considered that will reduce costs while not impacting quality. Australian Specialty Conference

The conference in Australia is now only less than two weeks away and, thanks to Eve Rodrigues (WSAA), Courtney Tharpe (WateReuse), and Adam Lovell (WSAA), it appears that the conference is shaping up to be a real success. The total number of paid registrants is approximately 120; with a few last minute and on-site registrants, we should end up with more than 125. When one adds registrants associated with sponsors plus complimentary registrations, the total number of attendees is somewhere in the 150-170 range. Both the number of paid registrants and total registrants exceed original estimates used for budgeting purposes. The fact that we have been able to attract a number of conference sponsors is a significant success factor. CH2M Hill, Acciona Agua, MWH, and Suez Environment/Degremont Technologies will be sponsoring the Harbour dinner cruise on Monday evening, November 15. Other sponsors include the Australian Government’s National Water Commission, GE Water, Black & Veatch, Trojan Technologies, and AECOM. The WateReuse Board meeting will convene at 11:00 a.m. in WSAA’s offices on Sunday, November 14. The WateReuse Board, the WSAA Board, and invited guests will attend a reception and dinner at a restaurant called the Italian Village on Sunday evening. The reception was moved from the U.S. Consulate’s office due to staffing issues and the fact that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be in Sydney just a few days prior to our meeting. Status of Renegotiations with AWWA and WEF on Renewal of Tripartite Agreement In 2004, WateReuse entered into a tripartite agreement with AWWA and WEF to plan and convene WateReuse’s Annual Symposium. Under the agreement, AWWA and WEF share in the profits from the Symposium. The first agreement was for one year only and was designed to be a bit of a “pilot test.” The agreement was renegotiated and renewed in 2005 for a period of three years, then was renewed again in 2008 for a period of three years. We held an initial meeting in July with the Executive Directors of AWWA and WEF to begin discussions regarding a new agreement. AWWA’s new Executive Director stated in this July 7 meeting that AWWA “intends to compete in this business space.” In the meeting, I noted that WateReuse feels the need to “beef up” the non-compete paragraph in the agreement. Bertera (WEF) and LaFrance (AWWA) asked me to draft a new agreement and forward it to them for review. I did so in September. I then met with David LaFrance at WEFTEC in New Orleans and he voiced a concern about the non-compete clause which I had included in the draft agreement, which states that neither AWWA nor WEF can stage a water reuse or desalination conference three months before or three months after the Symposium. In our meeting at WEFTEC, LaFrance repeated AWWA’s intent to “compete” in the reuse arena. If AWWA chooses to do that – which is not consistent with the original intent of the agreement in 2004 –

then the risk/reward equation (i.e., profit sharing) will need to be changed. In fact, the feasibility and desirability of having an agreement could be called into question if it is AWWA’s intent to compete with WateReuse. I have a call scheduled with LaFrance on Monday, November 8 to discuss the various issues. Hopefully I will have favorable news to report at the Board meeting on the 14th. Water Reuse and Desalination Positioning Strategy

The launch of www.athirstyplanet.com at the 25th Annual WateReuse Symposium was well received. To continue the momentum, the Public Education and Outreach Committee is working with Krome Communications on two new tasks. The first task is to develop a strategy and timeline for a 12 month public relations/media outreach campaign under the oversight of the Committee. The second task will be to implement the strategy beginning in January 2011. Key components of the public relations/media outreach campaign include: 1) create and maintain a master list of targeted media and develop a WateReuse press kit; 2) maintain ongoing contact with media sources and pursue the most important national, regional and trade news outlets for timely story opportunities; and 3) research editorial calendars and develop story ideas.

WEFTEC Event to Launch the New Journal – world water: water reuse and desalination WEF held a press conference at WEFTEC in New Orleans to announce the new jointly sponsored journal. Paul Freedman (President of WEF), Bill Bertera (Executive Director), and I each spoke to an audience of 20-30 attendees, then all sipped glasses of champagne to celebrate the launching of the new journal. WEF handed out a substantial number of copies at their international pavilion in New Orleans. I also handed out quite a few copies to potential exhibitors at the 26th Annual Symposium in Phoenix. Handing out the journal along with a “save the date” flyer and special “WEFTEC Exhibitor Rate” proved to be an effective selling tool. We are currently working on the second issue of the journal. I will be writing an article on the specialty conference in Australia and Joe Jacangelo will be writing an article on “The Value of Research” for the next issue. Opportunity for WateReuse to Have Two Technical Sessions at WEFTEC in 2011 WEF has approached WateReuse about convening two technical sessions at WEFTEC 2011 in Los Angeles; one session would deal with water reuse and one with desalination. Although we will need to submit formal proposals (one-page applications), the probability of our sessions being selected is high. Should this opportunity come to fruition, it will allow us to showcase both water reuse and desalination success stories from around the U.S. and the world. Opportunity to Co-Sponsor the Writing/Publication of Books on Desalination and Graywater While at WEFTEC in New Orleans, Jack Benson (WEF’s Chief Commercial Officer) invited me to meet with him and two senior officials from McGraw Hill, including the Publisher of McGraw Hill Professional. During the course of the conversation, the McGraw Hill officials voiced an interest in sponsoring the writing and publication of books on desalination and graywater (similar to the very popular book entitled Water Reuse that was authored by Professors Tchobanoglous and Asano). We will pursue this opportunity. Benson and I plan to visit McGraw Hill in New York sometime in December to discuss the project’s feasibility and, if appropriate, to begin structuring a tripartite agreement.

Opportunity to Address Chinese Officials on Water Reuse Hal Gillette, Publisher of Scranton-Gillette Communications and the contractor for the U.S. Trade & Development Administration (USTDA) to plan and convene 12 or more workshops on various water topics in China, has invited me to address a group of 25-30 senior Chinese officials at a water reuse workshop in Qingdao, China on December 9-10. WateReuse definitely should accept this invitation; I have approached a couple of Board members and inquired as to whether they would be interested in representing the Association at this workshop in Qingdao. Speaking Engagements and Conferences – Past and Future

WateReuse co-sponsored a day long workshop at the International Water Association’s World Water Congress and Exhibition in Montréal, Canada on Thursday, September 23. I made a presentation at the morning session which was very well received. I also made a presentation at the ASERSA Conference in Madrid, Spain on October 19-20. Prior to the conference, I met with the IWA “Reuse11” Conference planning committee on Monday, October 18 in Madrid to begin planning for the 2011 conference in Barcelona. The “Reuse11” conference will be held in Barcelona on September 26-29, 2011. I have been invited to be one of the keynote speakers at the conference and have also been invited to be a member of the Organizing Committee. I will be attending and presenting at WateReuse Texas workshop in San Antonio on January 28. Dennis Porter and I have been invited to participate in a panel discussion on indirect potable reuse as part of the Nevada Water Resources Association conference in Reno on Wednesday, February 2. WateReuse Research Foundation

Subscriber Fees

As of today’s date, approximately 81 Subscribers have paid their fees. A total of $982,640 has been received to date. The stretch goal for Subscriber fees in 2010 is $1,000,000. It appears that we will fall just a bit short of this goal in 2010.

Joe Jacangelo (Vice Chair) and I have developed a new Subscriber fees structure. The new fees structure will be presented to the Foundation Board for its consideration and approval at the December 2 Board meeting.

Funding Through the Bureau of Reclamation

The Foundation received a new cooperative agreement from the Bureau of Reclamation in September in the amount of $2,070,000.

Congress has still not acted on the Energy & Water Development Appropriations Bill for FY 2011. Now that the mid-term elections are over, Congress will likely move to develop an omnibus funding bill to fund the government through the remainder of FY 2011. Should this occur, the probability is high that the Foundation will receive directed funding of $2.5 million. There is a probability, however, that the Congress and the Administration will opt for a year-long continuing resolution to fund the government. If this occurs, the Foundation’s funding would be in jeopardy. The new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has voiced support for an omnibus bill. This is good news.

Potential Relationship with the Centre of Excellence for Water Recycling in Brisbane

Joe Jacangelo, Dave Smith (WateReuse California), and I will be meeting with Dr. Mark O’Donohue and Ian Law of the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence (AWRCE) on Wednesday, November 17 in Sydney to discuss two issues: 1) AWRCE’s Expression of Interest dealing with research on potable reuse; and 2) the potential for collaboration and co-funding of projects of mutual interest. The Foundation sent a letter of support for AWRCE’s Goal 3 entitled d -- Reclaimed water is seen as an acceptable ‘alternative water’ for augmenting drinking water supplies. In the letter, we noted that “[the Foundation] believes this research is of vital importance and we want to support the effort and, if appropriate, be a part of it.”

************************

This concludes my progress report. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 703-548-0880 or at 571-214-6762.

Minutes:

WateReuse Association Board of Directors Meeting Omni Shoreham Hotel

Washington, DC September 12, 2010

Directors Present: John Shearer (President), Brian Good (First Vice President), Linda Macpherson (Secretary), Dave Requa (Treasurer), Rich Atwater (Immediate Past President), Carolyn Ahrens, Ed Archuleta, Randy Brown, Guy Carpenter, Tim Coughlin, Frank Crumb, Jenny Fifita, Jon Freedman, John Kmiec, Craig Lichty, Dan McCarthy, Lisa Prieto, Doug Reinhart, John Rossi Directors Absent: Bob Johnson (Second Vice President), Michael Malouf, Dennis Porter Guests: Mark Millan (Education & Outreach Committee), Bob Neville (Krome Communications), Eric Sapirstein (ENS Resources), Andy Shea (Desalination Committee), Dave Smith (WateReuse California), Don Vandertulip (Graywater ad hoc Committee), Bob Weil (Law Office of Robert J. Weil, PLLC) Staff: Wade Miller (Executive Director), Josh Dickinson (Deputy Executive Director), Zach Dorsey (Publications and Communications Manager) I. BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Call to Order

President John Shearer called the Association Board meeting to order at approximately 7:30 p.m. (EDT). A quorum – a simple majority of the Board – was established. Shearer led introductions of those in attendance and welcomed Craig Lichty (WateReuse California) back to the Board. Shearer then reviewed the agenda and asked if there were any new items to be considered. Consent Items

The Board considered five administrative items (i.e., all consent items) for approval. The items were: 1) Review Board & Staff Rosters; 2) 2010 Dues Status; 3) Acceptance of New Member Applications; 4) Approval of the Minutes – May 23, 2010 Board Meeting in Tampa, FL; and 5) Financial Report.

Dave Requa moved that all consent items be approved, Rich Atwater seconded the motion, and the Board approved the motion unanimously. President’s Awards John Shearer presented several President’s Awards for 2010. He began by noting that he wanted to change the name of the awards to the “Dave Requa President’s Awards.” The Board concurred with this recommendation. Shearer then presented the first “Dave Requa President’s Award” to Dave Requa. Requa was given a plaque and congratulated on his many contributions and hard work over the past decade. Shearer then presented an award to Don Vandertulip for his excellent work as Chair of the ad

2

hoc Committee on Graywater. Finally, Shearer presented Guy Carpenter with an award for his dedication and contributions to the development of the National Database of Water Reuse Facilities. Executive Director’s Report

The Executive Director’s report consisted of a review of the Progress Report included in the Board packet (Attachment F). In the report provided to the Board, the following activities were covered:

• Membership Development and Dues Status; • Status of 2010 WateReuse Symposium; • Australian Specialty Conference; • Water Reuse and Desalination Positioning Strategy; • First Issue of the New Journal with WEF; • Facilities Lease; • 2009 Audit Report Completed; • National Database of Water Reuse Facilities; • Speaking Engagements and Conferences; and • WateReuse Research Foundation.

Lisa Prieto proposed “inactive” status for members that did not pay dues, but who may do so in the future. Dan McCarthy asked that the Board be charged with recruiting and retaining members, with staff providing a list of targets to the Board. II. POLICY ISSUES

Policies of the Association

Dave Requa and Linda Macpherson led a discussion of the approved policies of the Association. A packet of policies will be provided at the March Board meeting in DC in 2011. Dues Revision Committee

Dave Requa discussed the potential for a dues increase for Association members. A survey of Division A members will be conducted in the coming months, with data on population served, O&M budgets, and total flows being collected. Other members of the committee include Bob Johnson, Ted McKim, and Paul Jones. Performance Review Process for Executive Director

Linda Macpherson explained the process for the Executive Director’s performance review. The forms will be available online, and comments are due by October 15. III. UPDATES

National Database of Water Reuse Facilities

Guy Carpenter discussed the status of the National Database of Water Reuse Facilities. Data collection efforts are ongoing in CA, CO, and AZ. There is no contract yet with EPIC to enhance the database and user interface, as clarification is being sought on several outstanding issues. Brian Good suggested that a long-term commitment from the state sections was needed for data collection. Carpenter also discussed the need to form a standing National Database Committee.

3

PR/Communications Strategy

Mark Millan provided an update on the Positioning Strategy with Krome Communications. He noted that the Association’s extranet site containing information for the general public (athirstyplanet.com) went live the day before. Dave Requa will advertise the extranet site during his opening session presentation on Monday, and a blast email will be sent to the media on the same day. A copy of the Association’s ad that ran in the inaugural journal, Water Reuse & Desalination, was provided in Attachment G. Section Operations

Brian Good indicated that additional information on Section Operations would be deferred for Board discussion until the March, 2011 meeting in Washington, DC. A meeting of the ad hoc Committee is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 14, to further discuss the issues. IV. SECTION AND DIVISION REPORTS WateReuse California

Craig Lichty described the organization of WateReuse California, including the addition of the Central Valley/Sierra Foothills chapter. Additional items such as IPR regulations and the final report from the CEC panel were summarized per the information in Attachment H. Dave Smith also discussed the dues structure in California and how it might affect a dues increase on the national level. Smith also discussed the emergence of “Cal Desal,” a newly formed organization which is devoted (as its name suggests) to desalination in California. There was some speculation that this might have been a missed opportunity for WateReuse. Nevada Section

A report was provided in Attachment I, as WateReuse Nevada director Dennis Porter was not in attendance. WateReuse Texas

In addition to the information provided in Attachment J, Frank Crumb reported on continued coordination of the first WateReuse Texas workshop on January 28, 2011 in San Antonio. WateReuse Arizona

John Kmiec reported on the efforts of WateReuse Arizona as detailed in Attachment K. Among the items discussed were: 1) WateReuse AZ and AZ Water planning a ‘Water Reuse 101’ one day workshop in November/December of 2010; 2) John Kmiec, Ron Doba, Guy Carpenter, and Trevor Hill participating in Governor Jan Brewer's Blue Ribbon Panel on Water Sustainability for the State of Arizona; and 3) Tim Thomure attending the USDA Agricultural Research Service Customer Workshop on September 8-9, 2010. WateReuse Florida

Lisa Prieto delivered a report for the Section (Attachment L) and discussed Boards/Committees, Reuse Trail, Public Relations, Membership, and the joint event with WateReuse Texas on Sunday afternoon (September 12). John Shearer added that on September 14, 2010, Governor Charlie Crist will name Mimi Drew as Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

4

WateReuse Colorado

Jenny Fifita delivered a report on WateReuse Colorado activities (Attachment M). She discussed Colorado’s reclaimed water regulations, data collection efforts for the National Database, priorities workshop/strategic planning, and membership (including new member Meridian Metropolitan District). WateReuse Australia

A report was provided in Attachment N, as WateReuse Australia director Michael Malouf was not in attendance. VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS Nominating Committee

Carolyn Ahrens referred the Board to the written report contained in the Board packet (Attachment O). She noted that five Board members were up for reelection on Monday, September 13. National Legislative Committee

Jon Freedman and Eric Sapirstein provided a report of the National Legislative Committee to the Board (Attachment P). Items discussed included: Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations; Title XVI Water Recycling Project Criteria; Identifying New Project Opportunities; Alternative Funding for Water Recycling Projects; and an Energy Bill. Freedman also noted that a Legislative Committee meeting will be held at noon on Wednesday, September 15 in the Omni Shoreham Hotel. Public Education & Outreach Committee

Mark Millan authored a report for the Board in Attachment Q, expanding on the information provided earlier as part of the PR/Communications Strategy discussion. International Committee

Macpherson directed the Board to Attachment R for activities of the International Committee. Items discussed include progress on the Committee’s work plan, as well as efforts in Europe, Australia, and Singapore. National Regulatory Committee

A report was provided in Attachment S. Potable Reuse Committee

A report was provided in Attachment T. Desalination Committee

A report from the Desalination Committee was provided in Attachment U. Andy Shea discussed recent meetings of the Committee, the proposal to develop of a white paper focusing on environmental issues surrounding desal, and coordination with other related desalination entities.

5

Membership Committee

Guy Carpenter indicated that he had nothing further to add on Membership, as several issues were already discussed during the course of the Board meeting. Graywater ad hoc Committee

Don Vandertulip provided a status report on plumbing code issues related to graywater (Attachment V). VI. WATEREUSE RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Wade Miller noted that the Foundation received its FY 2010 Cooperative Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation on Friday, and he anticipated that it would be signed soon. VII. INFORMATION Symposium 2011 Status

Guy Carpenter gave a brief report on the 26th Annual Symposium, to be held in Phoenix, AZ on September 11-14, 2011 (Attachment W). He noted that WateReuse Arizona was ready to go. Symposium 2012 Status

Wade Miller noted that a contract has been signed with the Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa in Hollywood, FL for the 2012 Symposium (Attachment X). Australian Specialty Conference and November Board Meeting in Sydney

A “Save the Date” flyer for the upcoming Australian Specialty Conference was provided to the Board in Attachment Y. John Shearer indicated that there may be the possibility of using Skype for Board members unable to attend the Board meeting in Sydney. Potable Reuse Specialty Conference

Wade Miller and Randy Brown noted that a contract has also been signed with the Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa for the 2011 Potable Reuse Conference (November 14-15, 2011). A “Save the Date” flyer was provided in Attachment Z. Schedule of Events

Wade Miller referred the Board to Attachment AA for a schedule of events in 2010 and beyond. Frank Crumb volunteered Texas as the host of the 2014 or 2015 WateReuse Symposium. VIII. ADJOURN BOARD MEETING There being no further business, the meeting was officially adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m. (EDT).

WateReuse Association – Colorado Section Regulations and Local Codes Work Plan

January 10, 2011

Background: In response to the August 3, 2010, brainstorming session that discussed constraints and opportunities associated with water reuse in Colorado, a subcommittee was established by the WateReuse Association Colorado Section (WRCO) to address those constraints/opportunities related to regulatory requirements and local codes in Colorado. The priority issues addressed at that session include:

Constraints Priority

Regulatory Requirements

Process to have new uses approved within Regulation 84 H1

Administrative requirements (e.g., paperwork, reporting) H1

Effect on customer/public perception M2

Little support/funding at CDPHE M1

Requirements associated with type of source water rather than quality of treated water L2

Additional personnel & operating resources required for compliance L

Unclear what regulations are related to/apply to recycled water M1

Local Codes/Requirements

Financial responsibilities for connection to system can be burdensome M2

Home water softeners create salinity issues H1

Utility/customer responsibilities for costs and compliance can be unclear and imbalanced H1

Lack of consistency/coordination across utilities M3

Opportunities Priority


Coordinate through work group that is forming via Water Quality Forum H1


Mandatory use of reclaimed water L Key Ability of association to impact Priority for addressing H: High 1-3 (1 being highest, 3 being lowest) M: Medium L: Low

The highest priority items identified (H1, M1) are summarized below, with the action plan/current status and timeframe for completion/resources needed:

Constraints/Opportunities Priority Action Plan/Current Status Timeframe


Process to have new uses approved within Regulation 84

H1 Being addressed through WQF work group. Options proposed to WQCC in December 2010 in Attachment A.

Timeframe TBD.

Administrative requirements (e.g., paperwork, reporting)

H1 Being addressed through WQF work group. Proposal being developed.

Timeframe TBD.

Coordinate through work group that is forming via Water Quality Forum (WQF)

H1 WQF work group established Complete.

Little support/funding at CDPHE M1 Being addressed through WQF work group. Proposal being developed.

Timeframe TBD.

Unclear what regulations are related to/apply to recycled water

M1 Comparison and documentation of different requirements under Colorado WQCD Regulations #61, #41, #42.

Timeframe TBD.


Home water softeners create salinity issues

M3 Survey water providers to see the extent by which they have experienced or observed such salinity issues. Evaluation of local codes/requirements.

Preliminary assessment completed by end of 3

rd

quarter 2011.

Utility/customer responsibilities for costs and compliance can be unclear and imbalanced

H1 Additional clarification on basis for this constraint is needed from those that attended brainstorming session. Survey water providers to determine whether these responsibilities are/are not defined and by what method(s).

Preliminary assessment completed by end of 3

rd

quarter 2011.

Key Resources The following resources will be needed to complete the tasks listed above:

Data from reclaimed water providers regarding 1) salinity issues and water softeners and 2) local codes/regulations/policies governing utility and customer responsibilities for costs and compliance of reclaimed water use. This data will have to be obtained through the development of a pointed survey disseminated to reclaimed water providers in the Colorado, using listing/contact information provided by the CDPHE/WQCD.

Subcommittee Members Tara Kelley, Colorado Springs Utilities Jenny Fifita, City of Westminster

Scott Lehman, Rangeview Metro District

meeting minutes january 13th, 2011 denver water recycling … · 2015-11-17 · meeting minutes –...

Documents