Effluent is the only source of water that increases with population

In 1872 the city of London enacted a piece of legislation called the Metropolis Water Act. One of its purposes was to empower the Board of Trade to manage water supplies, and another to curb the shocking waste of water that was going into the lavatories of the Metropolis.

In those days when you wanted to flush a toilet you pulled a chain and it lifted a plug which released water. Trouble was that most often the plug didn’t lodge properly after each flush and the water continued to flow. This trickle, multiplied by thousands, horrified the Board of Trade. They envisaged reservoirs drying up and drought and pestilence striking the land.

Their concern caused them to send out the call for somebody to come up with some innovative technology.

It was answered by Mr Thomas Crapper who had perfected the `Crapper Valveless Water Waste Preventer: One Movable Part Only: Certain Flush With Easy Pull’.

Its trick was to make water flow uphill and it remains the basis on which toilet
flushes are founded today – and we remember his name which we give to excrement and to the opinions of people we disagree with.

Opportunity for innovation

Fear of a water shortage, drought and pestilence in those days resulted in innovations in the water industry. The challenge was accepted and new technology was developed. We are facing similar challenges today. The way we managed our water and waste used to be acceptable when our numbers were relatively low, but now, with an increasing population and justified concern for environmental degradation, we must seriously question if those old ways are sufficient. It is time for the quantity of water we use to play a major role.

We have a harsh climate – record floods interrupt record droughts at irregular and unpredictable intervals. We have tried to overcome these problems with traditional engineering solutions –  more dams and more miles of pipes. Dams are becoming increasingly difficult to justify as we become aware of their adverse social and environmental impacts. And anyway, the easiest and closest sites to our urban settlements have already been exploited so they are becoming more expensive too.

A shortage of water is looming and our waterways are showing signs of stress. We must introduce lateral thinking into solving our water management problems; we should not be waiting, as we all too often do, until there is a crisis before we implement change.

A change from what?

Let’s consider what happens at the moment. The traditional urban water management paradigm involves:

• damming our hinterland valleys
• treating 100% of our water to drinking standard, although we consume only 1% of it.
• laying miles and more miles of pipes. Nearly 80% of the cost of a sewerage system goes into the transport network and pumps – only 20% to treating the sewage to the minimum standard required to meet a licence (well, some of the time, when it isn’t raining)
• disposing of it into a waterway which invariably pollutes the waterway
• complaining that we are, or are going to be, short of water.

If we were to reuse our water we would be able to substantially contribute to solving problems at both end of the water management pipeline: shortage of water at one end and pollution at the other. Not only is effluent a viable source of water, it is a sustainable source; it is the only water resource that increases with population.

Water re-use

There are several ways in which we can reuse water:

Industrial re-use

Industrial re-use is an excellent way of reusing water as it can be specifically treated to achieve the required quality. This minimises wasted effort and energy. However opportunities are limited. A study by Sydney Water revealed that, if all possible opportunities for economic industrial re-use were taken advantage of, only 8% of the effluent produced in Sydney could be reused.

Re-use on land

Opportunities for applying our sewage effluent to land in Queensland are also restricted because of:

• poor soils with limited nutrient absorption qualities
• native flora which is adapted to low nutrient soils
• prolonged periods of high rainfall
• the mismatch between crops (such as sugar cane) which have very seasonal requirements and the constant production of effluent (huge storages are needed)
• lack of suitable land close to where the effluent is generated and the cost of transport
• the cost of suitable land
• the lack of land use certainty (will that land still be growing cane in years to come or will it be growing houses?)

Some or all of these factors inhibit sustainable land disposal or re-use. Although there is quite a lot of opportunistic use of effluent for local irrigation, it accounts for a very small percentage of the effluent produced and has little impact on the water supply.

Non-potable domestic re-use

In order to have any significant impact on water shortage and pollution problems we have to look to re-use for domestic purposes. One way is to reuse water for outside purposes and flushing toilets which involves two water supply pipes to each house – a dual reticulation system. Although there are several examples of successful dual reticulation schemes in the drier parts of the USA, the expense of the dual reticulation means that it is economically viable only in new developments. We shouldn’t write off these types of strategies completely but some innovative thinking will be required if they are to succeed.

Potable re-use

There are many examples around the world and in Australia where sewage effluent forms a significant part of the raw water supply. The Thames, Seine and Rhine rivers all pass through several human bodies on their way to the coast. We call this type of re-use `inadvertent’ which means that although it happens, we prefer not to admit it. The sophisticated water treatment plants involved in these places and quality of the water produced clearly demonstrate that the technology exists to reliably treat wastewater to a quality where it is safe to drink.

The water re-use cycle

We all know that in the water cycle water goes round and round; but in the water re-use cycle it is the excuses that go round and round instead.

In the water re-use cycle most of the communication is in a clockwise direction and it is negative. Such positive communication as exists is anti-clockwise; the managers and regulators, however, would be happier if they didn’t have to communicate at all.

`It’s too expensive’

Historically we have divided water management into sections which we try to keep apart physically, administratively and hence, mentally. In Queensland it is the State Government that has traditionally built dams. The money to do this has come from that bottomless pot-of-gold, the public purse.

Local Councils are mostly responsible for transporting this water to the water treatment plant, treating it and delivering it to our houses. They are also responsible for collecting our wastewater, treating it and `disposing’ of it. There are variations on the theme but generally division of these responsibilities has discouraged us from taking a holistic view so water and wastewater are regarded as two totally different substances.

The potential of wastewater to become a source of water has been conveniently overlooked. The development of new technology is also inhibited because the REAL cost of providing water is not recognised. At the same time as the cost of new water supplies is increasing the cost of technology is decreasing. I suspect that we have already reached the cross roads.

Change in the water industry is also inhibited by the huge investment there is in its infrastructure. If we continue along the same path we will be even more locked onto an irreversible course and prevented from taking the more cost effective route. We must identify and recognise the REAL cost of water and take a holistic view of our water cycle management.

There are no guidelines

Regulators and guideline inventors are not generally the leaders of our society. There is no point in having regulations for something that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, but it is vital that the regulators recognise the need for guidelines and standards when they arise and adopt a rational and logical approach to their task. Regulators shouldn’t take the lead – but they shouldn’t be dragging behind, kicking and screaming, either.

People won’t accept it

We, the apathetic public are becoming increasingly aware of water, its quality and quantity and its important place in the environment. We are told that water is a precious resource and that we can no longer take it for granted but this message is not reinforced because of the low price we pay for our water.

And we are starting from behind. The subjects of water quality and the options for the management of wastewater, are scarcely mentioned in the school curriculum and it isn’t easy to find out. Many of us are unsure why and when we should be worried about nutrients. Our knowledge of microbiology is almost nonexistent – very few of us even know the difference between a virus and a bacterium.

The community has difficulty in differentiating between the various qualities of effluent. We don’t understand the subtle difference between advanced secondary and tertiary treated effluent; this could possibly be because the members of the industry aren’t sure either. Terms associated with water quality are negative; it contains pollutants and contaminants but there is no word for any of the neutral or beneficial `stuff’ in water. And because this is not clear, all effluent, regardless of the standard of its treatment and quality, is looked upon with distaste and even fear.

In America, Loretta Lohman, a research social scientist, studied the attitudes of the population of Denver, Colorado, to reclaimed water while the local reclamation plant was under construction. She discovered that the community could be divided into the three groups:

The first group had no problems with the concept of reclaimed water and “didn’t mind at all” even the idea of drinking it.

The second group “minded a little” mainly because they lacked trust in the technology. Ms. Lohman demonstrated that, with information, familiarisation, reassurance and particularly an on-site inspection of the plant, a high proportion of this group came to accept recycled water. In one group the number of `don’t mind at all’s’ rose from 9% to 64% after a tour of the plant.

The third group “minded a lot”. These people suffer from `hydrocoprophobia‘, a fear of wastewater. They were found to be more likely to have lower education, occupation and income levels. They were elderly, mostly retired, likely to be female and unlikely to define their health as “excellent”. Ms Lohman considered that there was little chance of changing the set minds of this group, but suggested their problem would be solved by “time”.

She points out an interesting and significant fact that came to her attention during her studies: Aside from public acceptance there is another, equally critical, component to social acceptance of re-use – the beliefs held by the professionals responsible for public water supply. While public opinion surveys demonstrate mixed, but generally broad support for water re-use, surveys of water professionals show a fairly consistent opposition to many forms of re-use.

Water re-use is not going to be implemented on any broad scale until the people in the industry accept and support it. The great amorphous “public” seems to be well ahead of the industry in accepting water re-use, even potable re-use. That public certainly has more faith in the professional abilities of the water industry than the industry itself seems to have. We need to analyse seriously why this has happened.

Hypocrisy enters the rationale of the water industry when it comes to the `safety’ of water. In Europe this phenomenon is known as the `Miracle Mile’.

It’s ‘all right’ to discharge treated (sometimes not very well treated) wastewater into a river for later use downstream because of the ‘assimilative capacity of the river’, ‘the dilution factor’ and the subsequent treatment of the water. These factors may – or may not – be adequate; who knows? But we are told that it is ‘not all right’ to return treated wastewater to a potable supply even if it has been processed under controlled conditions, in a modern plant and with the benefit sophisticated technology and monitoring.

This hypocrisy is even more interesting when we read the Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines which state, these guidelines are applicable to any water intended for drinking irrespective of its source or where it is used.

We can no longer afford to use our water just once and then `dispose’ of it. The technology exists to treat sewage effluent reliably and safely to potable standard and it is becoming economic to do so. The community knows little about water quality so an education program which uses positive, palatable and understandable terminology is needed so that the community can have informed opinion on the management of its water.