Feasibility of Aquifer Recharge Using Reclaimed Water in the Tampa Bay Area March 31, 2009 Phil Waller, P.E.

SWUCA and MIA Recovery Strategy

Aquifer Recharge Concepts Direct Aquifer Recharge Recharge Wells Indirect Aquifer Recharge Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB)

Project Scope of Work Task 1 – Similar Projects, Hydrogeology, Water Quality, and Permitting Summary Task 2 – Groundwater Modeling of indirect and direct aquifer recharge concepts Task 3 – Cost Analyses of selected recharge concepts Task 4 – Final Summary Report of findings

Similar Projects Review Direct and Indirect Recharge California Groundwater Replenishment System in Orange Co., CA

Similar Projects Review RIBs in Florida Commonly used for effluent disposal Secondary treatment required Some wetland polishing prior to RIBs WATER CONSERVII – Orange Co. Florida

FDEP Reclaimed Water Treatment Requirements Difficulty Less More

Ambient Aquifer Water Quality Avon Park Formation TDS mg/L

> 3,000 mg/L Filtration and HLD Meet Drinking Water Standards Ambient Aquifer Water Quality Avon Park Formation TDS mg/L

< 3,000 mg/L > 500 mg/L Multiple Barriers TOC / TOX 1 Year Pilot Test Ambient Aquifer Water Quality Avon Park Formation TDS mg/L

< 500 mg/L Avon Park Formation TDS mg/L Ambient Aquifer Water Quality Multiple Barriers Carbon Absorption TOC / TOX Mutagenecity Testing 2 Year Full Scale Test

SWFWMD Permitting No new groundwater level impacts to the MIA. Minimum flows and levels established for priority water bodies in the SWUCA. Net benefit in the SWUCA must be demonstrated.

Indirect Aquifer Recharge Concepts Areas Area 2 – Moderate connection to UFA Lakeland Area Area 3 – Minimal connection to UFA Engineering Enhancements Area 1 – High connection to UFA Lake Wales Ridge Area

Change in water level in the Upper Floridan Aquifer Drawdown (ft) Area 1 Indirect Recharge Model Simulation 4 MGD Withdrawal Only From Avon Park Formation

Area 1 Indirect Recharge Model Simulation 5 MGD Recharge and 4 MGD Withdrawal From Avon Park Formation Change in water level in the Upper Floridan Aquifer Drawdown (ft)Mounding (ft)

Modeled Direct Aquifer Recharge Areas

20 MGD Recharge Only Model Simulations Area 5 Water Level Improvements MIA PR Area 1 Middle+1.99 ft+0.33 ft Area 2 South+2.10 ft+0.60 ft Area 3 South+1.77 ft+0.75 ft

Direct Aquifer Recharge Modeled Withdrawal Areas

Coastal (Area 1) Direct Aquifer Recharge 20 MGD Recharge with 15 MGD Withdrawal Response Summary

Inland (Area 2) Direct Aquifer Recharge 20 MGD Recharge with 15 MGD Withdrawal Response Summary Area 3S MIA= feet PR= feet

Inland (Area 2) Direct Aquifer Recharge 20 MGD Recharge with 15 MGD Withdrawal Response Summary

Combination Configurations Selected for Costing

Indirect Recharge Configuration WWTF 5-Mile Long Pipeline 2 Withdrawal Wells 5-Mile Long Pipeline 5 MGD, 500 ACRE, 4 RIB Site 1-mile distance Chloramination Pump Station Indirect Recharge 5 MGD AADF Withdrawal 4 MGD AADF

Coastal Direct Recharge Configuration Advanced WWTF UV Storage Tank Direct Recharge 20 MGD AADFWithdrawal 15 MGD AADF 10-Mile Long Pipeline Chloramination Future Facilities Located at AWWTP (10-acre footprint) Cl Recharge Wells 24 Monitor Wells 890 acres 15-Mile Pipeline UV Vacuum DO Removal 8 Withdrawal Wells (1-acre per well) Pump Station

Inland Direct Recharge Configuration Advanced WWTF Pump Station AOP/ UV Direct Recharge 20 MGD AADF Future Facilities Located at AWWTP (20-acre footprint) Withdrawal 15 MGD AADF 10-Mile Long Pipeline Cl 2 - RO MF Chloramination 20-Mile Pipeline UV Vacuum DO Removal 8 Withdrawal Wells (1-acre per well) Storage Tank 16Recharge Wells 24 Monitor Wells 890 acres

Estimated 2009 Recharge Concept Costs Recharge Rate (AADF in MGD) Withdrawal Rate (AADF in MGD) Total Recharge and Withdrawal Capital Costs (Million $) Annual O & M and Capital Costs (Million $) Total Production Cost $/1,000 Gallons Indirect Aquifer Recharge Areas 1 & 2 54$51.9$6.4$4.36 Indirect Aquifer Recharge Area 3 54$64.8$7.6$5.19 Direct Aquifer Recharge Area 1 Middle 109$134.2$12.6$ & 10$250.9$23.8$ $230.0$22.1$ & 9$248.7$23.7$ $237.4$22.8$3.47 Direct Aquifer Recharge Area 2 South 109$224.3$22.6$ & 10$422.3$42.9$ $401.3$41.3$ & 9$420.0$42.9$ $408.7$41.9$6.38

Recharge Concept Summary Recharge Type Capital Costs ($ Million) Production Costs ($/1,000 gal) RiskIssues Rapid Infiltration Basins 1 $52M$4.30Low Land intensive Common to Florida Minimal MIA water level improvement RIBs with Engineered Enhancements 2 $65M$5.20High Land intensive Minimal MIA water level improvement Connector wells difficult to permit Coastal Direct Recharge 3 $230M$4.00MediumMetals mobilization Inland Direct Recharge 4 $420M$7.50High Metals mobilization Supplemental treatment Full-scale testing 1 5 MGD Recharge and 4 MGD Withdrawal 2 5 MGD Recharge and 4 MGD Withdrawal 3 20 MGD Recharge and 15 MGD Withdrawal 4 20 MGD Recharge and 15 MGD Withdrawal

Feasibility of Aquifer Recharge Using Reclaimed Water in the Tampa Bay Area The End Phil Waller, P.E.