Economic evaluation of stormwater capture and its multiple benefits in California

Abstract

Urban stormwater is increasingly being considered a viable alternative water supply in California and throughout the southwestern U.S. However, current economic analyses of stormwater capture do not adequately examine differences in stormwater project types and do not evaluate co-benefits provided by the projects. As a result, urban stormwater capture is undervalued as a water supply option. To advance economic analyses of stormwater capture, we determined the levelized cost of water in U.S. dollar per acre-foot of water supply (AF; 1 AF = 1233.5 m 3) for 50 proposed stormwater capture projects in California, characterizing the projects by water source, process, and water supply yield. In addition, we incorporated reported co-benefits of projects into the analysis to determine the net benefit of proposed projects. Proposed urban stormwater capture projects were more expensive than non-urban stormwater capture projects on a per-volume basis ($1,180 per AF and $531 per AF, respectively); however, this was primarily driven by the relatively large size of the nonurban stormwater capture projects examined. When incorporating the limited number of reported co-benefits of the projects, the expected levelized cost of water from urban stormwater capture projects decreased dramatically. For projects that reported even a limited number of additional benefits, the net levelized cost decreased from $1,030 per AF to $150 per AF, with some of the projects demonstrating a net benefit. Thus, scaling urban stormwater capture projects to capitalize on economies of scale and incorporating co-benefits of projects can dramatically improve the economic feasibility of these projects. This work demonstrates that stormwater capture can present a cost-effective water supply option in California, and that beyond California, fairer comparisons among projects and inclusion of cobenefits can provide decision makers with adequate information to maximize investments in water management.

Impacts of Soil Health Practices on Hydrologic Processes

“…The traditional approach to managing stormwater in urban environments has relied on gray infrastructure (man-made water containment and transport systems such as ditches, sewer systems, etc.). However, in recent years green infrastructure and nature-based solutions in urban areas like rain gardens, bioswales, and green roofs have gained popularity (Berland et al 2017;Diringer et al 2020). This integration of urban land management and soil health principles has potential to reduce urban flooding and improve stormwater quality.…”

Cap. 26: Grandes Llanuras del Sur. En: La Quinta Evaluación del Clima

“…Las comunidades están empezando a acoger soluciones basadas en la naturaleza o en infraestructuras ecológicas para los retos de los recursos hídricos. La ciudad de Austin ha implantado sistemas de captación de agua, drenajes sostenibles y otras infraestructuras ecológicas en bibliotecas, escuelas y otras propiedades de la ciudad para reducir los flujos de aguas pluviales 230 . En Norman, Oklahoma, la División de Servicios Públicos está probando cómo aumentar el suministro de agua durante la sequía devolviendo agua altamente tratada de sus instalaciones de recuperación de agua a un embalse cercano (Figura 26.22) 231 .…”

Direct Potable Reuse: Are We Ready? A Review of Technological, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

“…Given the high cost of treating water for potable reuse, the first step must be to implement a community-wide water conservation plan. There are many success stories, throughout California, the US, and around the world, − that implement appliances and fixtures with higher water (and energy) use efficiency, convert landscapes to vegetation that requires almost no watering or to permeable hardscapes, eliminate leaks throughout the entire water system, and provide incentives to consumers. , …”