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

• Technical Memorandum 1- Hydrogeology, Water
Quality and Permitting
– Previous Project Review
– Regulatory Review
– Reclaimed Water Quality
– Hydrogeology and Aquifer Water Quality
– Indirect Aquifer Recharge Feasibility Mapping
– Permitted Groundwater Users
– Aquifer Contamination Site Review
– Evaluate Indirect Recharge Technology Issues
– Evaluate Direct Recharge Technology Issues

• TM 2- Water Level Improvements/Impacts
– SWFWMD Rule Summary
– Direct Recharge Groundwater Modeling
– Indirect Recharge Groundwater Modeling
• TM 3- Economic Analyses
• Final Report

• 75 reclaimed water recharge projects were identified globally
• Projects were identified by:
– Reclaimed water as recharge source water
– Groundwater credits or exchange
– Wastewater treatment processes
– Ultimate recharge purpose
• Groundwater level mitigation
• Groundwater replacement
• Salinity barriers
• Long term storage
• Indirect potable reuse

Indirect Recharge Projects
• Water Conserv II RIBs - Orange County and the City of Orlando
• Old Winter Garden Road South WRF RIBs - Orange County Utilities
• Beardsley Road and Butler Drive WRF RIBs - City of Peoria, AZ
• Tucson Sweetwater Wetlands and RIBs - Tucson Water, AZ
• Oak Hill Estates RIBs - Polk County Utilities
• Lake Marden Recharge Project w/wetland - Orange County Utilities
• Project RENEW Irrigation – Orlando Utilities Commission
• Wetlands-Based Water Reclamation Project - City of West Palm Beach
• Orlando Easterly Wetlands - City of Orlando
• Green Cay Wetlands - Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department

Combined Indirect and Direct Recharge Projects
• Arrowhead Ranch Recharge Facility ASR System, Vadose wells, and RIBs - City of Glendale, AZ
• GW Replenishment District RIBs and Salinity Barrier - Orange Co
Water District, CA
Direct Recharge Projects
• Kanapaha WRF Injection Well - Gainesville Regional Utilities, FL
• West Basin Reclamation Project Salinity Barrier - West Basin
Municipal Water District, CA
• Hueco Bolson Recharge Project Recharge Wells - El Paso Water
Utilities, TX
• Bolivar Reclaimed Water ASR System - Adelaide Water Works,
South Australia

Florida - Reclaimed water has been used for groundwater exchange:
– SJRWMD and SFWMD have approved projects for permitted groundwater exchanges
– Level of treatment predominantly is secondary treatment with filtration and high level disinfection
– Providing reuse water for irrigation to minimize surficial aquifer pumping for irrigation
– RIBs that recharge the surficial aquifer to offset future surficial aquifer withdrawal impacts
– RIBs that recharge the surficial aquifer to restore/mitigate wetlands from Floridan withdrawals
– Wetland recharge where excess wetland sheetflow water can be used for surface water supply augmentation

Arizona Groundwater Recharge
– Arizona Water Banking Authority established in 1980 to restore basin groundwater supply with Colorado River surface water and reclaimed water
– Deep unconfined aquifer and recharged reclaimed water undergoes Soil Aquifer Treatment
– Reclaimed water meets reuse and AWT standards
– RIBs, Vadose wells, wetlands, and injection wells are used
– Wetland restoration and treatment
– Groundwater recharge for intentional recovery by drinking water wells
– Long term storage credits to be used for withdrawal during drought conditions

California Groundwater Recharge
– Colorado River is a major component of water imported to Southern
California. River allocations are being reduced due to low river flows.
– California uses reclaimed water for salinity barriers and aquifer recharge for water supply well withdrawal (Groundwater
Replenishment Project, West Basin Reclamation Project)
– RIBs and injection wells are used
– Reclaimed water meets Full treatment standards
• Membranes (multiple barriers)
• UV disinfection
• AOP (hydrogen peroxide)
– Groundwater recharge for intentional recovery by drinking water wells.
– Recharged water retention time is a minimum of 6 months before being captured by drinking water wells

• 62-4, FAC – Permits
• 62-40, FAC – Water Resource Implementation Rule
• 62-520, FAC – Ground Water Classes, Standards, and Exemptions
• 62-521, FAC – Wellhead Protection Rule
• 62-522, FAC – Groundwater Permitting and Monitoring Requirements
• 62-528, FAC – Underground Injection Control
• 62-532, FAC – Water Well Permitting and Construction Requirements
• 62-550, FAC – Drinking Water Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting
• 62-600, FAC – Domestic Wastewater Facilities
• 62-601, FAC – Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring
• 62-610, FAC – Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application
• 62-611, FAC – Wetlands Application
• 62-620, FAC – Wastewater Facility and Activities Permitting
• 62-621, FAC – Generic Permits
– 62-621.500(2)(b), FAC – Generic Permit for Rapid Infiltration Basins

Type of
Recharge
System
Injection to G-II in the Floridan aquifer or
Biscayne aquifer
(<500 mg/L TDS)
Injection to G-I, F-
I, G-II (<3000 mg/L TDS)
Required Treatment Level Comments and Applicable
Rules
Secondary treatment & filtration
TOC: The lesser of 5 mg/L average or background; 9 mg/L max
TOX: 0.2 mg/L average, 0.3 mg/L max.
TN: 10 mg/L (average)
Drinking water standards and HLD
Multiple barriers (for organics & pathogens)
Mutagenicity testing approved by FDEP.
Activated carbon adsorption or approved alternative.
Full scale operational testing for 2 years.
Approved standby disposal or storage facilities.
Additional pollutant reduction for parameters reasonably expected to pose a risk to public health due to acute or chronic toxicity ( Rule 62-610.562(3)(b), FAC ).
Secondary treatment & filtration
TOC: 3 mg/L average, 5 mg/L max.
TOX: 0.2 mg/L average, 0.3 mg/L max.
TN: 10 mg/L (average)
Drinking water standards and HLD
Multiple barriers (for organics & pathogens)
Pilot testing for 1 year.
Additional pollutant reduction for parameters reasonably expected to pose a risk to public health due to acute or chronic toxicity ( Rule 62-610.562(3)(b), FAC ).
Rule 62-600.540(3), FAC .
Rule 62-520.420, FAC at a minimum.
Possible pilot testing reductions are outlined in
Rule 62-610.564(5), FAC .
ERC will hold a public meeting following pilot testing or full scale operational testing.
Full-scale operational testing complete and national expert review before any permit is issued.
Alternate TOC and TOX limits can be obtained if all public supply wells within 1 mile are owned by applicant, and other users are prohibited or have RO treatment in place ( Rule
62-610.563(3), FAC ).
Possible pilot testing reductions are outlined in
Rule 62-610.564(5), FAC .

Type of
Recharge
System
Required Treatment Level Comments and Applicable
Rules
ASR using G-I, F-I,
G-II (<3000 mg/L
TDS)
Secondary treatment & filtration
TOC: 3 mg/L average, 5 mg/L max.
TOX: 0.2 mg/L average, 0.3 mg/L max.
TN: 10 mg/L average
DWSs and HLD
Multiple barriers (for organics & pathogens)
Injection for salinity
Barriers (G-II having
TDS 1000-3000 mg/L
& not used for potable purposes)
Secondary treatment & filtration
Primary DWSs and drinking water disinfection
ZOD for secondary DWSs
TN: 10 mg/L average)
1000 ft. setback from potable supply wells
Lesser standards (principal treatment; see
>3000 mg/L below) if applicant can demonstrate that the groundwater is between
1,000 and 3,000 mg/L, not currently used as a source of public water supply and is not reasonably expected to serve as a future source of public water supply. Secondary
DWSs, TN limit, and HLD fecal coliform standards shall not apply in this case.
( Rule 62-610.466(9), FAC ).
Recovered water must demonstrate standards for BOD5 (20 mg/L), TSS (5 mg/L), and FC
(absence).
Treatment requirements are consistent with injection to G-II having TDS > 3000 mg/L.

Comments and Applicable
Rules
Type of
Recharge
System
Required Treatment Level
Part IV systems
(e.g., RIBs) in unfavorable conditions such as highly karstic or over-lying public water supplies
Secondary treatment & filtration
Primary and secondary DWSs and HLD
TN: 10 mg/L average
Rule 62-610.525, FAC .
Also applies to RIBs with loading rates
>9”/day.
Projects are considered as reuse for groundwater recharge.
Allows ZOD for secondary DWSs with affirmative demonstration ( Rule 62-
610.525(8)(b), FAC ).
Discharge to wetlands that percolate to ground water
Wetlands discharges are regulated under Chapter
62-611, FAC
Percolation can be regulated under ground water rules.
Chapter 62-611, FAC .
RIBs and other rapid-rate systems with favorable conditions
Secondary treatment (BOD5 and TSS <20 mg/L)
Basic disinfection (FC <200 cfu/100 mL; CR >0.5 mg/L)
Nitrate: 12 mg/L (max. as N).
Demonstration of <10 mg/L nitrate at edge of
ZOD may allow nitrate limit of 12 mg/L to be waived ( Rule 62-610.510(1), FAC ).

• Projects ranked from simplest to most complex
– Direct recharge or ASR into a G-IV aquifer containing greater than
10,000 mg/L TDS
– RIBs located in areas without direct connection to the Floridan aquifer with no potable water supply expected in the underlying aquifer
– RIBs located in areas with direct connection to the Floridan aquifer and with potable water supply occurring or expected to occur from underlying aquifers in the project area
– ASR completed into an aquifer containing between 3,000 and 10,000 mg/L TDS
– ASR completed into an aquifer containing between 1,000 and 3,000 mg/L TDS that are not reasonably considered to be used for public water supply

• Projects ranked from simplest to most complex (continued)
– Direct recharge into an aquifer containing between 3,000 and 10,000 mg/L TDS (e.g., salinity barriers)
– ASR in an aquifer containing less than 1,000 mg/L TDS
– Direct recharge into an aquifer containing between 500 and 3,000 mg/L TDS
– Direct recharge into an aquifer containing less than 500 mg/L TDS
• More complex permitting projects generally require more stringent water quality standards

• Minimum aquifer level in most impacted area of the
Southern Water Use Caution Area
• Net Benefit concept
• Other regulatory requirements

• Hillsborough County - Advanced Wastewater Treatment
– Falkenburg AWTP
– Valrico AWT
– South County AWTP
• City of Tampa - Advanced Wastewater Treatment
– Howard F. Curren AWTF
• City of Plant City- Advanced Wastewater Treatment
– Plant City Water Reclamation Facility
• Polk County - Secondary Treatment
– Many WTFs (11 in all)
• City of Lakeland - Secondary Treatment
– Northside WWTP
– Glendale WWTP

Direct Recharge Projects – 40 MGD Coastal Scenario

Direct Recharge Projects – 40 MGD Coastal Scenario

Direct Recharge Projects – Model Summary Table
Old
Scenario
#
New
Scenario
#
Recharge
Area
Recharge
Rate
(MGD)
1-2
1-1
1-3
1-1
1-2
1-3
1
1
1
10
20
40
Well
Spacing
(Feet)
Model
Simulation
Completed
2,500
2,500
2,500
X
X
X
MIA Monitor
Wells Average
Water Level
Change
(Feet)
2.04
3.48
4.74
2-3
2-1
2-2
2-4
3-2
3-1
3-3
4-2
4-1
4-3
2-1
2-2a
2-2b
2-3
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
4-2
4-3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
10
20
20
40
10
20
40
10
20
40
2,500
2,500
5,000
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1.12
2.51
2.25
4.62
0.77
1.77
3.62
0.32
0.67
1.43
MIA Area
Average Water
Level Change
(Feet)
1.08
2.23
3.57
Peace River
Monitor Well
Average Water
Level Change
(Feet)
0.17
0.33
0.45
0.96
N/A
N/A
4.32
0.79
1.77
3.74
0.29
0.66
1.39
0.29
0.61
0.59
1.21
0.38
0.76
1.51
0.76
1.52
3.08
Peace River
Area Water
Level Change
(Feet)
0.38
0.75
1.49
0.82
1.63
3.26
0.17
0.32
0.43
0.28
N/A
N/A
1.17

• Evidential Theme (data layer)
– IAS thickness
– Hydraulic head difference (UFA-SAS)
– Proximity to karst features
– Soil permeability
• Training points (occurrence)
– Wells with WQ data indicative of vulnerability
• Response Theme (output map)
– Model output of relative vulnerability

Soil Permeability
Proximity to
Karst Features
Intermediate Aquifer
System Thickness
SAS-FA Head Difference
Model Output = Relative Vulnerability

• An output map of the probability of vulnerability
• Calculated by estimating the combined weights of the data layers
• Output theme is displayed in classes of relative vulnerability (one area is more vulnerable than another)

• The Lakeland and Lake Wales Ridges in the north may be sites of interest for indirect recharge.
• Availability of land will affect the selection of sites.
• Potential opportunities to use mining lands as recharge sites
• Conduct groundwater modeling on selected sites

• Technical Memorandum 2 will summarize numerical groundwater modeling of recharge and withdrawal to quantify the net aquifer benefits to the Upper Floridan aquifer.
• Evaluations will be made to rank the recharge scenarios based on the improvements in water level and the additional withdrawal available to be captured.
• Technical Memorandum 3 will summarize estimated costs for projects that are identified to have a greater aquifer improvement and additional groundwater availability.
• Final report summarizing findings on study.

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