Evaluating the Potential to Reduce Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe through Water Reuse

Evaluating the Potential to Reduce Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe through Water Reuse A.D. Latornell Conservation Symposium November 17, 2011 David C. Arseneau AECOM (Presenter) Mike Walters LSRCA David K. Ammerman AECOM

Drivers for Water Reclamation Now Future?

Reuse Drivers in the Lake Simcoe Basin 4% 6% 7% Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 Reduce phosphorus loadings of all sources: 72 T/yr to 44 T/yr 27% 31% Current sources of phosphorus in the watershed: 25% Sewage Treatment Plants Urban Runoff and Stormwater Rural and Agricultural Sources Atmospheric Deposition Polders Septic Systems

Reuse Concept Analysis Evaluate reduction of phosphorus loadings through water reuse: Quantify potential demands Characterize supplies Cost-effectiveness

Potential Water Reuse Applications Aggregate Industries washing, concrete mixing Agricultural Irrigation Urban Reuse lawn watering, street cleaning, dust control, concrete production, car washing, fire protection Golf Course Irrigation Industrial Uses cooling towers, boiler-feed water

Potential Water Reuse Applications

Large potential demands (and phosphorus reduction potential) close to all treatment plants in Page 7 the Lake Simcoe Basin.

25,000 Hay Annual Average Daily Water Demand (m 3 /d) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 CofA Rated Capacity Current Average Flow Pasture Row Crop Sod Tree Farm Golf Course Existing Urban Future Development 0 1 2 3 4 5 Distance from Keswick WPCP (km) Reclaimed Water Demand

1,000 Interim Loading Target (2009) Annual Phosphorus Removed / Phosphorus Loading Target (kg/yr) 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Baseline Loading Target (by 2015) Current Phosphorus Loading Ultimate Loading Target (by 2045) Hay Pasture Row Crop Sod Tree Farm Golf Course Existing Urban Future Development 0 1 2 3 4 5 Distance from Keswick WPCP (km) Phosphorus Reduction Potential

Reuse Implementation Scenarios 3. Barrie WPCC Satellite Reuse Facility Development of reuse scenarios included: Conceptual hydraulic design Considerations for storage and other design features Implementation cost estimates (including capital and operational costs) Evaluation of issues, benefits, challenges and opportunities 1. Keswick WPCP Sod Farm Irrigation 2. Uxbridge Brook WPCP Land Application Page 10

Scenario Characteristics: 650ha effective irrigation area 225mm annual application rate 7,000gpm (0.442cms) peak flow Additional benefits: Nutrient loading in reclaimed water Reduction of pumping costs Secure, drought-proof water supply Alternate uses to complement seasonal irrigation: Existing urban areas New development south of plant Keswick sod farm irrigation Page 11

Uxbridge land application Scenario Characteristics: 68ha irrigated area (limited by plant capacity) 450mm annual application rate 1,900gpm (0.120cms) peak flow Considerations: Discharge estimated to be 40% of low flows in dry months Off-season applications Page 12

Scenario Characteristics: 200ha new development 450m3/d reclaimed water demand 1,000m3/d satellite reuse facility 50psi delivery pressure Additional Benefits: 20% or greater reduction in typical potable water demands Servicing and water/wastewater plant capacity restrictions Conservation of potable resources Potential improvements in potable water quality Barrie satellite reuse facility Page 13

Unit costs for phosphorus diversion Costs include no credits for reclaimed water! Plant upgrade costs from Water Quality Trading in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Feasibility Study (XCG, 2010)

Implementation Considerations Water Quality Trading Water reuse applications can be considered for trading credit programs Permitting How to account for reduction through reuse? Climate Change May increase water shortages during summer months Water reuse may provide means to mitigate impacts Public Safety and Education Public exposure and interaction with reclaimed water must be considered Effective public education and consultation program will be required

Stakeholder/Public Attitudes Public acceptance study conducted in parallel with technical feasibility study (by Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company) 107 surveys completed Major barriers to public acceptance identified: Concerns about protection of public health Lack of confidence in management of public utilities/authorities Lack of public understanding about water reuse Cost of treatment and distribution Community engagement model important for successful implementation

Stakeholder/Public Attitudes Despite these barriers, some uses highly acceptable: Cooling power plants 93% of respondents favourable Toilet flushing 92% Sod farming 90% Golf courses 86% Other uses not so acceptable: Lawn/garden watering 15% of respondents favourable Public parks/athletic fields 16% Food crops 25%

Thank You