Wastewater Reuse for Agriculture: Development of a Regional Water Reuse Decision-Support Model (RWRM) for Cost-Effective Irrigation Sources

Abstract

Water scarcity has become a critical problem in many semiarid and arid regions. The single largest water use in such regions is for crop irrigation, which typically relies on groundwater and surface water sources. With increasing stress on these traditional water sources, it is important to consider alternative irrigation sources for areas with limited freshwater resources. One potential irrigation water resource is treated wastewater for agricultural fields located near urban centers. In addition, treated wastewater can contribute an appreciable amount of necessary nutrients for plants. The suitability of reclaimed water for specific applications depends on water quality and usage requirements. The main factors that determine the suitability of recycled water for agricultural irrigation are salinity, heavy metals, and pathogens, which cause adverse effects on human, plants, and soils. In this paper, we develop a regional water reuse decision-support model (RWRM) using the general algebraic modeling system to analyze the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment trains to generate irrigation water from reclaimed wastewater, with the irrigation water designed to meet crop requirements as well as California's wastewater reuse regulations (Title 22). Using a cost-minimization framework, least-cost solutions consisting of treatment processes and their intensities (blending ratios) are identified to produce alternative irrigation sources for citrus and turfgrass. Our analysis illustrates the benefits of employing an optimization framework and flexible treatment design to identify cost-effective blending opportunities that may produce high-quality irrigation water for a wide range of end uses.

Electrochemical removal of hexavalent chromium using electrically conducting carbon nanotube/polymer composite ultrafiltration membranes

“…This is not an unreasonable flux for UF systems, and thus, it is reasonable to expect that energy-related costs could be significantly reduced. Standard UF drinking water treatment processes are relatively inexpensive to operate, with total (capital and operations and maintenance) costs estimated to be $0.28/m 3 for a 20,000 m 3 /day plant [69]. Thus, the total cost of the Cr(VI) treatment using electrically conducting UF membranes would be $0.42/m 3 .…”

Potential Uses of Treated Municipal Wastewater in a Semiarid Region of Mexico

“…Then it would be feasible to raise crops with higher value, such as vegetables and fruits. Based on related studies [1,2,4,7,16,57,58] and on the characteristics of the study region (distance between treatment plants and agriculture zone, quality of water, deficit of green areas and scarcity of water), several benefits are expected from this scenario:…”

“…The utilization of treated wastewater implies benefits and risks as has been shown in many studies. These benefits include: reducing both stress on water bodies and pollution of freshwater [1]; decreasing fertilizer need since treated wastewater contains nutrients available for plants [2]; facilitating conservation and management of freshwater resources, thus increasing the availability of water for urban use [3] and improving economics since the price of treated water is generally lower than that of fresh water [4]. On the other hand, different risks have also been identified.…”

Developing a resilience assessment framework for the Urban Land–Water System

“…Coastal cities are experiencing significant urban landscape changes due to rapid economic development, whereby adaptive management within these coastal areas become one of the main strategies for urban planning (Bai et al, ; Mao et al, ). Traditionally, urban water management focuses on technology and effective management strategies in relation to water quantity and quality (Hering, Waite, Luthy, Drewes, & Sedlak, ; Tran, Schwabe, & Jassby, ). Recently, urbanization‐dominated issues have gained increasing attention in current urban water system management (Kalantari, Ferreira, Walsh, Ferreira, & Destouni, ; Pekel, Cottam, Gorelick, & Belward, ), in part motivating the computational characterization of dynamic land–water relationships (Nyerges, Roderick, Prager, Bennett, & Lam, ).…”