Modeling and optimization of recycled water systems to augment

Subscriber access provided by Gothenburg University Library

Article

Modeling and optimization of recycled water systems to augment urban groundwater recharge through underutilized stormwater spreading basins Jonathan L. Bradshaw, and Richard G Luthy Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 27 Sep 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on September 27, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 40

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Modeling and optimization of recycled water systems to augment

2

urban groundwater recharge through underutilized stormwater

3

spreading basins

4

Jonathan L. Bradshaw†‡ and Richard G. Luthy†‡*

5

†

6

94305-4020

7

‡

8

the Nation’s Urban Water Infrastructure, Stanford, CA 94305-4020

9

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: The Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

ReNUWIt, National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center for Re-inventing

10

Environment & Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Room 191, MC 4020, Stanford

11

University, Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail address: [email protected].

12

Telephone number: 650 721-2615. Fax number: 650 725-9720

13

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 2 of 40

14

Abstract

15

Infrastructure systems that use stormwater and recycled water to augment groundwater

16

recharge through spreading basins represent cost-effective opportunities to diversify

17

urban water supplies. However, technical questions remain about how these types of

18

managed aquifer recharge systems should be designed; furthermore, existing planning

19

tools are insufficient for performing robust design comparisons. Addressing this need,

20

we present a model for identifying the best-case design and operation schedule for

21

systems that deliver recycled water to underutilized stormwater spreading basins.

22

Resulting systems are optimal with respect to life cycle costs and water deliveries.

23

Through a case study of Los Angeles, California, we illustrate how delivering recycled

24

water to spreading basins could be optimally implemented. Results illustrate tradeoffs

25

between centralized and decentralized configurations. For example, while a centralized

26

Hyperion system could deliver more recycled water to the Hansen Spreading Grounds,

27

this system incurs approximately twice the conveyance cost of a decentralized Tillman

28

system (mean of 44% vs. 22% of unit life cycle costs). Compared to existing methods,

29

our model allows for more comprehensive and precise analyses of cost, water volume,

30

and energy tradeoffs among different design scenarios. This model can inform

31

decisions about spreading basin operation policies and the development of new water

32

supplies.

33 34


Page 3 of 40


35 36

Abstract/ Table of Contents art

37 38

1 Introduction

39

In many regions of the world, groundwater reliability is at risk due to overdraft, reduced

40

natural recharge due to urbanization, and changing precipitation patterns due to climate

41

change.1 This risk is amplified for cities in dry climates, which are more prone to drought

42

and water shortages. To augment groundwater supplies and enhance drought

43

resilience, one increasingly popular approach is managed aquifer recharge (MAR). In

44

this approach, water—often captured stormwater or diverted surface water—is

45

intentionally percolated through surface spreading or injected underground.2,3 MAR

46

projects have been developed in over 50 countries, representing every populated

47

continent.4 However, modern MAR projects have generally been planned without

48

considering how innovative water sources, such as recycled water, can be combined

49

with stormwater to augment groundwater recharge. Despite this trend, there are a

50

limited number of specially permitted systems that successfully augment MAR with

51

recycled water. Notably, in Southern California, to supplement other MAR water

52

sources, Orange County’s Groundwater Replenishment System produces 100 million 3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 4 of 40

53

gallons per day (MGD; one MGD is approximately 3785 m3 per day) of advanced

54

treated recycled water, thereby meeting the annual water needs of nearly 850,000

55

residents at costs competitive with existing water imports.5

56

Concerns about growing water insecurity—highlighted by the 2012-2017 California

57

drought—have generated more widespread interest in MAR with recycled water as a

58

means of indirect potable reuse (IPR) for municipal water supplies. However, the lack of

59

general design and operational guidance for such systems is an impediment to greater

60

adoption.1,6 Unit costs for spreading basin MAR systems (i.e., monetary costs per unit of

61

water infiltrated) can vary by an order of magnitude depending on system features.7

62

Moreover, water managers commonly cite infrastructure costs as the primary barrier to

63

implementation of recycled water projects.8,9 Consequently, planning tools that can

64

optimize system costs and performance can help cities make more informed decisions

65

about how MAR could fit into their water management strategies. Furthermore, the need

66

for infrastructure system optimization is gaining recognition in both the academic10 and

67

practicing11 engineering field.

68

Although designing and optimizing various water infrastructure components are long-

69

standing subjects of research and professional practice, existing studies have not

70

investigated spreading basin MAR systems that combine stormwater and recycled

71

water. Representative recent studies have focused on optimizing the use of existing

72

water infrastructure systems,12,13 evaluating tradeoffs between centralized and

73

decentralized wastewater treatment configurations,13–15 designing direct potable reuse

74

(DPR) systems,16 siting and costing new recharge facilities,17–20 designing injection

75

systems that use a single source of water,21,22 or optimizing new recycled water 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 5 of 40


76

distribution systems.17,23–25 While informative, these studies,12–25 collectively, do not

77

include several considerations relevant to spreading basin systems infiltrating both

78

stormwater and recycled water. Specifically, these studies

79

•

80 81

Optimized either infrastructure costs or recycled water deliveries, potentially resulting in sub-optimal systems when both objectives are considered.

•

Optimized recycled water infrastructure based on prescribed average and peak

82

annual demands at destinations, a method less fitting for deliveries to stormwater

83

spreading basins with dynamic unused capacity.

84

•

85 86 87

Did not consider how recycled water infrastructure designs may be constrained by the supply of recycled water.

•

Did not assess the potential benefits of multiple water recycling facilities (WRFs) that share destinations.

88

Additionally, these existing studies did not consider the cost of Full Advanced Treatment

89

(FAT) to produce the recycled water. FAT costs can be significant; for example, FAT

90

accounts for approximately 85% of costs in Orange County’s Groundwater

91

Replenishment System.26 FAT—which commonly consists of microfiltration (MF),

92

reverse osmosis (RO), and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide (UV/H2O2)—is the

93

standard water recycling process planned for new IPR projects in California,27 and it

94

requires fewer restrictions for recharge under California IPR regulations.28 IPR projects

95

in Singapore (NEWater29) and Australia (e.g., Groundwater Replenishment Scheme in

96

Perth30 and Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme in South East Queensland31)

97

apply a similar treatment process.



98

To advance the state of MAR and water reuse planning, this paper introduces and

99

demonstrates a novel method for identifying the best-case design and operation

Page 6 of 40

100

schedule for infrastructure systems that deliver advanced treated recycled water to

101

stormwater spreading basins. Extending previous studies by incorporating the above

102

considerations, we developed a production cost model for FAT recycled water and an

103

optimization process that satisfies the dual objectives of simultaneously minimizing life

104

cycle infrastructure costs and maximizing recycled water deliveries to spreading basins.

105

Our study applies to infrastructure systems with existing separate stormwater and

106

wastewater conveyance, which are often prevalent in relatively recently developed

107

urban areas, including the western United States.

108

To demonstrate how this model could inform water infrastructure planning decisions in a

109

real-world setting, this work features a case study of Los Angeles, California, (LA) a

110

drought-prone city that plans to expand its use of recycled water to meet future water

111

needs while decreasing reliance on water imports.32,33 The metropolitan LA region is

112

well-suited for a spreading basin MAR case study given its existing network of

113

approximately 30 existing spreading basins and 10 potential WRFs facilities (Figure 1).

114

Currently, these spreading basins are an underused asset, largely because of LA's

115

Mediterranean climate: on average, LA receives approximately 40 centimeters of

116

precipitation per year, approximately 80% of which occurs during the months of

117

December through March.34,35 As a result of this strong seasonality, spreading basins

118

that only receive stormwater are underused outside the winter months. Historical data

119

suggest that these spreading basins have received approximately 12% of their

120

theoretical infiltration capacity.34 Furthermore, groundwater managers report the 6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 7 of 40


121

underlying aquifers underlying contain substantial available storage, which could be

122

exploited for MAR.35–39

123



Page 8 of 40

124 125

Figure 1. Potential water recycling facilities and existing spreading basins in

126

metropolitan Los Angeles. Spreading basin unused capacity estimates are based on

127

historical infiltration data. Water recycling potential is shown for facilities discussed in

128

the City of Los Angeles recycled water master planning documents. One acre-foot per

129

year (AFY) is approximately 1233 m3 per year. One mile is approximately 1.6

130

kilometers. Data sources: 34,36,40,41.

131 132

2 Methods

133

This section summarizes our MAR system model and case study, highlighting the

134

model’s contributions and differences from existing methods. For the purposes of this

135

study, our MAR system boundary includes three stages: production of recycled water,

136

conveyance of recycled water to the spreading grounds, and replenishment of

137

groundwater through the infiltration of stormwater and recycled water at existing 8 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 9 of 40


138

spreading basins. This section first discusses our modeling and optimization of the

139

whole MAR system, considering both engineering and economic components. Then,

140

our application of the model to a case study of LA is discussed. A more detailed

141

explanation of our model’s mechanics and the case study is presented in this paper’s

142

Supporting Information (SI).

143

2.1

144

This subsection details how we modelled the three MAR stages, i.e., production,

145

conveyance, and replenishment. In contrast to existing methods (e.g.,14,15,17,23–25), our

146

model considers both engineering and life cycle economic considerations to describe

147

feasible MAR system designs. Of particular relevance to engineering considerations,

148

conservation of mass and energy are explicitly modeled using conventional mass

149

balance and energy loss equations. Moreover, the model includes constraints on

150

operating pipelines (e.g., hydraulic constraints) as well as scheduling recycled water

151

production and delivery. To describe other engineering and economic components, our

152

model generally follows the framework described in the City of Los Angeles’s recycled

153

water master planning documents (LA RWMPD).42

154

To comprehensively account for the monetary costs of the MAR infrastructure system,

155

our model uses a life cycle cost (LCC) method. While some prior recycled water design

156

and conveyance optimization studies16,23–25 account for capital and operation and

157

maintenance (O&M) costs, a LCC method that additionally includes replacement costs

158

and salvage value can more comprehensively represent the true cost over the project’s

159

assessment period. A LCC method is especially relevant because the various

Engineering and economic modeling



Page 10 of 40

160

infrastructure components (e.g., WRFs, pump stations, pipelines) have different

161

replacement requirements and useful lives.42

162

2.1.1 Production

163

For the production stage, our model describes the incremental addition of the FAT

164

process to produce recycled water. We did not explicitly model the costs of processes

165

upstream of FAT (e.g., wastewater treatment to produce FAT influent). Environmental

166

regulations or local policies usually require upstream treatment and, consequently, cost

167

considerations of recycled water projects typically exclude upstream treatment.

168

Nevertheless, our model implicitly includes some upstream treatment limitations by

169

incorporating spatial and temporal constraints on the availability of influent for FAT.

170

Our discussions with recycled water design professionals and a comprehensive review

171

of publicly available studies and reports revealed limited methods for estimating the

172

costs of FAT. Based on limited sources, Plumlee et al.43 and Guo et al.44 proposed cost

173

equations for several water recycling unit processes. For MF and RO, Plumlee et al.

174

developed capital cost models based on their professional experience and O&M cost

175

models based on a desalting handbook for RO facilities.45 They developed UV/H2O2

176

capital and O&M cost models based on vendor quotes. Plumlee et al.’s cost models do

177

not to include facility maintenance parts and materials,46 which other sources26,42,47,48

178

indicate range from 7% to 24% of O&M costs. Based on four publications, Guo et al.44

179

developed cost models for MF and RO but not UV/H2O2. Both Plumlee et al. and Guo

180

et al.’s cost equations are fitted from a data series with limited coverage within our WRF

181

capacity range of interest. Specifically, for capacities between 1 and 100 MGD, Guo et

182

al. features three and four data points for MF and RO, respectively. Similarly, Plumlee et 10 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 11 of 40


183

al.’s O&M cost models for MF and RO are based on six data points for RO facilities with

184

capacities between 1.1 and 53 MGD. We aimed to develop a more comprehensive FAT

185

cost model based on a greater number of sources. For reports that include original FAT

186

cost data, estimating practices appear to fall into two categories: some reports42,48,49

187

use proprietary methods (e.g., parametric models) to estimate costs for a project based

188

on the itemized costs of required components, e.g., equipment, labor, and chemicals;

189

other reports50,51 evidently assumed that costs scale linearly with treatment facility

190

capacity relative to some baseline facility.

191

To address the absence of comprehensive production cost methods, we developed a

192

mathematical model that predicts FAT costs based on facility capacity. To develop this

193

model, we compiled predicted costs from utility and consultant reports for recycled

194

water projects in California.42,48,49,52–56 Additionally, we compiled observed cost data for

195

completed projects from other publicly available documents26,47,48 and from inquiries to

196

water utilities.57–61 Because these compiled data represent projects in different years

197

and regions, they incorporate regional or temporal cost differences. To make these data

198

more comparable, we adjusted all costs to 2015 values using the Engineering News-

199

Record Construction Cost Index62 and the California Consumer Price Index63 for the Los

200

Angeles-Anaheim region, an approach similar to that followed by other California

201

recycled water cost studies.14,23,42,64,65 The adjusted data are presented in Figure 2,

202

which illustrates how FAT facility capacity is a predictor of both capital and O&M costs,

203

following a power law relationship. While this is a typical relationship found in process

204

engineering,66,67 including water and wastewater treatment technologies (e.g.,15,43,68), to

205

the best of our knowledge, this relationship has not been reported for the FAT process; 11 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 12 of 40

206

moreover, this finding contradicts the practice of assuming that production costs scale

207

linearly with capacity.

208

These power law relationships form the basis for our production cost model. The

209

equations of the fitted lines in Figure 2 describe FAT capital and O&M costs. Following

210

the LA RWMPD framework, we compute the remaining LCC components (i.e.,

211

replacement costs and salvage value) as functions of the capital cost.

212


Page 13 of 40


213

(a)

(b)

Legend:

214

Figure 2. Recycled water production cost model developed for this study. Capital costs

215

(a) and operation & maintenance costs (b) are plotted as a function of full advanced



Page 14 of 40

216

treatment capacity. Legend symbols, representing different data sources, are explained

217

in Table S4.

218 219

2.1.2 Conveyance and replenishment

220

To describe the conveyance system costs and energy use, we applied the methods

221

presented in the LA RWMPD, detailed in the SI. To summarize, costs and energy use

222

depend on several variables: the length of the pipeline, the pipe diameter, the velocity of

223

water in the pipe, the elevation profile along the pipeline route, and the pumping

224

requirements, the last of which depend on all the preceding variables.

225

We considered negligible the life cycle costs of the replenishment stage. Similar to our

226

rationale for excluding costs associated with processes upstream of FAT, the scope of

227

our analysis includes only the incremental cost of supplying recycled water to existing

228

stormwater spreading basins. As elaborated in the SI, connecting FAT recycled water to

229

existing spreading basins is not expected to substantially increase the spreading basins’

230

life cycle cost.

231

While our model considers negligible spreading basins costs, it explicitly quantifies

232

spreading basins’ performance, namely, unused capacity (the potential to infiltrate

233

additional water volumes). Although several possible ways exist to quantify unused

234

capacity, our method follows the LA RWMPD framework, which is consistent with LA’s

235

policy of prioritizing the infiltration stormwater over recycled water.55 Using site-specific

236

performance and hydrologic data, our model allocates each spreading basin’s finite

237

infiltration capacity between existing spreading basin water sources (primarily


Page 15 of 40


238

stormwater) and potential new sources of recycled water. In this study, we identified

239

each basin’s maximum observed recharge volume for each calendar month using

240

historical spreading basin performance data, as explained below. We then computed

241

each month’s unused capacity as the difference between this monthly maximum

242

observed recharge volume and the hydraulic loading rate (long-term infiltration rate).69

243

The resulting unused capacity measure represents a conservative upper limit for

244

additional water deliveries.

245

Our model assumes that, at a systems level, any water entering a spreading basin

246

becomes groundwater recharge. This assumption is commonly applied in engineering

247

practice,34,55 and it is also appropriate given our conservative measure of unused

248

capacity, which limits recycled water delivery rates to less than the hydraulic loading

249

rates. Moreover, the assumption is appropriate for our case study given regional

250

conditions: potential evaporation losses in the metropolitan LA area are negligibly small

251

(on average, less than 0.5 centimeters of reference evapotranspiration per day70)

252

compared to theoretical hydraulic loading rates (on the order of tens of centimeters per

253

day or more for nearly all LA spreading basins34). This assumption also applies in other

254

dry regions. Scanlon et al.2 report estimated evaporative losses of less than 1% and

255

approximately 1% of delivered water volumes for spreading basin systems in

256

California’s Central Valley and Tucson, Arizona, respectively. In Australia, Dillon and

257

Arshad20 report that MAR can result in low or no evaporative losses, and they assume

258

5% losses in a case study in New South Wales, Australia.



Page 16 of 40

259

2.2

260

Using the modeling principles described above, we formulated an optimization problem

261

to describe a spreading basin system that infiltrates both stormwater and recycled

262

water. This problem describes the costs and performance of the system subject to

263

constraints on the availability of recycled water, WRF operations, spreading basin

264

unused capacity, conservation of mass and energy, and pipeline hydraulic constraints.

265

Table 1 summarizes our model inputs, parameters, and decision variables. The SI

266

includes a detailed problem formulation.

267

For these MAR systems, reliably optimizing the dual objectives of minimal life cycle

268

costs and maximal recycled water deliveries required a new method. To weigh these

269

objectives equally, our strategy was to transform this dual-objective program into a

270

single-objective program that minimizes the unit life cycle cost, defined as the ratio of

271

life cycle costs to recycled water deliveries over the project’s assessment period. This

272

optimization problem is classified as a mixed integer nonlinear program (MINLP), and

273

the nonlinear terms are non-convex, signifying that conventional, gradient-based

274

optimization techniques cannot be used to find a global optimum. As other studies (e.g.,

275

24,25

276

popular techniques for finding near-optimum solutions to this kind of water infrastructure

277

MINLP, these techniques are limited because they often cannot guarantee finding the

278

global optimum.

Optimization

) have noted, although stochastic approaches or approximation algorithms are

279 280


Page 17 of 40


281

Table 1. Summary of case study input variables, assigned parameters, and decision

282

variables.

Description

Section with Further Discussion Input Variables

Water recycling facility locations and available capacities

2.3

Spreading basin location and available capacities

2.3, S1.4

Candidate pipeline routes

2.3

Available pipe diameters

S3.2 Assigned Parameters

Life cycle cost model

S2

Production cost model

2.1.1, S3.1

Conveyance cost model

S3.2

Replenishment cost model

S3.3

Spreading basin capacity model

2.1.2

Pipe flow model

S3.2.4, S4.4

Pipe operation constraints

S4.2 – S4.4 Decision Variables

Water recycling facility production capacity

S4.1, S4.2

Recycled water delivery schedule

S4.2, S4.2

Pump station locations

S4.4

Pipeline diameter

S4.4

283 284 285

In contrast to existing methods, our optimization method reliably converges to the global

286

solution for systems featuring a single WRF. We applied a strategy of reduction and

287

iteration that identifies the solution without material losses in solution precision.

288

Although our MINLP can be described with many decision variables, through dependent



Page 18 of 40

289

relationships it can ultimately be reduced to consist of two continuous variables (WRF

290

production capacity and recycled water production schedule) and two integer variables

291

(conveyance pipeline diameter and conveyance pump station locations). Our method

292

exploits two properties of this reduced program to find a global solution. First, for a fixed

293

production capacity value, the nonlinear terms in our MINLP become convex. Second,

294

for a fixed pipeline diameter value, the remaining integer terms can be efficiently

295

minimized though a separate optimization subroutine. Consequently, iterating through

296

production capacity values and pipeline diameters allows us to find the global optimum

297

using proven convex optimization techniques, such as the interior-point methods we

298

selected and implemented using MATLAB.71

299

Applying this optimization strategy also allows us to find the near-optimal solution for

300

systems with multiple WRFs in series, a design not demonstrated in previous studies

301

and potentially not possible with the methods used in those studies. In contrast to

302

existing studies, which often do not discuss the error associated with their

303

approximation methods, the error for our method can be bounded by comparing results

304

between two separate methods that respectively over-estimate and under-estimate the

305

optimum. As further discussed in Section 3, this error in our case study was immaterial.

306

The SI details the optimization and error-estimation process.

307

Our optimization process differs in another significant way by requiring that potential

308

pipeline paths are specified. That is, our model’s user must specify candidate pipeline

309

routes to evaluate. This feature differs from other recent recycled water distribution

310

optimization studies solving MINLPs, e.g., Lee et al.,23 in which an approximation

311

method identifies a pipeline route within a factor of 11/6 of the global optimum. An 18 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 19 of 40


312

advantage of our process is that it converges to a global solution, thereby reducing the

313

results’ uncertainty. The subsection below and the SI further discuss this method’s

314

application to our case study. In professional practice, we expect that the water utility or

315

consulting engineers designing the recycled water system would identify multiple

316

candidate pipeline routes based on various site-specific social and technical

317

considerations, such as potential impacts on traffic, existing subsurface infrastructure

318

and right-of-way, and environmental impacts. These engineers could then use our

319

method to compute and compare the globally optimal design for each candidate route.

320

2.3

321

Based on proposed scenarios within the LA recycled water master planning documents,

322

our case study illustrates several potential options for connecting WRFs to two existing

323

spreading basins. We examined options for connecting the Hansen Spreading Grounds

324

(Hansen) to three potential WRFs—the Donald C. Tillman (Tillman), LA-Glendale, and

325

Hyperion facilities—which are existing wastewater treatment plants that could

326

hypothetically be upgraded to include FAT. Additionally, we assessed the option of

327

connecting LA-Glendale and Tillman in a serial configuration (Tillman+LA-Glendale

328

system). Under this scheme, treated wastewater effluent could be conveyed from LA-

329

Glendale to Tillman, where treated effluent from either LA-Glendale or Tillman could

330

undergo FAT and be conveyed to Hansen. We also examined options for connecting

331

the Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds (Rio Hondo) to Hyperion and a potential new

332

satellite wastewater treatment facility proposed for downtown LA, referred to as the New

333

Metro Satellite facility. Figure 3 depicts these different scenarios.

Los Angeles Case Study



Page 20 of 40

334 335

Figure 3. Map of MAR system scenarios evaluated in LA case study. Color of the

336

“System scenario and flow direction” arrows correspond to system scenarios plotted in

337

Figures 4 and 6. Data sources: 34,36,40,41.

338 339

The range of our case study’s design scenarios aids in evaluating the tradeoffs

340

associated with varying levels of recycled water centralization. Connecting spreading

341

basins to Hyperion, LA’s terminal wastewater treatment facility, is consistent with the

342

centralized water infrastructure paradigm conventionally practiced in the developed

343

world. Generally, centralized water infrastructure systems are characterized by relatively

344

few, large-capacity facilities, often serving large geographic areas and, consequently,

345

such systems typically require more extensive conveyance networks. In contrast,

346

decentralized systems—an ongoing focus of research (e.g., 13,14,16,72,73)—are generally

347

characterized by multiple smaller-capacity, more proximate, satellite facilities serving


Page 21 of 40


348

smaller geographic areas; relative to centralized systems, decentralized systems

349

typically require less extensive conveyance networks by virtue of their smaller service

350

area and proximity to that area. In the context of our case study, Tillman, LA-Glendale,

351

and New Metro Satellite WRFs represent more decentralized WRFs.

352

Although typically excluded in existing optimization studies, production and

353

replenishment facilities have physical limits that are important to incorporate into a

354

practical system analysis. As discussed above, spreading basins’ unused capacities

355

represent the upper limit for additional water deliveries; to estimate unused capacity, we

356

compiled historical spreading basin performance data provided by municipal agencies

357

and regional watermasters for Hansen (from water years 1979 to 2008)74,75 and Rio

358

Hondo (from water years 1989 to 2014, earlier data unavailable).75 Elaborated in the SI,

359

the resulting unused capacities are represented on an annual basis in Figures 1 and 3.

360

For production, each potential WRF has an upper limit of FAT recycled water that could

361

be produced for MAR based on factors such as temporal fluctuations of treated

362

wastewater effluent flows and the need for in-stream flows throughout the year. For our

363

case study, we used the limits presented in the LA RWMPD, and we assume that each

364

WRF could potentially construct FAT capacity up to this prescribed upper limit. Notably,

365

the LA RWMPD specifies that LA-Glendale’s potential to produce recycled water for

366

MAR is capped at 20 MGD during summer—compared to 40 MGD during winter—due

367

to existing recycled water commitments. As discussed in the results section below, this

368

feature leads to unique behavior compared to other systems that could produce a

369

constant upper limit of recycled water year-round.



Page 22 of 40

370

The potential pipeline routes we identified (Figure 3) represent actual routes specified in

371

the LA RWMPD and hypothetical routes we developed for the purposes of our case

372

study. While the LA RWMPD provides a specific route connecting Tillman to Hansen, it

373

does not provide routes for other design scenarios investigated in our case study. For

374

all other design scenarios, we developed hypothetical, best-case pipeline routes by

375

finding the shortest feasible pipeline route. Extending Lee et al.’s14 routing method, we

376

defined a path as feasible if it followed major roads (excluding freeways, which are more

377

likely than other roads to be elevated) or other public rights-of-way. Using Dijkstra’s

378

algorithm, we identified the shortest path along these transportation corridors as defined

379

and categorized by the County of Los Angeles.41 This analysis was performed using

380

ArcGIS.40 As Lee et al.23 observed, restricting pipeline routes to feasible corridors differs

381

from existing studies that assume pipelines could be installed along the Euclidean

382

distances between facilities, an assumption that is often unrealistic in densely-

383

developed, urban settings.

384

Table 2 summarizes the primary production and conveyance parameters used in the LA

385

case study.

386


Page 23 of 40

387


Table 2. Summary of case study design scenario parameters. Production parameters Recipient spreading basin

Hansen Spreading Grounds

Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds

Scenario name

Hyperion system LA-Glendale system Tillman system Tillman+LAGlendale sys. Hyperion system New Metro Satellite system

a

Conveyance parameters

b

Winter maximum potential capacity, MGD 3 (1000 m /d) 160 (606)

Summer maximum potential capacity, MGD 3 (1000 m /d) 160 (606)

Pipeline distance, miles (km) 27 (43)

Net elevation change, feet (m) 910 (277)

40 (151)

20 (76)

11 (18)

520 (158)

27 (102)

27 (102)

11 (18)

250 (76)

67 (254)

47 (178)

25 (40)

520 (158)

160 (606)

160 (606)

23 (37)

130 (40)

45 (170)

45 (170)

11 (18)

-26 (-7.9)

a

Production parameters, representing the potential to produce recycled water for MAR, were provided in the LA RWMPD. b Conveyance parameters were computed using ArcGIS

388 389

3 Results and Discussion

390

This section discusses how our model can inform plans to connect WRFs to spreading

391

basins and improve urban water management. Specifically, it examines our case study

392

results and this study’s contribution to understanding how to optimally deliver recycled

393

water to stormwater spreading basins. The subsections are organized to discuss

394

connection options for the Hansen Spreading Grounds and the Rio Hondo Spreading

395

Grounds individually before this section concludes with general lessons from this study

396

and opportunities for future research.



Page 24 of 40

397

3.1

398

Our Hansen Spreading Grounds study addresses questions related to the optimal scale

399

of water recycling operations and opportunities for wastewater treatment plants to work

400

together to deliver recycled water. Figure 4 plots the results of the different Hansen

401

design scenarios, which include a centralized paradigm design (Hyperion system) and

402

several decentralized options. Although most design variables are not explicitly

403

displayed in this figure, each point on the curves represents the best-case design for

404

production (i.e., WRF capacity and production schedule), conveyance (i.e., pipeline and

405

pump stations), and replenishment systems. The data series labeled “idealized

406

production” represents the optimal design solution for a FAT facility operating year-

407

round at full capacity with no conveyance costs. This series’ inclusion facilitates

408

comparisons between the MAR system designs we assessed and an idealized FAT

409

facility. Each systems’ minimum delivery value is based on a 3 MGD capacity, the

410

smallest FAT capacity for which both capital and O&M production cost data were

411

available; note that to enhance figure clarity, the Hyperion system scenarios presented

412

in Figures 4–6 are truncated, with a minimum capacity of 4 MGD. Maximum delivery

413

values are determined by the point where either (a) the capacity to infiltrate recycled

414

water is exhausted for all months or (b) recycled water production is equal to the WRF

415

potential capacity or 100 MGD (the largest facility for which production cost data were

416

available). Between these minimum and maximum delivery values, each series is

417

composed of the optimal solutions computed using production capacity increments

418

between 0.02 and 0.05 MGD.

Hansen Spreading Grounds

419 24 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 25 of 40


420

421 422

Figure 4. Optimal unit life cycle costs for case study design scenarios connecting

423

recycled water to Hansen Spreading Grounds. The “1 MGD increment” series tracks

424

how the optimum solution changes with a 1 MGD change in FAT capacity. The

425

“idealized production” series represents the optimal design solution for a FAT facility

426

operating year-round at full capacity with no conveyance costs.

427 428

The curves in Figure 4 exhibit some expected behaviors. They generally demonstrate

429

the economies of scale effect, with unit life cycle costs decreasing with greater recycled

430

water deliveries and corresponding increases in WRF capacity. The curves also include

431

discontinuities, which are a result of the conveyance systems’ integer variables: when a

432

marginal increase in recycled water deliveries necessitates installing a new pump

433

station, selecting a larger pipe size, or changing the installation technique for large

434

pipes, these features sharply increase costs.



Page 26 of 40

435

Beyond exhibiting expected system behaviors, the curves also provide insights into this

436

system that are otherwise unavailable using existing MAR or recycled water network

437

design methods. In particular, the differences between the MAR system and ideal

438

production curves quantify the impact of two factors: conveyance costs and system

439

inefficiencies. The specific roles of these factors, described below, are clearer in Figure

440

5, which illustrate the contributions of production and conveyances costs to the unit life

441

cycle cost for the Hyperion and Tillman systems.

442

Conveyance costs, the first factor, are expensive in a highly developed urban area like

443

LA. The City of LA estimates the capital cost of installing recycled water pipeline ranges

444

from approximately 2 to 30 million United States dollars per mile (a mile is

445

approximately 1.6 kilometers), depending on the pipe diameter.42 In addition, as

446

summarized in Table 2, all WRFs are located downgradient from Hansen, so pumping

447

requirements add costs. Because the centralized system design requires pumping from

448

Hyperion, which is both farther away and further downgradient from Hansen, the

449

Hyperion system has substantially higher costs than the decentralized options. As seen

450

in Figure 5, the Hyperion system incurs approximately twice the conveyance costs of

451

the Tilman system; for deliveries between 2,800 and 25,000 acre-feet per year (AFY; an

452

acre-foot [AF] is approximately 1233 m3)—the range of deliveries available in the

453

Tillman system—conveyance represents a mean of 44% of unit life cycle costs in the

454

Hyperion system compared to 22% in the Tillman system. Over this same delivery

455

range, per unit of pipeline, the mean conveyance unit life cycle cost is 25 $/AF-mile

456

(0.011 $/m3-km) in the Hyperion system compared to 22 $/AF-mile (0.012 $/m3-km) in

457

the Tillman system; this 3 $/AF-mile difference primarily reflects the additional pumping 26 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 27 of 40


458

required for the Hyperion system. In particular, over this delivery range, the mean

459

annual pumping energy per unit pipeline is 55 kWh/AF-mile (99 J/m3-m) in the Hyperion

460

system compared to 45 kWh/AF-mile (82 J/m3-m) in the Tillman system.

461

The second factor, system inefficiencies, refers to factors that limit WRFs from

462

operating at full capacity. For example, because seasonal precipitation patterns leave

463

spreading basins with less unused capacity in winter, a large capacity WRF may

464

operate under-capacity during the winter. In Figure 5, production costs above the

465

“idealized production” line represent these production inefficiencies. For the Hansen

466

system, these inefficiencies result in an 11% higher production cost—ranging between

467

110 $/AF and 170 $/AF—relative to the idealized production cost.

468

Production and conveyance inefficiencies also explain why unit life cycle costs increase

469

with greater deliveries in some systems; this increase occurs when deliveries above

470

certain values require adding infrastructure capacity that proportionally increases costs

471

more than water deliveries. For example, limits to Hansen’s unused capacity particularly

472

constrain deliveries above 30,000 AFY. The Hyperion system’s increasing production

473

unit life cycle costs, (Figure 5) demonstrate these constraints’ effect: production unit life

474

cycle costs remain at 11% above idealized production costs for deliveries below 30,000

475

AFY and steadily increase for deliveries above 30,000 AFY, reaching a maximum of

476

24% above idealized production cost when delivering 54,000 AFY.

477

In a related example, the LA-Glendale system illustrates the impact of system

478

inefficiencies when delivering more than approximately 18,500 AFY (Figure 4). Here,

479

the inefficiency is primarily caused by the reduced potential to produce recycled water

480

above 20 MGD during summer, as described in Section 2.3. While the LA-Glendale 27 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 28 of 40

481

system can use its year-round 20 MGD capacity to deliver up to 18,500 AFY, higher

482

deliveries require additional production capacity that can only be used during winter, a

483

season coinciding with lower spreading basin unused capacity. To deliver 25,000 AFY,

484

LA-Glendale’s production constraints necessitate installing 34 MGD of production

485

capacity to deliver 25,000 AFY to Hansen; in contrast, the Hyperion and Tillman

486

systems, which do not have seasonal production constraints, could realize comparable

487

deliveries with 27 MGD production capacity. The higher fixed costs associated with the

488

higher capacity LA-Glendale system result in a unit life cycle cost increase of 6.1%

489

between delivering 18,500 AFY and 25,000 AFY—equivalent to, on average, an

490

increase of 0.014 $/AF per incremental AFY delivered above 18,500 AFY. In contrast,

491

the Tillman and Hyperion systems exhibit unit life cycle cost decreases of 6.3% (0.013

492

$/AF per incremental AFY) and 9.3% (0.025 $/AF per incremental AFY), respectively,

493

over this same delivery range.

494


Page 29 of 40


495

(a) Hyperion system

(b) Tillman system

Legend:

496

Figure 5. Optimal unit life cycle costs for connecting recycled water to Hansen

497

Spreading Grounds for (a) the Hyperion system and (b) the Tillman system. Costs are

498

apportioned according to contributions of production and conveyance stages. The

499

“idealized production” series represents the optimal design solution for a FAT facility

500

operating year-round at full capacity with no conveyance costs.



Page 30 of 40

502

These results also reveal new insights into the potential for WRFs operating in a serial

503

configuration. Because this configuration features collecting wastewater effluent from

504

multiple facilities to produce recycled water, the serial configuration offers decentralized

505

facilities the opportunity to deliver more recycled water than would be possible

506

separately. Production constraints for the Tillman and LA-Glendale systems limit these

507

individual systems to deliver no more than 27,000 AFY, compared to Hyperion’s

508

potential to deliver nearly 54,500 AFY. However, the serial Tillman+LA-Glendale system

509

can deliver between 25,000 AFY and 44,500 AFY with unit life cycle costs between 6%

510

and 23% lower than the Hyperion system (Figure 4). As was the case with the individual

511

decentralized system, the serial system offers lower unit life cycle costs because of its

512

relative proximity to Hansen; relative to the Hyperion system, this serial system features

513

8.1% less pipeline and 43% less net elevation change (Table 2). Over the serial

514

system’s delivery range (25,000 AFY to 44,500 AFY), these differences in spatial

515

proximity result in a mean annual pumping energy of 1,400 kWh/AF (4.1 MJ/m3) in the

516

Hyperion system compared to 620 kWh/AF (1.8 MJ/m3) in the serial system. Although

517

the results for the Tillman+LA-Glendale system represent a near-optimum—rather than

518

the global optimum guaranteed for the other design scenarios—the error for this system

519

is 3% or less, which is both a relatively small error for an approximation method and

520

immaterial when comparing this design scenario to the others featured in our case

521

study.

522


Page 31 of 40


523

3.2

524

Our Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds case study addresses questions related to the

525

opportunity for new decentralized wastewater treatment and recycled water production

526

facilities. Figure 6 plots the results of two different design scenarios connecting WRFs to

527

Rio Hondo. Like the Hansen case study, the Rio Hondo case study includes a

528

centralized design (Hyperion system) and a decentralized design (New Metro Satellite

529

system). Unlike the Hansen case study, in which only existing wastewater treatment

530

facilities were evaluated, the Rio Hondo case study features a wastewater treatment

531

facility, New Metro Satellite, that does not currently exist but was proposed in the LA

532

RWMPD. Consequently, our results quantify the tradeoffs between this potential new

533

WRF compared to a centralized design.

534

Over its potential delivery range, the decentralized New Metro Satellite system offers

535

between 12% and 24% lower unit life cycle costs than the centralized Hyperion system.

536

As was the case in the Hansen case study, these lower costs follow from the

537

decentralized facility’s closer proximity to the spreading basin and the resulting lower

538

requirement for conveyance infrastructure. As shown in Table 2, the New Metro Satellite

539

system requires less than half the total pipeline of the Hyperion system; moreover, while

540

Hyperion is located downgradient of Rio Hondo, the New Metro Satellite WRF would be

541

located upgradient of Rio Hondo, thereby reducing pumping requirements. In particular,

542

over the New Metro Satellite system’s delivery range, mean annual pumping energy use

543

is 170 kWh/AF (0.49 MJ/m3) for the New Metro Satellite system and 380 kWh/AF (1.1

544

MJ/m3) for the Hyperion system.

Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds



Page 32 of 40

546 547

Figure 6. Optimal unit life cycle costs for connecting recycled water to Rio Hondo

548

Spreading Grounds. The “1 MGD increment” series tracks how the optimum solution

549

changes with a 1 MGD change in FAT capacity. The “idealized production” series

550

represents the optimal design solution for a FAT facility operating year-round at full

551

capacity with no conveyance costs.

552 553

Despite its favorable unit life cycle costs and lower energy use, the decentralized New

554

Metro Satellite system comes with the notable limitation of lower delivery potential.

555

While this decentralized system could deliver a maximum of 45,000 AFY at

556

approximately 1050 $/AF, the centralized Hyperion system could deliver between

557

69,000 AFY and 91,000 AFY for similar unit life cycle costs (1000 $/AF to 1050 $/AF).

558

This finding highlights the need for water planners to consider our modeling output in

559

the context of their specific project selection criteria—namely total project budget, unit

560

life cycle costs, desired recycled water use, and energy use. For example, a project with

561

goals of maximizing recharge at minimal unit life cycle costs would favor the Hyperion 32 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 33 of 40


562

system, but another project with goals of limiting recycled water deliveries, energy use,

563

or total project budget could favor the New Metro Satellite system.

564 565

3.3

566

This study advances the state of modeling and optimization of urban MAR systems

567

using stormwater and FAT recycled water. Specifically, relative to existing methods, this

568

study incorporates new modeling and optimization features to quantify infrastructure

569

design tradeoffs more comprehensively and precisely. As illustrated through its

570

application in our case study, our model provides unique insights into spreading basin

571

MAR designs of different scales, locations, and configurations in a semi-arid city.

572

This paper argues the merits of our engineering and economic models—and their

573

applicability to our LA case study. However, as with any model, our model should be

574

understood as a decision support tool, results from which require a user’s thoughtful

575

interpretation. In its current form as a systems-level model, our methods provide users

576

with high-level insights about designs that optimize infrastructure costs and recycled

577

water deliveries to spreading basins. With the level of complexity presented in our

578

illustrative case study, modeling results would be especially useful in early-stage

579

planning to identify which design ideas offer the greatest potential and deserve

580

additional investigation. Nevertheless, users could adapt our modeling framework to

581

better suit a different project scope or their specific geographic, policy, or technological

582

context. For example, modifying replenishment constraints can reflect climatic and

583

hydrologic conditions governing the availability of stormwater throughout the year.

Discussion



Page 34 of 40

584

Similar modifications can reflect decisions to preferentially allocate infiltration capacity to

585

stormwater over recycled water (or vice versa); these decisions may be based on local

586

government preferences or regulatory constraints on the infiltration of recycled water.

587

Last, given that the power law production cost model is common throughout the process

588

industry,66,67 our modeling and optimization framework could be applied to alternative

589

water recycling technologies or other process industry applications.

590

After adapting our model to their specific context, urban water management planners

591

can use this study and model to make more informed decisions about developing new

592

water supplies to meet future demands. For example, this planning tool could be used

593

to better assess the tradeoffs of MAR systems compared to other water reuse

594

technologies or water management alternatives, such as seawater desalination.

595

This study can serve as the foundation for additional research into MAR systems or,

596

more generally, water infrastructure systems. For example, researchers could use this

597

study and life cycle assessment studies (e.g., 73,76,77) to more holistically assess

598

tradeoffs among optimal water recycling configurations at different scales, such as for

599

the whole of Los Angeles County. Future research could also expand our modeling and

600

optimization framework to consider more complex infrastructure configurations (e.g.,

601

multiple treatment plants in parallel) or advanced hydrogeologic behaviors. Moreover,

602

additional research could investigate the extent to which modifying key policy

603

parameters affect optimal MAR system designs. For example, our case study applies

604

the City of LA’s method for computing spreading basin unused capacity, which

605

prioritizes the infiltration of stormwater over recycled water. Considering the availability

606

of recycled water can be more certain than the availability of stormwater, it is 34 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 35 of 40


607

conceivable that a policy that instead emphasizes the role of recycled water could

608

produce greater total recharge volumes and consequently improve the overall

609

economics of an MAR system.

610

4 Supporting Information

611

Additional case study parameters and detailed explanations of modeling and

612

optimization methods.

613

5 Acknowledgements

614

Project support was provided by the National Science Foundation’s Engineering

615

Research Center for Re-inventing the Nation’s Urban Water Infrastructure (ReNUWIt,

616

NSF ERC 1028968). J.L.B. is supported by the U.S. Department of Defense through its

617

National Defense Science & Engineering Graduate Fellowship Program and by Stanford

618

University through a David & Lucille Packard Foundation Fellowship.

619

We appreciate the assistance of staff from the Los Angeles Department of Water and

620

Power, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Orange County Water District,

621

West Basin Municipal Water District, and Water Replenishment District of Southern

622

California in providing data and other materials used in this study.

623

We appreciate the constructive comments on this manuscript from Mary McDevitt,

624

ArcGIS assistance from David Medeiros, and data acquisition assistance from Kathleen

625

Gust.

626

Maps throughout this manuscript were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri.

627

ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under 35 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


628

license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri®

629

software, please visit www.esri.com.

630

6 References

631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

(11) (12) (13)

Page 36 of 40

Regnery, J.; Lee, J.; Kitanidis, P.; Illangasekare, T.; Sharp, J. O.; Drewes, J. E. Integration of Artificial Recharge and Recovery Systems for Impaired Water Sources in Urban Settings: Overcoming Current Limitations and Engineering Challenges. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2013, 30 (8), 409–420. Scanlon, B. R.; Reedy, R. C.; Faunt, C. C.; Pool, D.; Uhlman, K. Enhancing drought resilience with conjunctive use and managed aquifer recharge in California and Arizona. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11 (4), 049501. National Research Council. Managed Underground Storage in a Water Resources System Context. In Prospects for Managed Underground Storage of Recoverable Water; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2008. United Nations International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre. MAR Portal https://www.un-igrac.org/special-project/mar-portal (accessed Apr 25, 2017). Orange County Water District. About GWRS http://www.ocwd.com/gwrs/aboutgwrs/ (accessed Dec 26, 2015). National Research Council. Prospects for Managed Underground Storage of Recoverable Water; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2008. Perrone, D.; Rohde, M. M. Benefits and Economic Costs of Managed Aquifer Recharge in California. San Franc. Estuary Watershed Sci. 2016, 14 (2), Article 4. Bischel, H. N.; Simon, G. L.; Frisby, T. M.; Luthy, R. G. Management Experiences and Trends for Water Reuse Implementation in Northern California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (1), 180–188. Coats, E. R.; Wilson, P. I. Toward Nucleating the Concept of the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): Perspective from the Principal Actors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (8), 4158–4164. Zodrow, K. R.; Li, Q.; Buono, R. M.; Chen, W.; Daigger, G.; Dueñas-Osorio, L.; Elimelech, M.; Huang, X.; Jiang, G.; Kim, J.-H.; et al. Advanced Materials, Technologies, and Complex Systems Analyses: Emerging Opportunities to Enhance Urban Water Security. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017. American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE Grand Challenge https://ascegrandchallenge.com/ (accessed Oct 21, 2016). Cherchi, C.; Badruzzaman, M.; Gordon, M.; Bunn, S.; Jacangelo, J. G. Investigation of Cost and Energy Optimization of Drinking Water Distribution Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (22), 13724–13732. Perelman, L. S.; Allen, M.; Preis, A.; Iqbal, M.; Whittle, A. J. Flexible Reconfiguration of Existing Urban Water Infrastructure Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (22), 13378–13384.


Page 37 of 40

668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713


(14) Lee, E. J.; Criddle, C. S.; Bobel, P.; Freyberg, D. L. Assessing the Scale of Resource Recovery for Centralized and Satellite Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (19), 10762–10770. (15) Naik, K. S.; Stenstrom, M. K. A Feasibility Analysis Methodology for Decentralized Wastewater Systems - Energy-Efficiency and Cost. Water Environ. Res. 2016, 88 (3), 201–209. (16) Guo, T.; Englehardt, J. D. Principles for scaling of distributed direct potable water reuse systems: A modeling study. Water Res. 2015, 75, 146–163. (17) Fournier, E. D.; Keller, A. A.; Geyer, R.; Frew, J. Investigating the Energy-Water Usage Efficiency of the Reuse of Treated Municipal Wastewater for Artificial Groundwater Recharge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50 (4), 2044–2053. (18) Pedrero, F.; Albuquerque, A.; do Monte, H. M.; Cavaleiro, V.; Alarcon, J. J. Application of GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for site selection of aquifer recharge with reclaimed water. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 56 (1), 105–116. (19) Russo, T. A.; Fisher, A. T.; Lockwood, B. S. Assessment of Managed Aquifer Recharge Site Suitability Using a GIS and Modeling. Groundwater 2015, 53 (3), 389–400. (20) Dillon, P.; Arshad, M. Managed Aquifer Recharge in Integrated Water Resource Management. In Integrated Groundwater Management; Jakeman, A. J., Barreteau, O., Hunt, R. J., Rinaudo, J.-D., Ross, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing, 2016; pp 435–452. (21) Ebrahim, G.; Jonoski, A.; Al-Maktoumi, A.; Ahmed, M.; Mynett, A. SimulationOptimization Approach for Evaluating the Feasibility of Managed Aquifer Recharge in the Samail Lower Catchment, Oman. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2015, 142 (2), 05015007. (22) Marchi, A.; Dandy, G. C.; Maier, H. R. Integrated Approach for Optimizing the Design of Aquifer Storage and Recovery Stormwater Harvesting Schemes Accounting for Externalities and Climate Change. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2016, 142 (4), 04016002. (23) Lee, E. J.; Freyberg, D. L.; Criddle, C. S. An integrated planning tool for design of recycled water distribution networks. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 84, 311–325. (24) Zhang, W.; Chung, G.; Pierre-Louis, P.; Bayraksan, G.; Lansey, K. Reclaimed water distribution network design under temporal and spatial growth and demand uncertainties. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 49, 103–117. (25) Lan, F.; Bayraksan, G.; Lansey, K. Reformulation linearization technique based branch-and-reduce approach applied to regional water supply system planning. Eng. Optim. 2016, 48 (3), 454–475. (26) Orange County Water District. Project and Operating Costs; Orange County Water District, 2010. (27) Wetterau, G. D.; Chalmers, R. B.; Liu, P.; Pearce, W. Advancing indirect potable reuse in California. Water Pract. Technol. 2013, 8 (2), 275–285. (28) California Department of Public Health. Regulations Related to Recycled Water; California Department of Public Health, 2014. (29) Public Utilities Board. NEWater https://www.pub.gov.sg/watersupply/fournationaltaps/newater (accessed Apr 25, 2017). 37 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758

Page 38 of 40

(30) Water Corporation. Groundwater replenishment https://www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply/our-watersources/groundwater-replenishment (accessed Apr 25, 2017). (31) Seqwater. Purified recycled water http://www.seqwater.com.au/watersupply/water-treatment/purified-recycled-water (accessed Apr 25, 2017). (32) Luthy, R. G.; Sedlak, D. L. Urban Water-Supply Reinvention. Daedalus 2015, 144 (3), 72–82. (33) Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Urban Water Management Plan; 2015. (34) County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Water Resources Division. Hydrologic Report, 2013-2014; County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works: Los Angeles, 2015. (35) Slade, R. C.; Hicke, A.; Jonny, Hadi; Reed, G.; Akhter, F.; Lacombe, S.; Washington, B. Annual Report, Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster, 2012-13 Water Year; Watermaster Service in the Upper Los Angeles River Area (ULARA) Los Angeles County, California; Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster, 2014. (36) RMC; CDM Smith; Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Long Term Concepts Report; City of Los Angeles Recycled Water Master Planning; Los Angeles, 2012. (37) Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster. Annual Report 2014-15; 2015. (38) California Department of Water Resources. San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin; California’s Groundwater; Bulletin 118; 2004. (39) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Groundwater Assessment Study; 1308; Los Angeles, 2007. (40) ArcGIS 10.4.1; Esri: Redlands, California, 2016. (41) County of Los Angeles. LA County Street & Address File http://egis3.lacounty.gov/dataportal/2014/06/16/2011-la-county-street-centerlinestreet-address-file/ (accessed Dec 2, 2016). (42) RMC; CDM Smith; Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Cost Estimating Basis for Recycled Water Master Planning; Los Angeles Recycled Water Master Planning - Groundwater Replenishment Master Planning Report; Technical Memorandum; 2012. (43) Plumlee, M. H.; Stanford, B. D.; Debroux, J.-F.; Hopkins, D. C.; Snyder, S. A. Costs of Advanced Treatment in Water Reclamation. Ozone Sci. Eng. 2014, 36 (5), 485–495. (44) Guo, T.; Englehardt, J.; Wu, T. Review of cost versus scale: water and wastewater treatment and reuse processes. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 69 (2), 223–234. (45) Watson, I.; Morin, Jr., O. J.; Henthorne, L. Desalting Handbook for Planners; Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development Program; 72; Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of Interior, 2003. (46) Debroux, J. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, San Francisco, CA. Personal communication, 2017. (47) Patel, M. Groundwater Replenishment System, 2016.


Page 39 of 40

759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804


(48) Schimmoller, L.; Kealy, M. J. Fit for Purpose Water: The Cost of Overtreating Reclaimed Water; Project Number WRRF-10-01; WateReuse Research Foundation, 2014. (49) CH2M Hill; MWH; DR Consultants; Carollo. Groundwater Reliability Improvement Program Recycled Water Project - Evaluation of Treatment and Conveyance Options; Technical Memorandum 1–5; Water Replenishment District of Southern California, 2012. (50) RMC; CDM Smith. South Bay Water Recycling Strategic and Master Planning Report; Santa Clara Valley Water District and City of San Jose, 2014. (51) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Potential Regional Recycled Water Supply Program: Historical Review and 2015 Update - Version 1.8 Working draft; 2016. (52) Deshmukh, S.; Wehner, M. P. The Groundwater Replenishment System: The First Year; Orange County Water District, 2009. (53) Orange County Water District. Examining the cost of building and operating a water purification system to provide a new source of water for an arid region; 2005. (54) Brown and Caldwell; Black & Veatch; CDM. San Diego Recycled Water Study; City of San Diego Public Utilities Department, 2012. (55) RMC; CDM Smith; Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Groundwater Replenishment Master Planning Report; City of Los Angeles Recycled Water Master Planning; Los Angeles, 2012. (56) Todd Reynolds. DRAFT Technical Memorandum No.2 Groundwater Replenishment with Recycled Water Alternatives; Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2014. (57) Fu, P. Water Replenishment District of Southern California, Lakewood, CA. Personal communication, 2016. (58) Scott-Roberts, S. Orange County Water District, Fountain Valley, CA. Personal communication, 2016. (59) Deshmukh, S. West Basin Municipal Water District, Carson, CA. Personal communication, 2015. (60) Deshmukh, S. West Basin Municipal Water District, Carson, CA. Personal communication, 2016. (61) Sun, D. Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, CA. Personal communication, 2016. (62) Engineering News-Record. Construction Economics http://www.enr.com/economics (accessed Dec 7, 2016). (63) Department of Industrial Relations. California Consumer Price Index http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/capriceindex.htm (accessed Sep 26, 2016). (64) Cooley, H.; Phurisamban, R. The Cost of Alternative Water Supply and Efficiency Options in California; Pacific Institute, 2016. (65) CH2M Hill; MWH; Carollo; Drewes, J.; D R Consultants & Designers, Inc.; Somach Simmons & Dunn; BA, Inc. Alternatives Analysis Update Report for the Groundwater Reliability Improvement Program Recycled Water Project; Water Replenishment District of Southern California, 2012. 39 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842

Page 40 of 40

(66) Phung, D. L. Theory and evidence for using the economy-of-scale law in power plant economics; ORNL/TM-10195; Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1987. (67) Prasad, R. Development of factored cost estimates--as applied in engineering, procurement, and construction for the process industries (Rev. June 18. 2011); Recommended Practice 59R–10; AACE International, 2011. (68) McGivney, W. T.; Kawamura, S. Cost Estimating Manual for Water Treatment Facilities, 1 edition.; Wiley: Hoboken, N.J, 2008. (69) Bouwer, H. Artificial Recharge of Groundwater: Systems, Designs, and Management. In Hydraulic Design Handbook; Mays, L. W., Ed.; McGraw-Hill Professional: New York, 1999. (70) California Department of Water Resources; University of California, Davis. California Irrigation Management Information System Reference Evaporatranspiration Zones; California Department of Water Resources, 2012. (71) MATLAB version 9.1 (R2016b); The MathWorks Inc.: Natick, Massachusetts, 2016. (72) Hering, J. G.; Waite, T. D.; Luthy, R. G.; Drewes, J. E.; Sedlak, D. L. A Changing Framework for Urban Water Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (19), 10721–10726. (73) Kavvada, O.; Horvath, A.; Stokes-Draut, J. R.; Hendrickson, T. P.; Eisenstein, W. A.; Nelson, K. L. Assessing Location and Scale of Urban Non-Potable Water Reuse Systems for Life-Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50 (24), 13184–13194. (74) Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster. Watermaster Service in the Upper Los Angeles River Area (ULARA) Los Angeles County, California, 1978 - 2008 [date varies]; Watermaster Service in the Upper Los Angeles River Area (ULARA) Los Angeles County, California; Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster, 1980. (75) County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Water Resources Division. Hydrologic Report, 1989 - 2014 [date varies]; County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works: Los Angeles, 1990. (76) Yue, D.; Pandya, S.; You, F. Integrating Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment with Multiobjective Optimization: A Modeling Framework. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50 (3), 1501–1509. (77) Holloway, R. W.; Miller-Robbie, L.; Patel, M.; Stokes, J. R.; Munakata-Marr, J.; Dadakis, J.; Cath, T. Y. Life-cycle assessment of two potable water reuse technologies: MF/RO/UV–AOP treatment and hybrid osmotic membrane bioreactors. J. Membr. Sci. 2016, 507, 165–178.


Modeling and optimization of recycled water systems to augment

Recommend Documents