You are on page 1of 13

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228735230

A review of water reuse and recycling, with
reference to Canadian practice and potential:
1. Incentives and implementation

Article in Water Quality Research Journal of Canada · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

26 779

3 authors, including:

Kirsten Exall Jiri Marsalek
The University of Calgary Environment Canada
33 PUBLICATIONS 341 CITATIONS 225 PUBLICATIONS 3,390 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Current projects: Co-supervising PhD students investigating pollution in wash-off of buildings,
quality of urban snowmelt and its management, and hydrology of of swales and their contributing
catchments. View project

Winter urban stormwater runoff View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jiri Marsalek on 03 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

in most regions. access to irriga- tection of water resources quality occurs at various spa. In fact. water recycling. Canada. 2002). population). tion water). some communities in quite different. to manage the water system). CAWQ REVIEW ARTICLE A Review of Water Reuse and Recycling. the situation is ment of Canadian water resources. served by water supply and sanitation. although it ranges from 100 mil. which of ecological integrity. water reuse is currently practised infrequently in Canada. Gregorich 2000. As compared to other countries worldwide. One solution to insufficient water supplies that has been gaining in popularity in other areas of the world is that of water reuse. 1–12 Copyright © 2004. economy. No. kirsten. exter- The growing water management challenge to provide a nal inflows.* Jiri Marsalek and Karl Schaefer National Water Research Institute. This index takes into consideration water resources (internal flows.gc. for such reasons as seasonal the Prairies and B. or adequacy of water resources for are experiencing water shortages and rapidly growing environmental needs). and public acceptance. Statistics Canada 2000). 2004 • Volume 39. Ontario L7R 4A6 As a country on the whole. Of the 1 . In Canada. Reuse or recycling of treated wastewater reduces effluent discharges into receiving waters and offers a reliable alternative supply of water for applications that do not require high-quality water.exall@ec. infrastructure needs. and to 500 millimetres of precipitation annually (Coote and increased consumption (Environment Canada 2001). the permitted applications are discussed and the water quality criteria are compared with other standards and guidelines. interior receiving an average of 300 shortages due to droughts. freeing up limited potable water resources. water use and the pro. reclaimed water quality. Water Qual. uses). ranging from local. Canada has abundant sources of 36. The most recent data on gross water use indi- and high consumptive use in agriculture. which may be caused by water quantity and/or water ages 600 millimetres.ca above that in advanced west European countries. Additional considerations for implementation of water reuse projects include project feasibility and planning. capacity (the level of human and financial capacity This situation is particularly serious in developing coun. Res. Incentives and Implementation Kirsten Exall. 867 Lakeshore Road. wastewater treatment. Use of reclaimed water requires a clear definition of the quality of water required. and while water quality criteria typically focus on pathogen risk to human health. with many agricultural lands in ing the 1994 to 1999 period. Burlington. Environment Canada. In spite of this favourable assess- populations. particu. cate a steadily growing total intake. with Reference to Canadian Practice and Potential: 1. There are Adequate supply of good-quality water is essential therefore regions with limited water supplies.C. on the whole.0 x 109 m3/year in 1991 water and has been ranked second best in the world (Statistics Canada 2000). to national. access (percentage of population balance between water demand. yet there remain regions with severe discrepancies between supply and demand. Canada enjoys abundant freshwater resources. nominal per capita water use in Canada remains well * Corresponding author. Alberta and British Columbia have recently produced guidance documents for water reuse projects. rising from On a national basis. and environment (indicator tries of arid and semi-arid regions of the world. with relatively abundant water supplies Canada have been experiencing water supply shortages. Key words: water reuse.7 x 109 m3/year in 1981 to 45. Various treatment technologies for on-site and central wastewater reclamation facilities are described. about 26% of municipalities limetres in the high Arctic to over 3500 millimetres with water supply systems reported water shortages dur- along the Pacific Coast. for continuing development of Canadian society and its larly in periods of droughts and high water demands. use (domestic. J. Both health and environmental risk assessments are important steps in designing criteria for reuse projects. quality problems. guidelines Introduction Water Poverty Index (Sullivan. At the most recently reported (after Finland) in a recent international survey of the level of 343 L/capita/day (Environment Canada 2001). industrial and agricultural tial scales. Annual precipitation in Canada aver. infrastructure problems. chemical contaminants may also limit suitability for some reuse applica- tions. or regional. 1. economics.

the interest in water reuse will increase. such as in the Middle East. many munici. partly from savings on expansion of the water sup. Among these factors. • Reclaimed water is treated effluent of a quality Criteria suitable for a specific reuse application. although in Japan. the most common applications of reclaimed water regulatory environment is created.S. As predetermined water quality. At present. water reuse is accepted by the relatively small scale. and increasing demands on least 25 years ago. Other water reuse applications In recent years. and potable reuse. 2001). such as Japan. only tem in which reclaimed water is transported to about 11% is consumed and the rest (89%) is returned. The field is also growing reuse. • Water recycling or recirculation typically refers to plies. when the Canada Mortgage and improved wastewater pollution control in support of ben. In a modern integrated large-scale Canadian projects on this subject (Canviro approach to solving this problem. Glob- general public. 2001). Countries with regional water water availability. one the related water reuse issues. includes municipal wastewater (representing a mixture of wastewater from residential. and densely popu- provides a well-defined context for water reuse. Direct reuse refers to a sys. such as Florida. regulatory feasi. water availability is probably the most important one. and public acceptance. reclaimed water is more com- Brief History of Water Reuse monly applied to non-potable urban reuse applications (Ogoshi et al. industrial been somewhat standardized and the following common reuse. sur- terms were paraphrased after Asano (1998): face water augmentation and groundwater recharge. its spread in Canada is much more the discharge of polluted effluents into receiving waters. charge of an effluent into receiving waters (sur- palities are faced with the challenge of providing water face or ground water) for assimilation and with- supply to their growing population. Under certain circum. economic incentives. and MacLaren Engineers Inc. the term wastewater dwindle. which facilitates water demands increase and the readily available supplies reuse. commer. rapidly in regions with severe restrictions on disposal of ply and wastewater treatment infrastructures. in the personal and government sectors. 1984) and water cycle based management has been promoted. also practise extensive bility. Spain and Italy. In this context. developed standards or guidelines dealing with water . the concept of total Consultants Ltd. This challenge is further exacerbated by uncertain. • Water reuse is the use of treated wastewater for Numerous countries. coastal and Thus. states and organizations have beneficial purposes. and mostly in isolated cases. Since that time. Water Quality Criteria. The greatest water reuse occurs in world regions thus reducing their pollution. southwest. rainwater and stormwater collection and reuse. gross intake. While worldwide water solution to the challenge is water reuse. other sectors of the economy and relying on finite sup. usually treated and returned back into the ties with respect to future water availability. are in agricultural and landscape irrigation (including golf courses). water reuse is practised in Canada on a where water is scarce. economic benefits may be derived from water tralia or the U. water recycling and reuse (Ogoshi et al. Indirect reuse implies dis- mostly as discharges of wastewater. as concluded that water reuse for practically all purposes “the integrated use and management of surface waters (including potable water supply) was technologically fea- (including treated wastewater and stormwater discharges) sible. resource disparities. treated wastewater effluents. extreme weather patterns and climatic changes. the concept of total water cycle management island areas of France. limited. new chemicals of concern have and groundwater across the urban landscape to secure a been identified (endocrine disruptors. and controlling wastewater discharge into receiving industrial systems. Guidelines cial. Thus. is economically feasible and a supportive ally. The lated European countries such as England and Germany extent to which water reuse is practised then depends on (Lazarova et al. These applications will be described in fur- • Wastewater reclamation involves treatment to a ther detail in the accompanying article (Exall 2004). the points of reuse. Within this holistic concept. Housing Corporation (CMHC) sponsored one of the first eficial uses of receiving water. suffering water scarcity. Aus- stances. economic and environmental benefits” and personal care products) and there is a need to revisit (Lawrence et al. pharmaceuticals range of social. because of industrial process. the terminology used in water reuse has include on-site residential/greywater reuse. plus and Regulations permitted inflows of rainwater or stormwater. in which the effluent is recov- waters. increased competition across provincial and national boundaries for The interest in water reuse in Canada emerged at limited water supplies. which facilitates reuse has been rapidly rising and some experts consider the use of treated municipal effluents as a new source for water reuse to be the greatest challenge of the 21st cen- non-potable water supply. in competition with drawals downstream. ered. 1999).2 Exall et al. and at the same time reduces tury (Asano 2002). institutional and industrial sources). 2001).

and concerns about entry into water supplies possible surrogates for animal viruses has been suggested. Recalcitrant organics resist conventional species.. They determined that the water chemistry may impact process performance. Some of acterized by total organic carbon (TOC). Servos et al. wastewater treatment processes. but that increasing the control measures inhalation of aerosols containing volatile organic com- required would impact the price of reclaimed water. treatment larly monitored in water reuse projects can be classified reliability. into about half a dozen groups. 2000). nutrients. ing waters. viruses. and The foremost bacteria of concern include Salmonella consume oxygen. effectiveness. the use of coliphages as aquifers. increased in recent years with respect to such new chemi- There are currently no suitable surrogates for helminth ova cals of concern as endocrine disruptors. Water Reuse 1: Incentives and Implementation 3 reuse. and therapeutic products (e. they can be quite poor indicators Additionally. They also reduce the effectiveness of UV dis- isms are commonly used. recalcitrant organics. as they can remain viable for an extended environment and are toxic to plants and animals. although they may The criteria chosen for inclusion in guidelines and be the main health concerns for potable reuse. Typical analytical controls usually recommended for reuse facilities water quality concerns for industrial reuse or recycling (typically based only on bacterial indicators) are insuffi. demand (BOD). Salgot et al. which should be ity of reclaimed water for uses such as food crop irrigation. soil productivity (Crook 1998). objective in treating wastewater for reuse. generally containing reference to reclaimed be affected by chemical constituents. In general. and cern in reclaimed water (Drewes et al. Biodegradable pathogens of concern in raw municipal wastewater can organics are usually characterized by biochemical oxygen be classified in four main groups: bacteria. Suspended solids provide various environmental conditions (Crook 1998). Heavy metals may accumulate in the wastewater. Although not yet standard. distribution systems. Heberer et viability of the oocysts can be difficult to determine al. Criteria address public health and environmental industrial applications. Asano and Levine 1998). corrosion. as well as impacts on worker health. Cryptosporidium oocysts are com. protozoan and helminthic pathogens (WHO concern where reclaimed water may enter groundwater 1989). Shigella species. Intestinal parasites commonly found in waste. Typically they are char- would therefore be present in raw wastewater. 2001. and indirect potable reuse may also protection. when reaching receiv- (tape worm) and Ascaris lumbercoides (round worm). pharmaceuticals or protozoan parasites. Residual chlorine is toxic to many aquatic organ- tion of pathogens depends on such factors as the sources isms and has to be removed prior to discharge to receiving contributing to the wastewater. determined for both human health and environmental . including biodegradable The removal of pathogens is typically the prime organics. and protozoa (Alberta Environment 2000). include scaling. Campylobacter jejuni and wastewater treatment and may be toxic in the environ- Escherichia coli. regulations depend on the assessed risk. surrogate or indicator organ. Chlorine may react with organ- in the contributing population. In on-land disposal. transport for trace organic constituents and heavy metals. Their period of time outside of their hosts (Cooper and presence limits the acceptability of reclaimed water for irri- Olivieri 1998). Norwalk agent and phorus and potassium are nutrients required for plant rotavirus. Finally. Sedlak et al. (2001) reviewed For industrial water reuse and recycling. 2001). The main residual chlorine. growth and thereby enhance the value of reclaimed water water include helminthic species such as Taenia species for agricultural irrigation. There are also over 100 strains of ment. as changes to reclamation and water reuse. fouling and cient to guarantee a lack of risks or even an acceptable foaming. microorganisms. their presence may limit the suitability of reclaimed enteric viruses that can be endemic in a community. water qual- biological control tools commonly used in wastewater ity requirements tend to be industry-specific. Hermanowicz et al. 2002. high levels of dissolved solids may (which are broadly equivalent to thermotolerant coliforms) reduce the suitability of reclaimed water for irrigation pur- may be used as indicator organisms for pathogens in gen.g. organics provide food for helminths. such as by level of risk. however. Nitrogen. The chemicals regu- water quality. However. The suitabil. and the ability of the ics in receiving waters and form chlorinated organics. Chemical constituents are generally not a health con. 2001. pounds or microbiological pathogens (Ng et al. the occurrence and concentra. and suspended solids. for this reason. The ova of helminths and the leach into groundwater and cause exceedance of drinking cysts and oocysts of protozoa are of most concern in water standards. infectious agents to survive outside of the host under which may be harmful to health. heavy metals. impact adversely on disinfection. cern for urban uses of reclaimed water. Some monly used to represent protozoa. In general. the existence of disease waters (by dechlorination). if applied over extended time periods. ial pathogens. 2002. (Cooper and Olivieri 1998). Total or fecal coliform bacteria infection. phos- the most common are Poliovirus. they may contribute to eutrophication or and protozoan species such as Giardia lamblia and enhanced productivity. Routine monitoring for every known pathogen is react with disinfectants and thereby reduce disinfection unrealistic. and use area controls. chemical constituents become of major of viral. poses and. nitrogen may Cryptosporidium parvum. biological growth. and water for some reuse applications. reduce eral and provide a reasonably reliable indication of bacter. gation. although an accurate recent studies focus specifically on new chemicals of con- and precise method of determination is still lacking.

recreational and developing pollutant loading guidelines for irrigation with landscape impoundments. were established. largely to improve attainability for devel- Shuval et al. and the use of land treatment/reuse sys- and chemical content. exposure assessment. legislation of water reuse applications is the respon- Environmental risk assessment is becoming increas. and indirect potable reuse. Tanaka et al. The AR technique in the near future (Blumenthal et al. Included in the manual are suggested guide- ciated with water reuse projects. attenuate and guidelines for wastewater treatment processes. California ingly recognized as an important tool to ensure that the and Texas are the more active states pursuing water reuse. Arizona. these intake of crops grown on wastewater-affected soils.” which requires that the median concentration of tions of development or implementation. Canada. treatment technique and microbiological content.2 European countries. A method of developing human health. sibility of individual states.S. the U. Quality monly cited are those of the World Health Organisation levels include “disinfected secondary-2. groundwater reclaimed water. states also have per 100 millilitres. the U. and the “low technology/low were based on epidemiological studies and on the fact that cost/controlled risk” technique of real or attributable in many developing countries. there are no federal regula- risk to the population (Anderson et al.. the manual suggests mizing the soil’s capacity to assimilate. Florida.2 recycled water. gent than those given by some other standards. it was suggested that meeting wells and areas accessible to the public. urban reuse. monitor- detoxify chemicals.S. and many U. including growth-inducing impacts. water. 2000).S. 1998. These standards cost/low risk” approach. Ganoulis and Papalopoulou 1996). In the U. the stringent limits required might be difficult for some communities. impact assessment documents.4 Exall et al. and setback distances from potable water supply logical balances in the soil. The WHO guidelines identification. were also discussed. tode egg per L for irrigation of crops likely to be eaten raw 2001. EPA pub- (1996) have described the preparation of environmental lished the manual “Guidelines for Water Reuse” (U. have been regularly updated and are used as a basis in the development of standards worldwide (Crook 1998). ways in which total coliform bacteria in the disinfected effluent does not the different national approaches to water recycling reg. At this time. one based on preventing pollutant accu. The quality of the ulations could be linked to form international guidelines water required is determined by the type of application. The State of California adopted the first related guidelines using the latter approach was derived by reclamation and reuse standards in 1918 to address the considering the food chain transfer of pollutants through use of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation. and dual water systems loading rates (Anderson et al. as well as hydraulic and nutrient tems. EPA (1992) and the State of Cali. there exist no national guidelines World Health Organisation. such as soil impacts and lines for various applications of water reuse. ing. effects of reclaimed water applications on soil and ground. Technical guidelines and in some cases state regulations water are sustainable in the long term. recharge. dose-response are currently undergoing review and will likely be revised assessment. As well as specifying mulation in waste-receiving soil. In the WHO report “Health on wastewater reclamation and water reuse. factors. Kontos and Asano are growing in popularity.S. and risk characterization. tion of total coliform bacteria in the disinfected effluent Australia. restricted access area irrigation. In 1992. although ment (QRA). Factors often taken have been established that cover a wide range of water into account in environmental risk assessments include salt reuse practices. the main health risks are risk (AR).S. have also been discussed (Anderson et al. of their own. 2001). reclaimed water quality guidelines. is based on epidemiological studies. on-site treatment and reuse. guideline values of ≤1000 applied is therefore also of great importance and has total coliform units per 100 mL and ≤1 intestinal nema- been considered by many researchers (Anderson et al. California. 2001). 1997. and “disinfected secondary-23 recycled water reuse guidelines or regulations in various condi.” (WHO 1989). tions. The coliform guideline is much less strin- Two main approaches have been quantitative risk assess. The QRA technique entails four steps: hazard associated with helminthic diseases. Interest in guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and reuse applications has grown in regions experiencing . The Guidelines and Regulations California Code of Regulations Title 22 (State of Califor- nia 2001) defines wastewater quality in terms of both The water reuse guidelines or regulations most com. described as the “high technology/high the helminth egg restrictions are included. The method of health risk assessment that is aquaculture” (WHO 1989). and practices or guidelines are then based on incurring no incremental United States. particularly in reference to EPA 1992) to aid those areas without criteria or standards water reuse applications in California. oping countries. (1996) compared two approaches to irrigation for food and non-food crops. While the former aims to maintain eco. agricultural Chang et al. 2001). meaning recycled water in which the median concentra- fornia Title 22 regulations (State of California 2001). and the other on maxi. Specific effects asso. exceed a MPN of 23 per 100 millilitres. Sakaji and Funamizu 1998. many Middle Eastern and Mediterranean does not exceed a most probable number (MPN) of 2. industrial reuse.

The general characteristics of vari- hydrology (with reference to surface water bodies or ous water reuse guidelines and regulations around the domestic wells nearby). munity planning goals and integration of water supply grams. Potential hazards and benefits are discussed. The guidelines are meant to ensure that the regulatory requirements prescribed in the Municipal reclaimed municipal wastewater is used for irrigation only Sewage Regulation (MSR) (BC MELP 1999). major cations and anions. water quality: unrestricted public access (Category 1) and Only certain crops are considered to be suitable for restricted public access (Category 2. electrical conductivity [EC]. crop cooling. greenhouses. stream augmentation. ity and treatment requirements for two categories of tions. and various irrigation system design considerations. frost protection. and landscape irrigation). Application load. Wastewater irrigation as a the May 2001 document. and wastewater infrastructure needs. the details of excessive leaching or runoff from site). coarse grains. Other major nutrients generally do not exceed relating to water reuse. records and reporting. com- as factors to be considered when planning reuse pro. silvicul- such as bacteriological quality (potential human ture. Texas. nutrients. monitoring. annual crop uptake requirements. from two quality lev- ing. the objective of the guidelines is to Code of Practice (CoP) serves as a guidance document for help wastewater systems owners and consultants with the the use of reclaimed water in the province and to support approval process. parks. Alberta. exceed the annual crop nutrient removal rates. 2 of the MSR gives the treatment. evap. driveway and street and metals) are considered. and oil seeds. Water Reuse 1: Incentives and Implementation 5 water quantity or quality concerns. fire fighting. and both of reclaimed water that may be applied in an irrigation Alberta and British Columbia have produced guidelines season. snow and ice making. as well as specifying lev- uptake needs. The number of water otranspiration and seasonal crop moisture demands). Requirements and consid- reclaimed water for irrigation. and industrial uses. which supports water conservation practices. “Code of Practice for the Use municipal wastewater disposal option requires authoriza. Compliance when environmentally acceptable and agriculturally bene. sodium adsorp. The minimum treatment erations for urban dual distribution systems (non-potable) requirement is primary treatment followed by seven. In April 2000. etc. pH. of Reclaimed Water: A Companion Document to the tion as defined in the Alberta Environmental Protection Municipal Sewage Regulation” (BC MELP 2001). as well as guidance on contingency month storage. Schedule include only forages. the number and type of approved water only nitrogen is likely to be restricting in terms of amount reuse applications differs for each region covered by the . quality categories or classes varies. the requirements differ. Alberta Environment published British Columbia. soil and vegetation loading limita.g. com- tion of wastewater prior to land application is required. e. In British Columbia. B. including wastewater quality characterization. public access to the water be restricted by space. water reuse is the Guidelines for Municipal Wastewater Irrigation considered for a much broader range of applications in (Alberta Environment 2000). and scientific studies that ensure there are no associated specifies the uses for which each is approved. as well B. water quality and Other crops to be considered need to be supported by monitoring requirements for categories 1 and 2. and cropping intentions. enhancement. While all documents layout to optimize crop moisture and nutrient use while contain coliform level limits for the use of reclaimed avoiding potential drawbacks (uneven distribution. which requires that production on lands to be irrigated with treated munici.. disinfec. drift. ponds and COD. to include required reclaimed water storage and sprinkler five separate categories in Arizona. along with considerations for use and specific design Reclaimed water suitability for irrigation is based on suggestions. storage and fencing. world are compared in Table 1. munications and emergency response plans. dust suppression and soil dards exist for both restricted and unrestricted use of compaction. climate (mean precipitation. with the CoP and MSR enables use of reclaimed water in ficial. The uses include: irrigation (with sub-headings water quality parameters. water in unrestricted irrigation applications. habitat restoration/ tion ratio [SAR]. although Accordingly. Treated effluent quality stan. Site acceptability for irrigation and because of this. golf courses. are also discussed. Wastewater irrigation may only be used in regions Guidelines and regulations tend to be specific to the where additional moisture applied can be used for reuse application and the area in which reuse is to occur improved crop production. and applied moisture and nutrient Descriptions of reclaimed water use applications are loading rates can be properly utilized by the crop. topography. time or pal wastewater in Alberta. TSS. As well. however. The CoP gives qual- land suitability factors. turf. washing. storage..C. toilet and urinal flushing. The and Enhancement Act. given. where warranted by public options for surplus reclaimed water. straightforward comparison between is based on geologic and soil properties.. labelling. System design considerations els allowed by Alberta.. human health risks. General health-related aspects of crop irrigation. commercial vehicle. The current authorized crops commercial processing of agricultural products). The amount of nutrients applied may not els that are not to be exceeded in any single sample. Many include restrictions on ing rates depend on individual crop moisture and nutrient median or mean coliform levels. zon.C. decorative uses. standards is difficult. chemical pathogens) and general chemical parameters (BOD. spraying. health concerns. and the WHO.

and suppliers. many of which are proprietary Visvanathan et al. U. The moderate cost . b TC. state Number of reclaimed Coliform limit for unrestricted or province water quality classes irrigation (per 100 mL) Reference WHO guidelines 2 <200 FC World Health Organisation (1989) U. c MPN. 1998. State of Washington (1997) ≤ 23 TC (single sample) Texas regulations 2 ≤ 20 FC (geometric mean). Most of the documents also isolated industries.K. MELP (1999) ≤ 14 FC (single sample) a FC.. A number of the uations are considered—on-site. Jowett and McMaster 1994). facilities. Basic two-stage sys- tems consisting of coarse filtration with chemical disin- Decentralized wastewater reclamation and water reuse is fection represented the most common technology used practised for individual homes and clusters of homes. signage and labelling. the most common and many include requirements for such aspects of the types of reuse are agricultural and landscape irrigation. chapters 3 to 8. In the disinfection (Lazarova et al. contractors and consul- tion. Visvanathan et al. regulations and guidelines. condi- reuse strategy and the type of treatment under considera. setback distances from and toilet flushing. service operations and institutional contain treatment process requirements or suggestions. but are primarily intended as greywater treatment techniques. technologies described are not well suited to treatment of or treatment at the central plant. Alberta Environment (2000) ≤ 1000 TC (geometric mean).2 FC (median). B. Tchobanoglous et applied in water reclamation and reuse and in industrial al. Full reviews of such technologies can be Waller et al. information is included for each method on mation are common in the literature. EPA (1992) application) ≤ 14 FC (single sample) California regulations 4 ≤ 2. suitabil- approaches may be required depending on the overall ity to small flows. golf courses and parks only British Columbia guidelines 2 ≤ 2.S. and reviews on described numerous treatment techniques applicable to advanced treatment processes (State of California 2003a. Most probable number. EPA guidelines ~3 (specific to No detectable FCa (median). project as monitoring frequency. or for domestic water reuse in the U. Different treatment principles. tants specializing in the technique. 2001. former report.C. capital costs. TABLE 1. There is a vast array of treatment technologies that can be 2000. State of California (2001) ≤ 23 TC (single sample) Florida regulations Application ≤ 25 FC (in 70% of samples Crook (1998) specific per month) Arizona regulations 5 ≤ 2.2 FC (median).2 TC (mean). Comparison of general characteristics of water reuse guidelines and regulations Agency. two sit. decentralized treatment. containing blackwater). and storage. on-site reuse and recycling. With respect to the treatment plant location.6 Exall et al. (1998) and Townshend (1993) have found in Asano (1998). Under such circumstances. operation and maintenance. Other systems used include biologi- for Reclamation and Reuse cal treatment units. membrane systems and shallow dis- posal trenches (Jefferson et al. 2000. ment is a septic tank serving for partial treatment of the wastewater.e. tions for success. effluent quality.2 TCb (MPNc). State of Texas (1997) ≤ 75 FC (single sample) South Australia guidelines 4 ≤ 10 thermotolerant coliform South Australia EPA (1999) organisms (median) Alberta guidelines 2 ≤ 200 FC (geometric mean). The most frequently used type of treat- potable water sources. Total coliforms. Mujeriego and Asano 1999) and processes designed or sold by Canadian companies. combined wastewater (i. On-site Wastewater Reclamation Jefferson et al. Roeleveld and Maaskant 1999. Fecal coliforms. and a subsurface disposal field for final treat- Wastewater Treatment Technologies ment of tank effluent. (1999) evaluated various technologies and Water Reuse available for domestic water reuse. water recycling.S. 1999) for wastewater recla. State of Arizona (2001) ≤ 25 FC (single sample) Washington guidelines 4 ≤ 2.

Water Reuse 1: Incentives and Implementation 7 of such systems offers a minimum payback period of water of acceptable quality. total resources costs over time to meet project objectives. Biological treatment of greywater is water projects. coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation. and may be useful tools in decision making for reclaimed quality water. code/cross-connection control. cling. filtra. nutrient removal. nitrification. These have been Critical evaluation of past projects and experiences in used to effectively remove organics and other contami. General per. Two Project Implementation processes described are membrane bioreactors (MBRs) and biologically aerated filters (BAF). demands did not arise. Planning and demand analy- stricted irrigation under the WHO rules (Asano 1998). impacts. or ozone (Metcalf and Eddy. but a number of Canadian companies Non-monetary factors (intangibles) are documented specialize in such water reclamation technologies as UV. reuse project in California. projects. implemented. other areas of the world can provide needed insight for nants. fouling of membrane systems can affect the sidering conventional and alternative treatment processes. activated carbon adsorption. in occasional exceedance of proposed water quality stan. 2000. recar. ozonation. wastewater reclamation and water reuse. does not currently have water reuse stan. The primary Sakamoto et al. Mujeriego and Asano 1999). Metcalf and Eddy. rotating biological con. Some southern U. Thirteen key recommendations disinfection. objective is cost effectiveness. as well as early connection of large customers. complex projects. Problems were experienced when projected water mary treatment. lime clarification. membranes. Inc. impediments and opportuni- tion after A/S. Inc. generally multipurpose. 2001.K. including pri. ammonia stripping. and are effective in removing pathogens implementation of a successful water reclamation and and provide effluents of the quality suitable for unre. identifying the system that will result in the minimum tion of the extent of use of various treatment technolo. ability analyses of treatment facilities employing or con- However. dem. The for- and the periodic failure of the disinfection process results mer problem is generally handled by good maintenance. Low technology systems. Central Facilities for Wastewater Reclamation Mills and Asano (1996) completed a retrospective assess- ment of water reclamation projects in California to iden- The processes applied at central facilities can be divided tify the successes and failures in implementation of the into relatively low technology systems and advanced treat. Such methods allow quantitative reli- shock loads that may adversely affect biological systems. involving both mechanical reliability and oxidation are not affected by the problems of chemical plant performance. such as ology for evaluating water and wastewater treatment depth filtration. required to remove biodegradable material and prevent biological regrowth in distribution systems. chlorination. usually in the 75 percent or less of the expected amounts of water. Physical and physicochemical systems.S. There is no indica. (Table 2. including membrane processes. were Many other treatment processes have been used in all seen as important aspects of project development. Two-thirds of the projects were seen to provide ment systems. issues relating to obstacles. Wastewater reclamation and water reuse projects are bonation. Mills and Asano (1998) described a planning Additional considerations include the reliability of analysis used to determine the project feasibility by the treatment plant in consistently producing reclaimed focusing on seven major feasibility criteria: . public education and outreach. carbon adsorption. composition variability affecting effluent quality. ods and involvement of all stakeholders. Many advanced wastewater treatment process combinations have been Project Planning applied in wastewater reclamation. California’s Recycled Water Task denitrification. Lazarova et al. but can be expensive and are subject to shock by planning future applications of water reuse in Canada. and dealing with influent approximately eight years for a four-person household. and science and health. trickling filters. ties for increased recycled water usage in that state (State selective ion exchange. The selection of these processes and of were identified in the areas of funding for water recy- their combination facilitates removals of specific con. activated sludge (A/S). in rural areas with land availability. for example) are particularly experienced in water reuse. plumbing stituents to meet the water reuse criteria. Liberti et al. regulations and permit- formance of these processes is relatively well known ting. remedial steps may have to be dards (the U. gies in Canada. sis. (2001) discussed the history and low-cost systems. WSPs are simple and Hermanowicz et al. and form of waste stabilization ponds (WSPs). economics. Force recently produced a report identifying twenty-six tactors. chlorine. are used widely the problems leading to these deficiencies were discussed. descriptively by determining their significance and membranes and biofiltration. (2001) described a method- dards). which require ineralization by reverse osmosis. to address the latter one. states (California and Florida. 2003). which is determined by 1999. 2003. coagulation or advanced plant reliability. and disinfection with the use of commensurate multi-objective planning meth- UV. and UV of California 2003b). bactericidal agents used in households. filtration. Eisenberg et al. economic viability of such systems and result in poor.

Intermediate 25–50%. c +. Good removals >50%. 8 TABLE 2. Inc. b ++. Low <25%. Foaming agents +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ + Total coliform +++ +++ + +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ a +++./ Filtration Carbon Reverse Constituent sludge (A/S) Nitrification Denitrification filter contactor sedimentation after A/S adsorption osmosis Ozonation Chlorination UV a c TSS +++ +++ + +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ TDS +++ Turbidity +++ +++ + ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ Colour ++b ++ + +++ ++ +++ +++ +++ BOD +++ +++ + +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ + COD +++ +++ + +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ +++ TOC +++ +++ + ++ +++ ++ +++ +++ +++ Phosphorus ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ NH3-N +++ +++ + +++ + ++ ++ +++ NO3-N +++ ++ + Cadmium +++ +++ + ++ +++ ++ + Copper +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ + ++ Iron +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ Lead +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ + ++ Zinc ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ Exall et al. Coag. ./floc. 2003) Unit process Activated Trickling Rotating biol. Unit processes for wastewater reclamation (after Metcalf and Eddy.

ity location and capacities. including facil. This always be cheaper than potable water. these need to be considered when water for landscape irrigation and toilet flushing in assessing the project feasibility. the report • Financial feasibility—two types of issues need to noted that the main barriers to implementation were the be addressed: financing construction/project lack of regulations and guidance. In California. trols and inspections are also essential in protecting pub- • Social impact and public acceptance—winning lic health (Holliman 1998). storage needs most water management projects. across the country. codes. Additionally. In fact. where most areas have applications). and odour problems. in • Institutional feasibility—water reuse projects which one system is used for potable water and a second involve interaction of various institutions exert. for reclaimed water. purple pipe has become the standard. taking into locally specific modes of operation. agement techniques or use of underground storage aquifers (Okun 1997. and both of which may be controlled with appropriate man- reclaimed water pricing policy. which may have reclamation using various treatment trains. and concluded that there were no absolute regula- scarce areas. A market assessment provides data needed of water quality by growth of microorganisms or pests to formulate project alternatives. as well as plumbing/building codes and municipal acceptable in urban. Storage system design who are both able and willing to use reclaimed requires consideration of evaporation and degradation water.) would be innovative reuse technologies with that of more tradi- affected by the plumbing code. project may impact on receiving waters and some of the Waller (2000) and Waller and Salah (1999) compared federal responsibilities. ously the interactions among all these institutions need to tives. uses brown pip- ject planning stage. these ing to distribute reclaimed water. was built in the 1920s to supply reclaimed national. equipment purchases. Grand Canyon Village in Arizona (Okun 1997). tory barriers to on-site reuse in Canada. Infrastructure Needs ity of subsidies. Con.S. which have to be evaluated at the pro. distribution and storage costs may be tions. Specific aspects of reclaimed water the costs and benefits. pollution-sensitive or water. Finally. marking of pipes. or potable water back-up must be provided to meet • Market feasibility—a key step in planning a water demand in case of a plant upset or other main supply reuse project is to identify users or customers interruption (Holliman 1998). The • Environmental impact—water reuse projects need for adequate labelling and signage of dual distribu- change flows of water. and cost-effectiveness. The first dual distribution system in ing influence at levels ranging from local to the U. 1996). Florida. Cross-connection con- impacts can be either beneficial or adverse. Petersburg. These issues are particularly through the day and year (particularly in irrigation important in Canada. public support has become a key requirement for In order to plan adequate system size. Measured locally. and generating revenue. and the operation of the With respect to on-site residential water reuse in Canada. which is established at the tional wastewater servicing. but added review included both health and environmental regula- treatment. water users may also represent commercial or industrial and operation and maintenance costs needed to achieve . demand for reclaimed water varies tion and reuse. including plumbing implementation. Although reclaimed water sup- extreme importance in the case of water reclama. reclaimed water rates need to be established. tion systems often results in the use of coloured pipe or ated pollutants. such as mosquito populations. Obvi- health protection. Mujeriego et al. while the City of St. Typically. wastewater and associ. emergency storage water will be seriously questioned by the public. The design. a municipality would be involved in collec- tion and treatment of wastewater and the distribution of Economics reclaimed water. Richard (1998) described a national level. struction financing addresses sources of capital funds and associated interests. and matching of supply and demand for Canadian Water and Wastewater Association (1997) reclaimed water must be evaluated. adequate daily and seasonal storage must abundant water resources and the need to reuse therefore be provided. impacts. Water Reuse 1: Incentives and Implementation 9 • Engineering feasibility—water quality. design criteria. the reclaimed consideration facility construction. public entities with their own guidelines and regulations. and it is of must also be considered. storage and treatment system siting and be considered when assessing the project feasibility. Further changes in these arrangements may detailed methodology for estimating costs of wastewater be introduced by private water agencies. wastewater treatment alterna. Urban water reuse requires a dual distribution system. and thereby exert environmental tape. bylaws. investigated the existence of regulatory barriers to the • Economic feasibility—reclaimed water may not implementation of on-site water reuse in Canada. and the availabil. etc. of several distribution (plumbing. Provincial guidelines or criteria would govern the quality of such water. ply is fairly constant. In revenue generation.

such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals and phar- accepted by the general public. sharing the decision-making and problem-solving tional considerations for implementation of water reuse responsibilities. restrictions of potable supply. Approximately 52% of providers and 19% of cur- subsidies and grants. economics. (2001) discussed key economic. which are required for the suc. reuse applications are generally better issues. are beginning to be exam- reviewed principles of sound and proactive communication ined. cled water quality was warranted. Alberta. Approximately 79% of respondents had Asano T (ed. able and have been well described in the literature. benefits of reuse projects include improved environmental nutrients and salinity. reduced discharge of nutrients processes. and a case study devel. of recycled water in Queensland. The main reasons for establishing a ious methods have been applied. Guidelines for municipal Higgins et al. (c) raise issues early and avoid surprises. utilities operating reclaimed ment. householders. and (d) produced guidance documents for water reuse applications identify the project opponents and their issues. However. 2001. with a broad representation. Lazarova et al. Water from (waste) water – the dependable ents and organics. Australia. Wegner-Gwidt (1998) maceuticals in reclaimed water. source for non-potable water supply. infrastruc- the community support. developing a series of educational/information activ. 1998. non-users planned to commence doing so within 5 years. social and technical factors that ods such as monitoring programs. regulatory. water reuse projects are often underval. ture needs. Asano T. (2002) surveyed users and providers wastewater irrigation. var- cess of reuse projects. Technol. into receiving waters. Water Sci. treatment quality and public health. A survey of pricing Within the holistic concept of total water cycle manage- strategies utilized by 23 U. Guidelines and regula- communication process are to (a) inform and educate the tions dealing with water reuse projects exist around the public. Water Sci. since they generate Areas identified for further research included quality both monetary and non-monetary benefits. The Consumer acceptance of water reuse largely depends on microbiological health risks and chemical contaminants of the perceived need for alternative water sources. and 30% of in full. facilitates the use of treated municipal effluents as a new oped for the city of Tucson. Adin A. when reclaimed water have been well described. Wastewater reclamation and reuse. 45(8):23–33. van der Merwe B. usage options and economic factors. and focusing on winning and maintaining projects include project feasibility and planning. and that few projects recover costs rent users planned to expand their usage.10 Exall et al. one solution to the challenge is water reuse. 43(10):1–8. but a great deal can be learned from the experiences of other countries. Various treatment technologies for on- munication process is best implemented by soliciting public site and central wastewater reclamation facilities are avail- input. 2002. Climbing the ladder: a step-by-step approach to applied research. It was and provision of information could help allay many con- noted that most water reuse projects have been helped by cerns.S. was discussed. generally being of lower quality. and conservation of recreational land. Vol. Alberta Environment. Hultquist R. and emerging water is scarce. in those provinces. industries. and Technol. Sheikh B.). . Davis C. serves to make a vital connec- tion between the government and citizens. (b) add public input to the development of the final world. Conclusions Cuthbert and Hajnosz (1999) discussed the difficul- ties involved in setting prices for reclaimed water. 10. Reuse or recycling of Okun (1997) noted that some large users have paid treated wastewater reduces effluent discharges into receiv- higher prices for reclaimed water to ensure continuation ing waters and offers a reliable alternative supply of water of service where critical water shortages could cause for applications that do not require high-quality water. water reuse is currently prac- Social Impact and Public Acceptance tised infrequently in Canada. As compared to other countries worldwide. New York. Arizona. Health and environmental risk assessments are and education programs. ued in comparison to other projects. contribute to the success of water reuse projects. ranging from microbiolog. April 2000. Crook J. A citizens’ advisory committee. lower drinking water treatment costs. which Despite abundant freshwater resources in Canada on the may cost more to provide than potable water. Jimenez- concerns about recycled water quality and directions for Cisneros B. Edmonton. there are regions where demand exceeds supply. Kennedy W. education programs. Some of the issues such as microbiological and organic constituents. One of the best References ways to illustrate the benefits of water reuse is to organize presentations and/or visits of successful projects. which water systems was summarized. important steps in designing criteria for reuse projects. water quality requirements for a number of end-use recommended that further research on aspects of recy- options. and public acceptance. freeing up limited potable water resources. Addi- ities. and Alberta and British Columbia have recently approach. concerns about water quality. However. ical components to salinity-related characteristics. Respondents represented sports clubs. international guidelines for water recycling. agriculture. nutri. as well as whole. environmental groups. indicating that meth- financial. The com. only 33% of respondents water resource. to determine Anderson J. health and safety issues. CRC Press.

Cooper RC. 42(1–2):215–220. July 1999. 43(10):9–16. 10. Urban storm drainage. Inc. A retrospective assessment of water rates. Hermanowicz SW. 1996. Papalopoulou A. IB. Technol. 2001. Asano T. technologies on biological stability of industrial water. 8th Int. Roeleveld PJ. Sci. Infectious disease concerns in Lazarova V. B. Pommepuy M. Jeffrey P. Stephenson T. Water Sci. 57–111. Water Sci. SOE Bulletin No. Wastewater engineering. Water Sci. p. Sanchez Diaz E. 1996. Carbo M. sewage to drinking water: fate and removal of pharmaceu. York. p. Olivieri AW. Laine A. CRC Press. Eisenberg D. Soller J. Sherman PP. Sydney. 1996. Technol. Parsons S. 1999.). Kontos N. 43(10):91–99. with ref. 1994. Aug. Waste. 4th edition. The effects of water reclamation erence to Canadian practice and potential: 2. 1996. Canada 39(1):13–28. 3. BC MELP (British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 10. Marsalek J. 1998. Technol. Hu JY. The health of our water: Liberti L. 2001. Technol. Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Ottawa. Page AB. Hajnosz AM. reuse. Water Res. Water Sci. 2001.). Lands Jowett EC. Janex ML. Urban water indicators: municipal Mujeriego R. Wastewater reclamation. 2003. Canadian Water and Wastewater Association. Asano T. Wastewater reclamation 2000. Victoria. 627–703. Ng WJ. users and providers of recycled water: quality concerns and Wastewater reclamation and reuse. New York. 1–56. Holliman TR. Eng. human health-related chemical guidelines for reclaimed Salgot M. projects. In Asano T (ed. In Asano T (ed. Total urban CANWEL. Coe J. mation and reuse. wastewater reuse. Drewes J. Warnken J. New York. Code of practice for the use of Jefferson B. In Asano T (ed. ability. Water Sci. reclamation projects. A feasibility study on ultra- problems and pitfalls of urban water reuse: a case study. revising WHO guidelines. Savoye P. 46(3):81–88. in wastewater reclamation and reuse.). Comparison of advanced disinfecting Branch. New state of the art and perspectives. Ellis BJ. public health assessment of reclaimed water quality for land- 2001–1. Victoria. 1998. Turet J.). 1998. Water Sci. pal Sewage Regulation. 43(10):25–33. Wastewater recla- Water Sci. 36:5035–5056. Judd S. Vol. Suzuki Y. 43(10):211–218. 1984. Environment Canada. and reuse. Technol. treat- p. In Asano T (ed. 1998. 2001. Wastewater reclamation ment. 1998. applications. Technol. B. 1999. Notarnicola M. Agronomic and water use and wastewater treatment. J. and Parks).). Vol. Proc. Levine B. Survey of and reuse: an introduction. Prospects. Cuthbert RW. Redderson K. Sakaji R. Barnea N. 43(10):17–23.. Water Sci. Lands Water 1(4):285–292. Sala L. Vol. Technol. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. . Asano T. 2002. A new single-pass aerobic and Parks). Cirelli G. Canviro Consultants Ltd. Technol. Chang AC.C. Technol. Okun D. J. 30–Sept. 1999. Technol. Vol. Richard D. 10. Advanced reclaimed water: a companion document to the Municipal biological unit processes for domestic water recycling. 2000.C. 1996.). Exall K. Muntau H. 1999. methods for municipal wastewater reuse in agriculture. Ottawa. Waste Management Act – Munici. Planning and analysis of water reuse cals during indirect potable reuse. Summary water cycle based management. Lopez A. McGraw Hill Inc. CRC Press. Mechlinski A. 91(8):50–57. toward sustainable agriculture in Canada. Water Sci. In Asano T (ed. Technol. Sack J. Stott R. p. 33(10–11):473–486. Teasdale PR. 2004. Ruiz-Palacios G.). Guidelines for the microbiological quality of treated and reuse. filtration of industrial effluents. 2001. Ottawa. Urban BC MELP (British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Developing Lazarova V. scape irrigation. Vol. In Asano T (ed. Regula. Ottawa. J. Environmental assessment for tory barriers to on-site water reuse. Ball JE (ed. 10. 43(10):327–334. Technologies for domestic wastewater recycling. p. Ong SL. Blatchley ER. Lawrence I. Hespanhol I. Water Sci. disposal and reuse. 1997. Technol. 1999. Blumenthal UJ. McMaster ML. 1335–1395. The Canadian water energy loop. Mara DD. A methodol.). Amer. 1999. Water Reuse 1: Incentives and Implementation 11 Asano T. Technol. Water reuse in Japan. recycling Higgins J. p. Ont. 2001. Ganoulis J. Metcalf and Eddy. Water Qual. directions for applied research. Maaskant W. Amer. The role of advanced treatment ogy to evaluate water and wastewater treatment plant reli. Sewage Regulation. Peasey A. Water Sci. 33(10–11): Water Sci. 33(10–11): ing integrated water management in Europe and Mediter- 463–472. 2000. Brissaud F. Report to Canada wastewater reclamation and reuse projects. 489–520. A review of water reuse and recycling. 297–302. Vol. New York. Fate of pharmaceuti. Judd S. The cost of wastewater reclamation and tical residues in the aquatic environment in urban areas. 1999. WHO 78(9):1104–1116. Conference. reclamation and reuse. biofilter for on-site wastewater treatment. Coote DR. Research Fattal B. Water reclamation and reuse criteria. 2001. New York. 40(4–5):1–9. Water Sci. From municipal tems. Bull. 10. 1997. 383–436. 33(10–11):59–70. Technol. Technol. mation and reuse. Water Sci. Ontario. Water Sci. New York. In Jolliffe report to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Environ. Risk analysis of wastewater Ogoshi M. Technol. Role of water reuse for enhanc- wastewater irrigation. CRC Press. Setting reclaimed water Mills RA. Redderson K. 40(4–5):203–213. Heberer T. CRC Press. CRC Press. Gregorich LJ (ed. and MacLaren Engineers Inc. 1998. Res. Mujeriego R. Olivieri A. 39(5):73–80. Asano T. Laine A. Wastewater recla- 46(3):73–80. Water Works Assoc. Water Works Assoc. Levine A. 89(11):52–64. wastewater used in agriculture: recommendations for Jefferson B. 10. May 2001. 2002. 33(10–11):335–344. Water Sci. Ontario. Advanced wastewater disinfection technologies: water reclamation and reuse. Crook. Technol. 6(6):28–29. New York. Asano T. Distributing reclaimed water through dual sys- Heberer T. ranean countries. 2002. Stephenson T. Mills RA. CRC Press. 1142–1149. Australia. Urbonas B. Reclaimed water distribution and storage. p. Asano T. Ont. Water Sci. J. Pedahzur R.

2000. 1997. Tapias JC. Tanaka H. Water recycling 2030: recommen. Recycled Water mation and reuse. South Australian Visvanathan C. CRC Press. and Housing Corporation. Res. tnrcc. Chapter 11. Report to Canada Mortgage http://www. Report to the environment. State of California. Sullivan C. trative Code. Washington. 34(23):508A–515A. 1993. 43(10):195–201. Ca. 57 p. California Department of Health Services. Cali. Funamizu N. reuse. 2000. for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. 1997. Wade M. Public support and education for water dations of California’s Recycled Water Task Force. Res. brane separation bioreactors for wastewater treatment. 30(1):1–48. Ottawa. Received: May 28. Adelaide. Tomowich D. 2001. 1989. Chapter 210. Technol. South Australia Environment Protection Agency and Public and Environmental Protection Agency. tive residential water and wastewater management.gov/ps/ddwem/ nologies. 2002. UV disinfec. In Asano T (ed. Ottawa. Lampert Y. tions of innovative residential water and wastewater tech- Sacramento.wa. Crites RW.113–140. Servos M. Reclaimed water quality standards.ca. Texas Adminis. Estimating the safety of wastewater reclamation and reuse Technol. Ca. 35(11–12):15–20. In Asano T (ed.). Treatment technology report for Waller DH. accepted: December 4. Title 30. 10. Water reclamation and reuse stan- dards. State of California. A Townshend AR. Development of a risk Ontario. Switzerland. p. ogy. Ottawa.htm. control tools for wastewater reclamation and reuse. Health guidelines State of Texas. Parameshwaran K. Innova- recycled water. 2000. Delorme P. Microbial risk assessment and Statistics Canada. Human activity and the environment its role in the development of wastewater reclamation pol. nol. Understanding water management systems. Economic feasibility study of wastewater zona Administrative Code. 1999. D. U. Report to Canada Mortgage and Housing Cor- publications/waterrecycling/waterrecyclingindex. Salgot M. CRC Press. Gray JL. In Asano T (ed. Advancing the “light grey option”: Canadian perspective on endocrine disrupting substances in making residential greywater reuse happen. Wa. tion for reuse applications in North America. View publication stats . 2003. 705–756. Canada 36:331–346. Sutcliffe R. Statistics Canada. New York. p.com/public_services/Title_18/18-11. http://www. recycling and technologies. Task Force. assessment approach for evaluating wastewater reuse stan. Sci. World tion and reuse. Sakaji RH.htm. Galofre B. poration. Ottawa.C. http://www. Sahely B. Part 1.html#210.gov/programs/wq/ reclaim/index. Asano T. Campos C. California health laws related to Waller DH. http://www. 1417–1462. Wastewater ical review. Ont. Report Sacramento. Environ.gov/ps/ddwem/ to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Geneva. Olympia. Ottawa. Reed SC. Development 30(7):1195–1210. Water Sci.htm. 2003. EPA/625/R-92/004. Tchobanoglous G. Use of reclaimed water.html#Standards.dhs. Water Sci. California Department of Health Services. Pinkerton KE. New York. 1998. Wastewater recla- fornia Department of Water Resources. 2001. Vol. Water Environ. Wegner-Gwidt J.ecy. 2000. Technol. Mooers JD. 10. 2001. 1992. Rev. Sakamoto G. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Wastewater reclamation and reuse. 59 p. Ontario. using enteric virus monitoring data. Sci. Salah MA.12 Exall et al. Vol. Water Sci. 1998. 2003b.S. State of Arizona. microcontaminants in recycled water. 1998. Title 18.). 2001. Ontario. Article 3. 1997. Fox G. CRC Press. WHO (World Health Organisation). Crit. Sacramento. 2003a. New York. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2000. publications/waterrecycling/waterrecyclingindex.dhs. dards for agriculture. 1998. reclamation and reuse in small and decentralized waste- Sedlak DL. icy. Calculating a water poverty index. Schroeder ED. Mem- reclaimed water guidelines (treated effluent). State of California. 37 p. 2001. Ari. Tech. State of Washington. 43(10):173–178.S.sosaz. Schwartzel D. Washington State Departments of Health and Ecol.state. Waller DH. Shuval H. South Australia. Guidelines for water reuse. Fattal B. Biological 70(1):39–51. 10. Ca. Case studies of potential applica- recycled water. 1998. Water Qual. p. J.tx. U. Ontario. Wastewater reclama.ca. Tchobanoglous G. Environ. Vol. Ben Aim R.us/oprd/rules/indxpdf3. Samostie A. Technol. Environmental Health Service. 1999. A crit.). http://www.