Guidance on the Use of Reclaimed Water

Initial working textto be discussed in the meeting of WG PoM on 15/10/15

Notes:

This initial draft follows the contents as commented upon by WG PoM. The WG will need to discuss how to elaborate the text.

The text within it is drawn from previous and current report information, together with some introductory/linking texts, etc. Some elements of the contents have been relatively well covered in support work to date, while other elements have received less attention.

The document in many places lacks actual guidance at present stage and we will need to see what kind of message we need to include.

After the discussion in the WG, it may be necessary to consider some reshuffling in the outline to avoid duplication and focus on key messages.

Illustration with case studies is very important and it will be necessary to streamline their collection and their quotation throughout the document.

As a result this text contains requests for further information at various points.

Throughout the text there are light blue boxes which are comments or notes to the reader. Dark orange boxes identify places where further information is needed.

Note also that currently the text includes several references that need to be added properly in a later version.

1

CONTENTS1 Introduction...............................................................................................................3

2 Definitions: what is reclaimed water?.........................................................................5

3 Different potential uses for reclaimed water and source of reclaimed water..............9

3.1 Agricultural irrigation.......................................................................................................9

3.2 Industrial uses................................................................................................................ 10

3.3 Urban uses......................................................................................................................10

3.4 Environmental purposes................................................................................................10

4 The Pros and Cons of using Reclaimed Water............................................................12

4.1 The environmental benefits of the use of reclaimed water...........................................12

4.2 How using reclaimed water may contribute to meeting WFD and other EU policy objectives............................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Economic benefits..........................................................................................................15

4.4 Wider economic benefits due to avoided costs related to water scarcity and droughts17

4.5 Increased business competitiveness through stimulating innovation............................18

4.6 Social benefits of the use of reclaimed water................................................................19

4.7 The disbenefits of the use of reclaimed water to the environment...............................21

4.8 Disbenefits of use of reclaimed water: risks to environment and health.......................22

5 Ensuring use of reclaimed water is consistent with EU water law..............................25

6 Planning for the use of reclaimed water....................................................................26

7 Ensuring use of reclaimed water is safe for people and the environment..................28

7.1 Comparison of the quality of reclaimed water compared with the quality of water in rivers...................................................................................................................................... 28

7.2 Use of quality requirements...........................................................................................28

7.3 Risk-based management................................................................................................30

8 Public participation and communication...................................................................33

8.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................33

8.2 Issues affecting public acceptability...............................................................................33

8.3 How to raise awareness of the benefits of reclaimed water use....................................36

9 Funding Reclaimed Water Schemes..........................................................................38

9.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................38

9.2 Water pricing as a source of funding..............................................................................39

9.3 The use of EU level funds...............................................................................................42

2

1 Introduction

This CIS guidance document provides information and guidance to relevant Member State authorities to support the use of reclaimed water, where appropriate. The use of reclaimed water has been noted previously as one possible alternative water source in water scarce regions which may be appropriate to consider within water scarcity planning1. The use of reclaimed water was also identified as a priority in the 2012 Water Blueprint2.

Note:Reference needs to be added to any further policy conclusions that might arise, such as from the EP.

Use of reclaimed water may also have other benefits such as recycling of nutrients and energy savings. It may also be used for a wide variety of purposes. However, the appropriate use of reclaimed water depends upon its quality and, therefore, the treatment to which it has been subjected. Further, the use of reclaimed water may encounter resistance from the public, so its use requires adequate public engagement.

This guidance explores the different sources and uses of reclaimed water. It sets out the potential benefits of its use and disbenefits. It provides advice on integrating use of reclaimed water within wider water management planning and how its use is consistent with EU water law.

It is important to stress at the outset that the contexts for the use of reclaimed water vary significantly across the EU – both between and within Member States (and also within individual river basins). Therefore, there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach which would be appropriate in the EU. Rather, this guidance sets out the issues to consider and aspects of a planning process, so that appropriate policy makers, water authorities, etc., can consider if use of reclaimed water would be appropriate within their particular water management circumstances and, if so, in what way.

The intended audience for this guidance is policy makers, water resource planners, river basin managers, technical experts and the water industry. The guidance explores the policy and planning context of use of reclaimed water. It does not explore particular treatment standards or particular technologies for treatment. Also, while the guidance strongly recognises the importance of engagement with the public, it is not itself written as a tool for such engagement.

This guidance is a product of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Following the publication of the Water Blueprint, which highlighted the importance of reclaimed water, the European Commission commissioned further research to explore options on the issue3 and held a public consultation4. The CIS

1 Reference to Communication on water scarcity and droughts.2 Reference to Communication on the Blueprint.3 Reference to Bio report4 Reference to the results of the public consultation.

3

Working Group Programmes of Measures agreed to support the development of guidance on use of reclaimed water.

Note:

Further text to be added as the guidance is developed and eventually adopted by Water Directors.

4

2 Definitions: what is reclaimed water?

Reclaimed water is water recovered from wastewater that has been treated to standards that allow safe use. Reclaimed water may derive from a variety of wastewater types (depending on their origin):

- Urban waste water- Industrial wastewater- Rainwater- Greywater

The present guidance focuses on the reuse of urban wastewater that is treated after collection, having been subject to secondary treatment at least. The present guidance also covers the reuse of industrial wastewater for external applications. The reuse of rainwater and of greywater (e.g. for domestic purposes such as toilet flushing) is not within the scope of the guidance.

It is important to note that other terms are used in the literature, legislation, etc., with reference to reclaimed water, such as water reuse and water recycling. Often these terms are used interchangeably and, if there are cases where differences in those terms are meant, this is not the case universally. Examples of definitions are provided in the table below.

There are two major types of water reuse: direct reuse and indirect reuse: Direct reuse refers to the introduction of reclaimed water via pipelines, storage

tanks, and other necessary infrastructure directly from a water reclamation plant to a distribution system.

Indirect reuse is the use of reclaimed water, which is placed into a water supply source such as a lake, river, or aquifer and then retrieved to be used again.

Both direct and indirect reuse can be applied to potable (suitable for drinking) and non-potable (suitable for uses other than drinking) purposes. As a result, water reuse is categorized into four classes:

Direct potable reuse refers to the use of reclaimed water that is piped directly from a wastewater treatment facility to a drinking water treatment and distribution system.

Indirect potable reuse refers to the use of reclaimed water to augment drinking water supplies by discharging to a water body that is subsequently treated for potable consumption.

Direct non-potable reuse refers to the use of reclaimed water that is piped directly from a wastewater treatment facility to a site for non-potable beneficial uses.

Indirect non-potable reuse refers to the use of reclaimed water for non-potable purposes by discharging to a water body that is a supply source for non-potable uses.

A further distinction also needs to be made between planned and unplanned use of reclaimed water (or intended vs unintended use of reclaimed water). Planned reuse refers to reclaimed water systems that are developed with the goal of beneficially using reclaimed

5

water. Unplanned use refers to uncontrolled reuse of wastewater after discharge, for example downstream users using water from a river that has received a discharge of waste water upstream This guidance only covers planned water reuse (whether direct or indirect).

A range of definitions used for water reuse is outlined in the table below. The WHO guidelines on safe use of wastewater provide detailed definitions on wastewater and grey water amongst others, but it does not provide a definition on water reuse.

Definitions of Water Reuse

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Definition5

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) defines ‘treated wastewater reuse’ as the ‘beneficial reuse of appropriately treated wastewater’. Urban waste water is defined as “domestic water or the mixture of domestic wastewater with industrial wastewater and/or run-off rain water’. In this context, domestic wastewater does not contain industrial effluents at levels that could pose threats to the functioning of the sewerage system, treatment plant, public health or the environment”.

International Standardization Organisation (ISO)6:The ISO 6075-1:2014 ‘Guidelines for treated wastewater use for irrigation projects’ defines water reuse as “the use of treated wastewater for beneficial use”, where waste water is “wastewater collected principally by municipalities that can include spent or used water from domestic, institutional, commercial, or industrial sources and can include storm water”.

Recycled Water in Australia7:In Australia, water recycling is the generic term used for water reuse. It is defined as “water taken from any waste (effluent) stream and treated to a level suitable for further use, where it is used safely and sustainably for beneficial purposes. This is a general term that can include reclaimed water”.

US Environment Protection Agency(US EPA)8:The US EPA provided the following definitions for water reuse. De facto reuse: A situation where reuse of treated wastewater is, in fact, practiced but is

not officially recognized (e.g., a drinking water supply intake located downstream from a wastewater treatment plant [WWTP] discharge point).

Direct potable reuse (DPR): The introduction of reclaimed water (with or without retention in an engineered storage buffer) directly into a drinking water treatment plant, either collocated or remote from the advanced wastewater treatment system.

Indirect potable reuse (IPR): Augmentation of a drinking water source (surface or groundwater) with reclaimed water followed by an environmental buffer that precedes

5 BIO (2015) Optimising water reuse in the EU, Final report – Part I, Prepared for the European Commission – DG ENV6 ISO/FDIS/16075-1 Guidelines for treated wastewater use for irrigation projects — Part 1:The basis of a reuse project for irrigation. See also: ISO/AWI 20760-1 &2 and ISO/AWI 20761 "Water Reuse in Urban Areas -- Guidelines for Centralized Water Reuse System"7 Recycled water in Australia (nd) http://www.recycledwater.com.au/index.php?id=908 EPA (2012) Guidelines on water reuse

6

drinking water treatment. Nonpotable reuse: All water reuse applications that do not involve potable reuse.

Potable reuse: Planned augmentation of a drinking water supply with reclaimed water.

Global Water Research Coalition9:For its research on ‘Status and Role of Water Reuse’ the Global Water Research Coalition used the following definitions for water reuse and reclaimed water:

Reclaimed water: treated municipal wastewater and other impaired waters that are used for beneficial purposes.

Water reuse: the use of reclaimed water for any purpose. Indirect potable reuse: augmentation of a raw water supply with reclaimed water

followed by an environmental buffer. The mix typically receives additional treatment before distribution as drinking water. The definition of indirect potable reuse could be further broken down to “planned indirect potable reuse” (i.e., discharge of reclaimed water to a drinking water source with the intended purpose of augmenting the potable supply) or “unplanned indirect potable reuse” (i.e., discharge of treated wastewater to a drinking water source as a disposal method rather than as a purposeful means of augmenting a potable water supply.).

Direct potable reuse: introduction of reclaimed water directly into a water distribution system, without intervening storage (pipe-to-pipe).

Note concerning this text:The level of detail of the definitions tended to differ, some (e.g. ISO 6075-1:2014) provide only a high-level definition whereas others go into significantly more details. From these definitions it also seems important to reflect on what is considered to be wastewater. Although some of the definitions suggest that the wastewater is treated they do not tend to provide details on the level of treatment (e.g. no treatment, primary only, secondary).

A high-level definition of water reuse is unlikely to lead to harmonised definition between Member States as they are likely to interpret it differently. BIO (2015) suggested that information provided by Member States for the Eurostat data and also reported under the UWWT Directive had been based on different definitions, which had included not only differences on what was considered ‘water reuse’ but also whether the volume should be based on level produced for reuse or on actual consumption. Therefore a detailed definition of what the guidance will consider to be ‘water reuse’ will be required to ensure consistency.

Beyond the definition, ISO publication on water reuse for irrigation indicated that, in relation to water reuse, the concept of ‘fit to purpose’ is particularly relevant. This refers to the production of reclaimed water quality that meets the needs of the intended end-users. As such the intended water reuse applications should govern the degree of wastewater treatment required.

However, the consequences of a strict definition is that it could neglect to mention some

9 http://www.watereuse.org/files/images/04-007-01.pdf

7

types of water reuse that are considered to be reuse in some Member States. The willingness of Member States to adopt a harmonised definition may be dependent on whether it currently has a legally or de facto definition already in place and whether it is widely used by a number of organisations. In these cases it is likely to be difficult for these organisations to revert to a new definition other than for reporting practices and may take time to adopt.

Thus within this guidance we can use a broad, flexible definition - emphasising that the main issue is water fit for purpose, etc.. BUT any future EU law would require a more precise definition (as presumably would national law). Further, any legal (or non-binding) obligation to provide data on reclaimed water production or use to the EU level would need clarity of definition so that there is comparability of the data between MS, e.g. for the next reporting exercises under the UWWT Directive.

8

3 Different potential uses for reclaimed water and source of reclaimed water

Reclaimed water can (and is) used for a wide variety of purposes. These include:

Agricultural uses such as irrigation of crops (food and non-food) and pastures or aquaculture;

Industrial uses such as cooling water, process water, aggregate washing, concrete making, soil compaction, dust control;

Urban uses such as irrigation of public parks, sporting facilities, private gardens, roadsides, street cleaning, fire protection systems, vehicle washing, toilet flushing, air conditioners, dust control;

Environmental uses such as aquatic ecosystem restoration or creation of new aquatic environments, stream augmentation, aquifer recharge (for saline intrusion control and delayed abstraction to increase water resources in quantity and quality);

Increasing water availability for (later) potable water production, through the deliberate incorporation of reclaimed water into a raw water supply such as a river, catchment reservoir or aquifer resulting in mixing and assimilation thus providing an environmental buffer (before potable treatment).

Overall, reclaimed water can be used for any desired purpose, subject to the following conditions or constraints:

- The quality of the water is fit for the particular purpose.- There is sufficient quantity available and it can be delivered.- The costs of providing the reclaimed water are acceptable.- The particular use is acceptable to the public and other stakeholders.

3.1 Agricultural irrigation

Agriculture is the main water user in many EU countries, accounting for around 33 % of total water use (EEA, 2012a). However, this proportion can be much higher in certain regions – for example, in parts of Southern Europe (e.g. Spain), it accounts for up to 80% of all freshwater abstractions, with food crop irrigation being the dominant use (EEA, 2012a). In many parts of Europe irrigation is an essential component of production, helping to increase yield. Most water used in agriculture for irrigation is abstracted from surface or groundwater and used direct with relatively little on-farm storage (reservoirs).

Note:

Information to be added here on the potential for reclaimed water use in this sector.

Also need to add quantified information on the potential of nutrient use with reclaimed water.

The social and environmental acceptability of using reclaimed water directly for irrigation in the agriculture, varies significantly internationally and between individual EU MS. Reclaimed

9

water is also a potentially nutrient source for crops. Water reclaimed from urban waste water treatment plants, for example, will contain nitrogen and phosphorus in amounts depending on the level of treatment. Thus in some cases reclaimed water use will reduce the need for supplemental applications of mineral fertiliser. However, use of reclaimed water in irrigation may raise concerns about its impacts on soil quality, groundwater quality, etc.

3.2 Industrial uses

Industrial use of reclaimed water may be of two types: - Reuse of urban treated water by the industry; and- Reuse of treated water from an industrial plant by another industrial plant or for

other purposes such as agricultural irrigation, urban uses, etc.

In Europe, the industry and energy sectors account for 40% of the overall water use. In an industrial context, water can be both part of the product (e.g. in food) and an important element of the processing of materials that result in a product (e.g. as a washing medium or as boiler feed). Despite industrial processes often being complex and quality critical, extensive progress on use of reclaimed water in industry has been realised in many industries in the last decades, typically driven by the “Cleaner Production” imperative and the increasing cost of delivered water and of developing new supplies (e.g. boreholes). The degree of water reuse in industry differs significantly across industrial sectors and is strongly dependent on both the nature of the industrial process and local circumstances.

It is important to note that industrial water use is highly determined by the exact quality needs of the individual industrial process and/or product. As a result, while this guidance emphasises the role of use of reclaimed water by industry within a wider water management (and energy/resource management) context, this guidance does not attempt to provide further guidance on appropriate decision making for this sector.

3.3 Urban uses

Use of reclaimed water in urban environments is becoming a major component of urban water security strategies (Rygaard et al., 2011). At present, 37% of wastewater reuse in southern Europe is utilised in urban or environmental applications (Sato et al., 2013). Uses of reclaimed water include irrigation of parks and other urban green spaces, use in fire fighting, road washing, etc.

3.4 Environmental purposes

Reclaimed water can be used for restoring and enhancing natural habitats such as wetlands or marshes. Creation of these types of habitats, for environmental and recreational purposes, is also supported by water reuse. For example, in Catalonia, water resources in the Aiguamolls de l’Empordà nature reserve (Empuriabrava) are limited, so a reclamation scheme was developed to restore the manmade Cortalet lagoon and recover the area’s former wet meadows (Sala, 2011). The project was based on a constructed wetland system for restoring and/or recreating aquatic ecosystems.

10

Use of reclaimed water for environmental purposes includes recharging aquifers. This technique can also be used to store reclaimed water in the winter months, in order to better address the demand during the summer. Given aquifer recharge has many advantages (negligible evaporation, little secondary contamination by animals, no algal blooms and limited pipeline construction), it is an alternative to conventional surface water storage. However, the practice of groundwater recharge may raise concerns depending on the quality of the water injected. There are, however, examples of artificial aquifer recharge projects. In the Barcelona region, a reuse scheme involving the El Prat de Llobregat water reclamation plant combines aquifer recharge, wetlands maintenance, agricultural irrigation, the maintenance of the Llobregat River ecological flow as well as urban and industrial applications. Another example of aquifer recharge can be found in Cyprus, where treated water recharges the Ezousas aquifer through specially constructed shallow ponds10. This water, after natural purification, is pumped again from the aquifer for irrigation. Pumping is carried out strategically so that retention time in the aquifer is maximised.

10 Case study: Artificial recharge of the Ezousas aquifer in Cyprus with tertiary treated sewage (provided by the Cyprus Water Department)

11

4 The Pros and Cons of using Reclaimed Water

4.1 The environmental benefits of the use of reclaimed water

The principle reason for the use of reclaimed water in Europe is that it is an alternative water source in water scarce areas. It, therefore, benefits water users in such areas by providing security of supply. In so doing it adds resilience to water users and their communities. There are also additional benefits where the reclaimed water is treated to standards different to those required for discharge to surface waters. For agricultural users reclaimed water may be a source of nutrients for crops. Also, if removal of nutrients is not required, this may reduce resource and energy use in water treatment works.

Reclaimed water use is an effective way of helping to solve the water scarcity and droughts issue in the EU, and reduce the contamination burden from wastewater, as well as the costs of treatment. In certain situations, it may also have a lower environmental impact than other alternative water supplies such as water transfers or desalination. Studies (e.g. Forzieri et al., 2014), have shown that climate change will substantially increase the severity and length of droughts in Europe by the end of the century. Demand for water is likely to exceed available amounts across many river basins throughout Europe. Southern Europe would be most affected by drought, with flow levels of rivers and streams in the Iberian Peninsula, south of France, Italy and the Balkan region reduced by almost 40% due to climate change alone (Forzieri et al., 2014). Water reuse is first a local solution and the contribution it can make to address water stress needs to be analysed at a national, regional or river basin scale: at such smaller scales, an increased rate of water reuse could significantly contribute to reducing water scarcity, as demonstrated in the MS that already use this alternative supply solution.

In summary the possible environmental benefits of a reclaimed water scheme are:

Reclaimed water use allows for the conservation and rational allocation of freshwater resources, particularly in areas under water stress.

In water scarce regions reclaimed water use can make a real contribution to adapt water demand and supply to the water resources available in the long term thus helping to decouple the maintenance and the expansion of water using economic activities to the use of freshwater. This opens the opportunity to increase water security in the longer term.

It increases the total available water supply and reduces the need to develop new water resources and therefore provides an adaptation solution to climate change or population density induced water scarcity by increasing water availability.

It reduces the amount of discharges and therefore the level of nutrients or other pollutants entering waterways and sensitive marine environments.

It provides a mitigation solution to climate change through the reduction in greenhouse gas by using less energy for wastewater management rather than importing water, pumping deep groundwater, seawater desalination or exporting wastewater.

12

Its use in the manufacturing industry reduces fresh water demand, recovers heat and reduces industrial wastewater production with a drought proof water source compared with surface water or groundwater.

It can reduce the need for chemical fertilizers if the reclaimed water provides nutrients in the irrigation water for farmers.

Where treatment for reclaimed water requires less strict levels of treatment (e.g. on nutrient removal), the energy usage is lower.

It can be used to enhance the environment through the augmentation of natural/artificial streams, fountains, and ponds. The restoration of streams, wetland, and ponds with treated wastewater has contributed to the revival of aquatic life, and created urban spaces and scenery (e.g. Costa Brava, Empuriabrava and Meguro River). The recovery of water channels has great significance for creating ‘ecological corridors’ in urban areas and green belts to control soil erosion by wind in arid regions.

It can be used to recharge aquifers. Compared to conventional surface water storage, aquifer recharge has many advantages, such as negligible evaporation, little secondary contamination by animals, and no algal blooming. It is also less costly because pipeline construction is not required and is a fraction of the cost of surface storage.

Furthermore, it can protect groundwater from saltwater intrusion by barrier formation in coastal regions, and controls or prevents land subsidence.

Request for information:

There is a need for additional information particularly on some key environmental benefits. For example, the role of reclaimed water for direct environmental purposes and for aquifer recharge is know, but quantitative information on these users would be valuable as well as information on how to make decisions on this type of use.

4.2 How using reclaimed water may contribute to meeting WFD and other EU policy objectives

Note:

It might be better to integrate this section with that on the legal context of the UWWTD and ND, although it will be important to ensure the text on legal consistency is clearly delineated from text on wider policy contributions.

The legal framework defined through the Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to guarantee sufficient quantities of good quality water across Europe as needed for the different water uses, and the environmental quality of this water. In order to achieve this, the WFD requires that surface and ground waters achieve good status and a specific element of good status is the quantitative status of those water bodies. Water bodies which are over abstracted, at low levels or with low flows are not at good status. Where such problems occur, the WFD requires Member States to identify the pressures causing these

13

problems and adopted measures within RBMPs to tackle the pressures. Where abstraction of water is such a pressure, the use of alternative water sources to meet water demands of users is one type of measure which may be adopted and use of reclaimed water is a specific expression of such a measure. For example, Annex VI identifies potential measures to be used within RBMPs. Annex VI(x), states that these include ‘efficiency and reuse measures, inter alia, promotion of water efficient technologies in industry and water saving techniques for irrigation’. Reclaimed water use is one such technology.

In order to support the achievement of WFD objectives in water scarce areas, the Commission published its Communication on Water Scarcity and Droughts11. This made recommendations on the management and planning of water scarcity. It emphasised the importance of first seeking to reduce water demand and making water use more efficient12. Following this, it advised the consideration of alternative water sources. Reclaimed water is one such source.

While reclaimed water use is a potential measure to be used to meeting WFD objectives, it is important that the assessment and planning processes of the WFD (and drought management planning consistent with this as promoted by the Communication on water scarcity and droughts) forms the framework within which reclaimed water schemes are considered. The WFD Art. 5 analysis of pressures provides a coherent overview of all pressures on water bodies and how they affect water status. This, therefore, provides the core information on water use and demand. From this programmes of measures are developed and identification of reclaimed water projects within this programme ensures firstly that reclaimed water schemes are judged to be the most appropriate measure and that they are important to achieve WFD objectives. Alongside this assessment, the WFD requirements on issues like water pricing (Art. 9) and public participation in water management decisions (Art. 12) are also important in taking forward reclaimed water schemes to help secure funding and ensure public acceptance (both of these issues are explored further later in this guidance).

It is also important to note that where treatment for reclaimed water allows for lower treatment standards for nutrient removal, this may result in savings for energy use and chemicals for nitrogen and/or phosphorus removal. Increasing energy efficiency is an important element of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, some reclaimed water schemes may contribute to climate policies. However, it must be noted that this will not be the case for all schemes, especially if distribution of reclaimed water to users requires significant energy use.

Finally, it is important to note that reclaimed water schemes need to ensure that they are fully consistent with the requirements of other EU water law – notably the Nitrates and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directives. The relevant legal requirements of these directives and their relationship to the use of reclaimed water are explored in a later section of this guidance.

11 Add reference to the Communication12 COM (2007) 414 stated “Policy making should be based on a clear water hierarchy. Additional water supply infrastructures should be considered as an option when other options have been exhausted, including effective water pricing policy and cost-effective alternatives.”

14

4.3 Economic benefits

There is a range of potential economic benefits from the use of reclaimed water.

Economic sectors that are highly dependent on water supply (availability and quality), such as agriculture, the food industry, the power generation industry (e.g. for cooling processes and hydropower) and the tourism and recreational industry (e.g. golf courses) could increase their water supply security with use of reclaimed water, decreasing thus their vulnerability to water scarcity and droughts. This would have strong economic benefits to the businesses concerned.

Within the agricultural sector, although water required for agricultural production has generally declined in most MS following the CAP reform and more efficient irrigation methods, recent years have seen an increase in irrigation demand in many southern and eastern MS (Arcadis, 2012). Under a scenario of increasing scarcity due to climate change, as well as regulatory changes under the WFD, financial costs of securing freshwater supplies are likely to increase for agricultural businesses, although few agricultural SMEs bear the cost of wastewater treatment directly. Therefore, alternative sources such as reclaimed water represent an economic opportunity. However, most importantly for the agriculture sector, reclaimed water supplies are relatively secure, even during some droughts. Therefore, risks to crops are reduced and the economic standing of individual farms is secured.

The tourism sector also benefits from use of reclaimed water. In some cases, such as golf courses, the use of reclaimed water may maintain a key tourism asset. In other cases, the ‘greener image’ associated with the reuse of water. For example, the use of reclaimed water is a way to counterbalance the environmentally controversial development of golf courses in water scarce areas (Salgot et al., 2012). Many tourism operators in water-scarce island areas (for example, many Greek islands and Cyprus) make use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation, albeit at highly subsidised rates.

The EU water industry would benefit economically with expansion of use of reclaimed water due to the, because of business opportunities in this area, with reclaimed water technologies representing a significant area for further innovation and there is a growing worldwide market for such technologies.

Industrial water users are also major volumetric consumers of water for processes as diverse as mixing, cooling, boiler feed and plant wash-down as well as for washrooms and other sanitary uses. Major consumers of water and producers of wastewater include the chemical sector, paper and pulp production sector, beverage sector, textile sector and aggregates sector. The majority of industrial SMEs are likely to source wastewater treatment services from an external supplier. As such, restrictions associated with WFD compliance and other water regulations are likely to be represented through increasing costs for the discharge of industrial effluent as well as other administrative requirements (such as information to be provided to water service providers on effluent content to ensure compliance with emission limit values). Nonetheless, these financial costs are

15

likely to be significant, and will place a greater burden on SMEs than on larger production sites or enterprises.

Public authorities, through the cost of water supply, wastewater treatment and implementation of the ‘programmes of measures’ under the WFD13 could take advantage of reclaimed water opportunities with cost saving opportunities, e.g. by reducing drinking water supply production needs and associated costs, by limiting the needs to install expensive nutrient removal processes in urban WWTPs (when such nutrients can be recycled through agricultural irrigation) or by reducing expenses associated with the implementation of ‘programmes of measures’.

However, while there are strong economic benefits from the use of reclaimed water, the precise economic context needs to be considered in each case where reclaimed water projects are considered. Key economic issues to take into account include:

Price of reclaimed water and cost of reuse solutions: reclaimed water schemes remain relatively underdeveloped in the EU owing to a lack of economic attractiveness and perceived low returns on investment. Many existing schemes have benefited from direct or indirect subsidy to support both supply and demand, but this is at odds with the need for cost recovery and financial sustainability in water sector. Given the existing structure and level of pricing for freshwater, there is a need to look for policy measures that ensure the financial sustainability of reclaimed water schemes without generating supplementary costs for water users.

The capital and operational costs of switching from a non reclaimed water source to a reclaimed water source of water need to be understood and local opportunities to minimise costs and/or boost benefit should be explored and maximised (cost-benefit analysis). Good practice focuses on how to minimise cost and maximise economic attractiveness of reuse.

Impact on land value: Using reclaimed water for irrigation may also influence land property values positively or negatively (Hussain et al. 2001).

Long-term economic viability also represents an important barrier to use of reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is often priced just below the consumer cost of drinking water to make it more attractive to potential users, but this may also affect the ability to recover costs (Jimenez and Asano, 2008). Distortion in the market for drinking water supply complicates the pricing of reclaimed water, as does the lack of accounting for externalities, including water scarcity and social, financial, and environmental burdens of effluent disposal in the environment.

Marginal cost pricing systems can reduce excessive water use and pollution as well as ensure the sustainability of wastewater treatment programmes. Setting appropriate tariffs for treated wastewater provides an important incentive mechanism to encourage its use in reclaimed water schemes. The issue of pricing is considered further later in this guidance.

13 The environmental and resource costs, which are rarely reflected in water prices, can be significant when it comes to the implementation of programmes of measures.

16

Request for information

It would be helpful to have specific examples of where individual water industry or individual users of reclaimed water have benefited economically – particularly examples with quantitative data to illustrate the scale of the benefits.

4.4 Wider economic benefits due to avoided costs related to water scarcity and droughts

As a means to reduce water scarcity and droughts, reclaimed water solutions contribute to reducing the associated costs of economic damages, reducing the constraints on economic development due to water shortages and reducing the economic consequences of uncertainty about water availability – a potential obstacle to investment decisions. In the absence of policy intervention, these costs can be expected to increase substantially in some regions. The overall impacts on the economy due to the 2003 drought have been estimated at a minimum of EUR 8.7 billion (mainly concerning Mediterranean countries, France and the UK), measured as the estimated losses directly resulting from the drought (EC, 2007). Direct effects of droughts, such as damage to agriculture and infrastructure, are more obvious, but indirect effects, such as a reluctance to invest in an at-risk area, can also have a serious economic impact. A 1% increase in the area affected by drought can slow a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 2.7% per year (Brown et al., 2013).

In Catalonia, Spain, a simulation of the macroeconomic impact of water restrictions to the Catalan economy for 2001 showed that restrictions on non-priority water uses following a drought warning would have led to a loss of gross added-value of about EUR 1.196bn (0.97% of Catalonia’s GDP), while extended restrictions in the case of an extreme drought would have caused a loss of EUR 8.079bn, representing 6.52% of the GDP (Gonzalez et al., 2009).

Where water resources are scarce or threatened by droughts, the supply of reclaimed water to agriculture or industry can result in a more secure supply of conventional sources to domestic users. This is not only apparent in high risk areas in southern Europe, but also a driver for supply of recycled water to industrial users in MS not subject to significant water stress, e.g. the energy sector in eastern England14 and the food industry in DK.

Request for information

The text here is very general. Is there information on analysis of wider economic benefits from introduction of alternative water schemes including reclaimed water for any MS/region? This would be most likely where there are several schemes rather than an individual case.

4.5 Increased business competitiveness through stimulating innovation

A greater emphasis on the use of reclaimed water is also likely to lead to increased innovation in the development in technologies and techniques for water recycling, thus 14 http://www.waternunc.com/gb/angliw08.htm (accessed 08.09.2014)

17

providing business opportunities for the water industry sector. Technology providers in this sector are EU-scale companies and innovation would likely lead to the development of technologies to recycle water at lower costs. The stimulation of new technologies is also encouraged by initiatives such as the European Innovation Partnership on Water (see box below).

There is a rapidly growing world water market, which is estimated to be as large as 1 trillion Euros by 2020. By seizing new and significant market opportunities, Europe can increasingly become a global market leader in water-related innovation and technology (EC, 2012).

According to Global Water Intelligence (GWI, 2010a), the global market for reclaimed water use is on the verge of major expansion and, going forward is expected to outpace desalination. Between 2009 and 2016 capital expenditure on advanced water re-use is expected to have grown at a compound annual rate of 19.5% as the global installed capacity of high quality water re-use plants grows from 28 Mm3/d to 79 Mm3/d.

The WssTP has identified a huge eco-innovation potential in terms of technologies and services around water recycling in industry, agriculture and urban water systems (WssTP, 2013). Reclaimed water use practice for agriculture and industry is one of the fastest growing applications internationally (approximately three times the growth of desalination) (EUREAU, 2004).

Given the importance of the water industry sector in the EU, the past and current spread of use of reclaimed water technologies in the EU and worldwide has been a driver for the competitiveness of this industry sector, and this situation is expected to continue over the next 10 years. Water supply and management sectors already represent 32% of EU eco-industries value added and EU companies hold more than 25 % of the world market share in water management (EU, 2011).

The stimulation of innovation within the European water industry sector on this issue would also contribute to the wider objectives of increasing the competitiveness of European industry. Use of reclaimed water is a growing issue across many parts of the world. Therefore, European businesses offering innovative, cheaper and more efficient technologies may gain a competitive advantage.

Reclaimed water use is also a driver of competitiveness for many other EU industries outside the water sector. According to WssTP, a greener image is, for a lot of industries, an important benefit of water reuse. With the development of product water footprints, the use of recycled water instead of freshwater can be a key argument which can be put forward in addition to water saving efforts. In some sectors however, like food and beverages, the use of reclaimed water can lead to negative images e.g. in relation to health and safety (WssTP, 2013).

This guidance does not provide an overview of the available technologies, not least because it cannot anticipate what may be available in the near future15. However, decision makers

15 Information concerning technology innovation for reclaimed water is being explored by the DEMOWARE FP7 project and it will form a source of information.

18

should examine the new technologies and techniques that are available (and tested) to determine which can provide reclaimed water to the standards required for the desired purpose(s) and, of these, which can do this at lowest cost.

European Innovation Partnership on Water (EIP Water)To unlock the full potential of the EU water sector, the European Innovation Partnership on Water (EIP Water) was established16. Use of reclaimed water is one of the five top priorities of this partnership. The EIP Water aims at removing barriers to innovation, connecting supply and demand for water-related innovations, creating dissemination strategies for proven solutions and supporting market acceleration of innovations. The Steering Group of the EIP Water has invited the Action Groups to develop and test the following solutions17:

‘Fit for Purpose/Symbiotic approaches based on technical, economic, social and environmental criteria, where cost-effective treatment meets intended use and quality.

Innovative solutions and/or treatment options, producing and testing recycled/reclaimed water for residential, urban, industrial and agricultural uses, with consideration of ecosystems and involving multiple stakeholders.

Systems capable of determining the quality of recycled and reclaimed water to improve management and public acceptance according to health requirements.

Innovative separation- and extraction technology pilot projects in industrial zones to harvest resources from waste- and re-used water’.

Within the EIP Water, the ‘WIRE Action Group’ (Water & Irrigated agriculture Resilient Europe) has identified use of reclaimed water in irrigation as one of its three priorities 18. WIRE started its activities in May 2014 and has 48 partners. It aims to ‘customise existing or upcoming innovation to the farmers’ and growers’ needs, and to facilitate innovation uptake in the complex, multi-faceted irrigated agriculture reality and market’.

4.6 Social benefits of the use of reclaimed water

The use of reclaimed water has a number of social benefits associated with the local economic benefits of its use and security of water supply.

As a means of increasing water availability, reclaimed water use provides further economic security to agricultural producers, which translate into social benefits. This enables jobs to be secured, providing benefits to local communities (EC, 2012). For example, in Clermont-Ferrand (France) and San Roco (Italy), 60 and 35 agricultural jobs were secured thanks to reclaimed water projects respectively; both projects have enabled a dynamic agricultural activity to be maintained in regions where crops where endangered due to a lack of available water (Clermont-Ferrand) or the use of untreated wastewater (San Roco) (AFD, 2011). In the Almeria province, Spain, the use of reclaimed water for farmland irrigation led

16 COM(2012) 21617 http://www.eip-water.eu/priorities/water-reuse-and-recycling 18 http://www.eip-water.eu/working-groups/wire-water-irrigated-agriculture-resilient-europe-ag112

19

to increased crop production and thus 1 million working hours are offered during the crop season (Thomas and Durham, 2003).

The expansion of reclaimed water use to date has provided employment benefits in the water industry sector, with qualified jobs in the development, operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment and reclaimed water solutions as well as in R&D, taking into account the innovation potential of this area. Employment benefits also extend to suppliers of systems, equipment and chemicals for wastewater treatment and reuse. Waste water treatment and water supply sectors represent between 22 and 34% of EU eco-industries employment19 (depending on the methodologies used) (ECORYS, 2012) and have a growing-potential which is well spread among all EU regions. A 1 % increase of the rate of growth of the water industry in Europe could create between 10,000 and 20,000 new jobs (EC, 2012).

In MS from Southern Europe (e.g. Spain, Cyprus, Greece), tourism is a major economic sector, strongly contributing to the economy and to employment. In those water-scarce countries, a reliable supply of water services is a critical input to foster advances in tourism activities (EC, 2013c). Therefore, reclaimed water use has an indirect influence on the development of tourism, by allowing the development of water-related activities and thus creating jobs. In Spain, for example, secure supply of water for leisure activities (e.g. irrigation of golf courses) is important for local communities and employment (Anderson, 2003).

Other social benefits associated with the use of reclaimed water include:

Helping to achieve Millennium Development Goals (MDG) through increased water availability and poverty reduction through the use of appropriate technology solutions.

Contributes to food security, better nutrition and sustains agricultural employment for many households.

Be a cohesion tool that encourages the drinking water, wastewater and environment agencies and other stakeholders to work closely together using an integrated approach, thereby helping all to recognise the benefits and risks of treated wastewater reuse and

Increased quality of life, wellbeing and health through attractive irrigated landscapes in parks and sports facilities in rich and poor communities and improvement of urban environment (e.g. urban parks and fountains).

Request for information

Is there further information on social benefits? In particular, is there information on how specific social benefits have been targeted in developed reclaimed water schemes? Are there views from other organisations, such as trade unions?

19 Which themselves employ around 3.4 million people, i.e. around 1.5% of all Europeans in employment, more than in car manufacturing, chemicals or textiles.

20

4.7 The disbenefits of the use of reclaimed water to the environment

If not undertaken correctly, reclaimed water schemes can have environmental disbenefits. It is, therefore, important that potential issues are identified and these are considered when decided whether to take forward a particular reclaimed water scheme or to mitigate any problems. Particular environmental issues include:

Water quality: Due to the composition of secondary treated effluent (e.g. nutrient levels and dissolved salts etc) runoff, leaching, or infiltration of treated wastewater into surface water or groundwater waterbodies or discharged to land has the potential to conflict with water quality environmental objectives. The degree of impact depends on several factors, including the quality of the receiving water, the depth of the water table, soil drainage, and the amount of wastewater applied for irrigation (Hussain et al. 2001). Heavy metals and other constituents can also affect soil productivity the sustainability of land use for agriculture. Salt accumulation in the root zone may have harmful impacts on crop yields (Hussain et al. 2001). Good practice therefore considers both the risks and opportunities to farmers reusing wastewater but also the responsibility to support adherence to the WFD.

Hydrology: Impact of reclaimed water (diverted from discharge) on river flow levels. The impact of a reclaimed water scheme will be bespoke to the individual project and the impact of the reuse scheme on the local hydrological regime should be assessed in advance of project development.

Treatment: one of the most difficult aspects of planning and designing a reclaimed water scheme is to determine the level of treatment and the choice of technology treatment train appropriately. Scheme design needs to take into account the quality of the influent wastewater and the quality requirements of the purpose of use. Design and implementation of an under-performing treatment system could lead to unacceptable or unreliable water for reclaimed water use (defeating the object of improved resilience and water security). Design and implementation of an over-performing treatment system will typically require more energy and treatment chemicals, generate higher carbon emissions than is required, and incur excessive costs.

Distribution and storage of reclaimed water: typically the points of use will not be located within the immediate proximity of the wastewater treatment works providing the treated water. There are two options: treated effluent can be discharged into receiving waters for subsequent re-abstraction (the hydrological implications of this type of flow influence will need to be assessed). This also generates risk arising from lack of guarantee that the water can definitely be re-abstracted. Individual Member States’ licensing systems may need to adjust to respond to such situations. The second option is to discharge the treated effluent directly into a non-potable distribution system either supplying a single non-potable customer or a more complex network supplying multiple customers. Water is heavy and beyond the initial construction of non-potable mains, regular transmission will

21

incur costs which will need to be covered and this could create issues for customers, particularly affecting their attitude to receipt of wastewater.

4.8 Disbenefits of use of reclaimed water: risks to environment and health

Note:

The text below is largely focused on health issues, but more information is needed on potential negative environmental impacts and the text can then be restructured.

Untreated municipal wastewater has the potential to cause disease because it contains bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Secondary treated wastewater has significantly lower levels of pathogens and organic material but there remain concerns over risks associated with:

Digestion or exposure to contaminates in wastewater either through direct contact with aerosol reuse water;

exposure to residual contaminants on unwashed/uncooked crops, or Contaminants embedded in food crops.

Municipal wastewater can also include heavy metals and other hazardous chemicals from industrial trade effluents into the sewerage system. High concentrations of chemical pollutants in wastewater may be toxic to plants and exposure to these metals and chemicals can also pose dangerous health risks (concerns over substances on the surface or embedded within food stuffs). There are also concerns related to pharmaceutical micro-pollutants (e.g. Endocrine Disruptors).

Risks to public health are one of the key concerns associated with the use of reclaimed water. These risks may occur through direct or indirect exposure of the public with microbiological agents (pathogens) or chemical substances that are usually present or may be present in reclaimed water.

Health impacts of reclaimed water use depend upon the wastewater origin, the conditions imposed on the treatment and the subsequent use of the reclaimed water. This determines the extent of exposure of people to any potential risks to health.

The composition of reclaimed water depends on the origin of the collected wastewater, season, health status of the population and treatment applied (ANSES, 2012). Many pathogens can survive for long periods of time in soil or on crop surfaces to be transmitted to humans or animals. Pathogens which are the most resistant in the environment are helminth eggs, which in some cases can survive for several years in the soil.

Human health and environmental risks associated with reclaimed water reuse are described in publications20 and the WHO guidelines (WHO, 2006), with additional examples of

20 NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Ministers’ Conference) (2006) Australian guidelines for water recycling: managing health and environmental risks: Phase 1. National Water Quality Management Strategy. NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, Canberra, Australia.

22

exposure pathways for potential chemical and biological contaminants. According to the WHO, for the use of reclaimed water in agriculture, the greatest health risks are associated with crops that are eaten raw (e.g. salad crops), especially root crops (e.g. radish, onion) or crops that grow close to the soil (e.g. lettuce, zucchini) (WHO, 2006).

However, there are very few health risk quantification studies and epidemiological studies on the reuse of reclaimed water; most of epidemiological results concern the reuse of raw sewage (where the contamination risks are much higher). The literature does not report cases of human diseases caused by reclaimed water in the EU. This is confirmed by the experience of Cyprus, which has a long experience of reusing water for irrigation and groundwater recharge, and where almost all the treated effluents are now being reused.

Box: Research on health risks in Europe on use of reclaimed water

The EU-funded SAFIR project (2006-2010) assessed, among other aspects, the potential effects on human health of eating vegetables irrigated with reclaimed water (SAFIR, 2009). The results show that the microbiological health risks as a result of eating tomatoes or potatoes irrigated with recycled water produced by the SAFIR project were minimal21. However, farmers should be aware that accidental ingestion of soil irrigated with recycled water could pose a health risk. The studies were undertaken on farms in Crete, Italy and Serbia where potatoes and tomatoes were either surface irrigated or subsurface irrigated with reclaimed water. Water, soil and produce samples were analysed for E. Coli bacteria. In all cases, the concentration of these infective agents on the tomatoes and potatoes was negligible, so consumption of these vegetables could be considered safe.

Several studies have been conducted in Cyprus in order to assess the potential impacts of irrigation with treated municipal wastewater on crops22. Research results concerning the long-term wastewater irrigation of forage and citrus revealed no impacts on both soil physicochemical properties and heavy metal content, as well as on agricultural produce heavy metal content. Research results concerning wastewater irrigation of tomato crops showed no accumulation of heavy metals in tomatoes, whereas total coliforms and fecal coliforms were not quantified in both tomato flesh and peel, and E.coli, Salmonella spp and

NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Ministers’ Conference) (2008) Australian guidelines for water recycling: managing health and environmental risks: Phase 2. Augmentation of water drinking supply. National Water Quality Management Strategy. NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, Canberra, Australia.NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Ministers’ Conference) (2009) Australian guidelines for water recycling: managing health and environmental risks: Phase 2c: Managed aquifer recharge. National Water Quality Management Strategy. NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, Canberra, Australia.21 In this project, two advanced wastewater treatment systems were used (a compact biological-mechanical technology for decentralised treatment of municipal water, and a new modular system developed by the project team to treat less polluted water)22 Research works carried out by the University of Cyprus, presented during the CIS PoM working group meeting of 25/03/14

23

Listeria spp were not detected in tomato homogenates. Research on pharmaceutical compounds detected traces of these compounds in treated effluent but further research is going on to assess whether they are being taken up by plants under field conditions.

In France, several reviews of public health risks have been carried out as part of the development of the national legislation on the reuse of treated urban wastewater. One of these reviews concluded that the health risk associated with reclaimed water for irrigation was comparable or lower than the risk associated with sewage sludge spreading in agriculture where such spreading is conducted in compliance with the regulation (AFSSA, 2008).

Emerging pollutants, such as pharmaceutical products and their metabolites, personal care products, household chemicals, food additives, etc. are a growing environmental and health concern that is also relevant to use of reclaimed water. Although present in very small concentrations in urban wastewater, there are concerns about their long-term effects on human health. At the moment, however, there is no scientific consensus on the actual level of risks associated with these various substances. Secondary treatment of urban wastewater does not efficiently remove most of these pollutants, but, according to water treatment experts, more advanced (and expensive) treatment technologies are currently available to remove them. For example, with regard to pharmaceutical residues, the EU-funded RECLAIM WATER23 project found that advanced water treatment technology with ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis produces water of drinking quality that is not a source of diffusion of antibiotic resistance gene in the environment.

However, as further information on emergent pollutants becomes available, water managers are advised to take these findings into account in their decision making and planning for use of reclaimed water.

Occupational health risks

Different types of workers may be exposed to reclaimed water and to the possible microbiological and chemical contaminants mentioned in the above section: farmers, workers in the reclaimed water industry, workers in industries where reclaimed water is used, workers involved in urban and recreational applications of water reuse, etc. While workers may be exposed to potential contaminants during longer periods than the public, the risks would not be necessarily higher due to better awareness and the implementation of preventive measures (e.g. protective equipment) by appropriate businesses. The literature does not report cases of occupational diseases caused by exposure to reclaimed water.

23 http://www.reclaim-water.org/. The project aimed to provide effective technologies to monitor and mitigate emerging risks posed by chemical contaminants and pathogens in reclaimed wastewater streams used for groundwater recharge.

24

5 Ensuring use of reclaimed water is consistent with EU water law

While use of reclaimed waste water contributes to water quantity objectives, it needs to be consistent with other areas of water law:

UWWTD: the guidance should clarify the interpretation of the directive (esp Art. 12) and how reuse is consistent with it and how requirements regarding N and P are to be considered for treated WW to be reused (and not directly discharged to rivers).

Nitrates Directive and WFD: the guidance should clarify the requirements concerning nitrogen and briefly show that application of nutrients in waste water should not compromise these objectives, referring to other guidance on determining nutrient balances, etc.

The specific qualitative and quantitative objectives of the WFD/GWD and how to ensure that use of reclaimed water is consistent with these objectives, including how its use can sometime help in achieving objectives for water bodies.

Note: this section is still to be developed and checked for legal interpretation.

25

6 Planning for the use of reclaimed water

Note:

This section needs more work due to lack of information on the actual steps in planning in practice. It will be important to agree on the planning context/scale (or different scales), such as the RBD level, etc. Further, there will be a need to explain planning in the context of different contexts, such as for water scarcity, for investment in WWT, etc.

The use of reclaimed water for different uses should be determined within a coherent planning process. In summary, the appropriate planning process needs to:

1. Identify the relevant water needs in a clear quantitative way. These needs may be for irrigation, urban use, environmental purposes, etc.

2. Identify how these needs might change (e.g. with population changes, climate change, etc.).

3. Identify the appropriate measures or alternative water sources to meet the changing needs, identifying clearly how each option will address specific quantitative needs.

4. Identify the available quantities of waste water that could in theory be reclaimed and how these are placed to address individual needs (e.g. proximity to users with needs, e.g. farmers).

5. Identify the different costs associated with treatment of the different waste water sources and the costs associated with delivery of reclaimed water to the different identified users, including construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring.

6. Compare these costs, etc., with the other alternatives identified and, where appropriate, undertake further comparative analysis of alternative options (such as on energy use).

This stepwise process should lead to the identification of important water needs where reclaimed water delivery is an appropriate cost effective solution. It is important to note that the process will be likely to identify more complex interactions, such as reclaimed water being able to address multiple needs, but this can be built into the planning process.

Further, the use of reclaimed water may not only substitute existing sources (e.g. and thereby reduce overabstraction of surface or groundwaters), but can be a source for new consumptive uses. For example, instead of discharging waste water to the sea, reclaiming the water may allow for urban uses or local horticulture that was not previously possible with other available sources.

Planning for use of reclaimed water should, wherever possible, be integrated within wider water management planning. For example, analysis of water needs and possible solutions is best undertaken as part of the WFD Art. 5 analysis. Planning for reclaimed water should also not be divorced from drought management planning. This will ensure not only coherence of spending decisions, but also ensure that reclaimed water decisions contribute to the objectives of RBMPs, i.e. how they address pressures preventing good status of water bodies.

26

Spain’s experience in the implementation of the WFD shows that considering water reuse as a common management measure can lower the overall implementation cost of the Programme of Measures approved as part of the RBMP. This is due to the fact that water reuse can contribute to achieving a good ecological status of the water bodies, by reducing point source pollution, promoting the natural recovery of streams and aquifers, preserving the highest quality freshwater for the most sensitive uses, and avoiding conflicts related to water use rights. The reduction of implementation costs has mainly benefited the local authorities in charge of the implementation of the RBMP.

Request for information

This section in the guidance should be particularly detailed, but it is lacking detail. We currently lack specific information on how planning is, or should be, done (beyond the broad points set out above). There is a need both for examples of how planning for reclaimed water is linked to WFD/water scarcity planning. It would also be good to have this for different scales. Further, if there are examples of decision trees or checklists to support planning, these would be very welcome (or even ideas for what to include in these).

27

7 Ensuring use of reclaimed water is safe for people and the environment

7.1 Comparison of the quality of reclaimed water compared with the quality of water in rivers

Water for public consumption and water used to grow crops consumed by the public is all derived from different sources in the environment. Some (e.g. some groundwater sources) is of high quality. In contrast, water abstracted from some rivers may be of low quality (particularly in relation to health risks). It is for this reason that the EU has had legislation since the 1970s setting standards for drinking water for consumers to ensure that water, no matter what its source, is treated to a safe level.

Therefore, it is important to stress that the alternative to the use of reclaimed water may not be a high quality water source. Indeed, reclaimed water treated to a high standard may be of much higher quality than, for example, water abstracted for irrigation from a river.

Note:

Need to find and add specific information on comparative quality information – however, at best these would only be examples, not a general statement.

Still need to include information from the recent survey in WG Agriculture on irrigation standards, but it is important to clarify actual quality of water used.

Request for information

Further information on the comparison of water quality would be helpful.

7.2 Use of quality requirements

In order for the use of reclaimed water to be safe and for the public to have confidence in it, it is important for that water to be treated to the standards appropriate for its use.

Note:

The JRC is currently examining standards and these will be promoted at EU level, including potentially in a legal context. This guidance should refer to these standards and to which standards are to be applied to specific purposes.

Examples of appropriate standards and their use are set out below.

World Health Organisation (WHO)Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater, published by the WHO, are a key reference to manage health risks associated with reclaimed water use, and to develop a policy framework aiming to minimise such risks. The first version of the WHO

28

guidelines was issued in 1973, a second version was issued in 1989 and a third version in 2006.

A revision process of the WHO guidelines started in 2014, with the aim to publish a revised version of the series of technical documents, along with implementation-oriented documents. In addition, the WHO plans to develop specific water reuse guidelines for potable water production purposes; these guidelines are expected to be published by 2019 and would include limit values for chemicals, while the existing guidelines mainly cover microbiological parameters.

ISO StandardsThere are ISO standards on the use of reclaimed water for irrigation and standards for urban use are under development. The work addresses both centralised, decentralised and on-site, direct and indirect uses and whether they were intentional or not, taking into account technical, economic, environmental and social aspects.

Current PracticeA significant number of countries have developed a legislative framework and/or guidelines for the safe use of treated wastewater, in order to minimise health and environmental risks associated with water reuse practices. Out of eight Member States where use of reclaimed water is common practice, six have developed standards including Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain (BIO, 2015). In all countries apart from Portugal these standards are legally binding. Most of the standards that have been developed at Member State level have been informed by the WHO Guidelines (EUWI MED, 2007). BIO (2015) distinguished three main types of approaches:

An approach based on limit values defined for a range of parameters of the reclaimed water;

An approach based on wastewater treatment requirements and limit values; and An approach based on the implementation of a risk management system for each

reuse project.

Table Water reuse standards in EU Countries

Country Standards reference Issuing Institution

Cyprus Law 106 (I) 2002 Water and Soil pollution control and associated regulations

KDP 772/2003, KDP 269/2005

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural resources and environment

Water development Department

(Wastewater and reuse Division)

France JORF num. 0153, 4th July 2014

Order of 2014, related to the use of water from treated urban wastewater for irrigation of crops and green areas.

Ministry of Public Health

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

Ministry of Ecology, Energy and

29

Country Standards reference Issuing Institution

Sustainability

Greece CMD N0 145116

Measures, limits and procedures for reuse of treated wastewater

Ministry of Environment

Energy and Climate Change

Italy DM 185.2003

Technical measures for reuse of wastewater

Ministry of Environment

Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Public Health

Portugal NP 4434 2005

Reuse of reclaimed urban water for irrigation

Portuguese Institute for Quality

Spain RD 1620/2007

The legal framework for the reuse of treated waste water

Ministry of Environment

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Ministry of Health

Source: European Commission (2014) Water Reuse in Europe. Relevant guidelines, needs for and barriers to innovation. A synoptic overview.

7.3 Risk-based management

There is a variety of health risks arising from use of reclaimed water as noted above. In order to determine health risks, it is necessary to understand the routes of exposure of the population. There are different possible exposure pathways, including in particular:

Ingestion of reclaimed water or inhalation of droplets of reclaimed water especially when the water is used for urban or recreational purposes, or by workers involved in reclaimed water schemes.

Ingestion of food products harvested from crops irrigated with reclaimed water. According to the WHO, for the use of reclaimed water in agriculture, the greatest health risks are associated with crops that are eaten raw (e.g. salad crops), especially root crops (e.g. radish, onion) or crops that grow close to the soil (e.g. lettuce, zucchini) (WHO, 2006).

Ingestion of meat from animals grazing on pastures irrigated with reclaimed water or fed with forage crops irrigated with reclaimed water.

However, there are very few health risk quantification studies and epidemiological studies on the ruse of reclaimed water; most of epidemiological results concern the reuse of raw sewage (where the contamination risks are much higher). The literature, however, does not report cases of human diseases caused by reclaimed water in the EU. This is confirmed by the experience of Cyprus, a Member State with a long experience of reusing water for

30

irrigation and groundwater recharge, and where almost all the treated effluents are now being reused.

Studies of risks in Cyprus

Several studies have been conducted in Cyprus in order to assess the potential impacts of irrigation with treated municipal wastewater on crops. Research results concerning the long-term wastewater irrigation of forage and citrus revealed no impacts on both soil physicochemical properties and heavy metal content, as well as on agricultural produce heavy metal content. Research results concerning wastewater irrigation of tomato crops showed no accumulation of heavy metals in tomatoes, whereas total coliforms and fecal coliforms were not quantified in both tomato flesh and peel, and E.coli, Salmonella spp and Listeria spp were not detected in tomato homogenates. Research on pharmaceutical compounds detected traces of these compounds in treated effluent but further research is going on to assess whether they are being taken up by plants under field conditions.

Many of these risks can be managed through a range of treatment that tend to require high investment, operation and capital costs. Furthermore environmental and health risk studies within the EU suggest that there is no significant risks arising from the treated wastewater. The stringency of the water quality targets which specify removal of nutrients are likely to reduce the fertiliser potential of the wastewater for irrigation purposes, reducing the overall cost-savings to farmers.

Quantitative microbial risk assessment models represent a useful tool to assess the health risks for consumption of raw vegetables irrigated with reclaimed water. For example, Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment was used to estimate the annual risk of enteric virus infections associated with consuming raw vegetables that have been grown with non-disinfected secondary reclaimed water (in Australia, Hamilton et al 2006). For all combinations of crop types, effluent qualities, and viral decay rates considered, the annual risk of infection decreases with the number of days since the last irrigation event; ranging from 10−3 to 10−1 when reclaimed-water irrigation ceased 1 day before harvest and from 10−9 to 10−3 when it ceased 2 weeks before harvest. When fixing a decay coefficient, it was observed that – for all combinations of type of crops and effluent qualities – the more aggressive decay coefficient led to annual risks of infection that satisfied the commonly propounded benchmark of ≤10−4 provided that 14 days had passed since irrigation with reclaimed water. This benchmark was not attained for any combination of crop and water quality when this withholding period was 1 day. When using the lower decay rate, broccoli and cucumber are the only crops that satisfy the 10−4 standard for all water qualities after a 14-day withholding period.

Request for information

Is there information on risk assessment processes and their use in a European context? Also is there information on appropriate monitoring and how this works in practice?

31

8 Public participation and communication

8.1 Introduction

The introduction of use of reclaimed water can raise concerns with the public. They may be concerned over risks of direct exposure or via food, etc. Proper planning and decision making on the use of appropriate treatment to the required standards should be sufficient to avoid problems. However, there may still be a perception by the public of risks to health. Therefore, it is important to engage with the public in the planning and introduction of systems for the use of reclaimed water.

It is best practice to have as wide as possible engagement with the public. The precise techniques and processes to use will vary according to circumstances and local traditions. Not least the size of the public to be engaged with will affect the appropriate engagement processes. It is recommended to follow practices of active engagement as promoted by the WFD and explored by CIS Guidance on this issue24.

It is also important to note that engagement with the public on the issue of reclaimed water may arise in formal consultation situations. For example, use of reclaimed water might be highlighted as one solution to water scarcity problems within a RBMP. If so, the formal consultation process on that RBMP would raise the issue with the public. At a different scale, construction of treatment facilities or distribution systems might trigger consultation under EIA or local laws on construction permits. Again this would raise the issue of reclaimed water with the public.

In many cases, active engagement with the public on the issue of reclaimed water would be best undertaken within the wider context of water scarcity management (or even river basin management). This places reclaimed water in its context – addressing a problem and to be considered alongside other potential solutions.

8.2 Issues affecting public acceptability

The type of application for which water is reused is an important factor for public acceptance. Public acceptance decreases when public health is at stake or when there is a risk of contact or ingestion of reclaimed water. For instance, public acceptance for reusing water to irrigate crops that are intended to be eaten or to wash clothes is likely to be low while reusing water for bioenergy cropping will not cause serious public concerns.

A survey conducted as part of the AQUAREC project (2006) revealed that, in the view of some public administrations and of the population, treated wastewater still remains basically wastewater. Furthermore, it is not widely known that in many urban and semi-urban areas in Europe surface or ground waters (still) have bacterial quality worse than that of a secondary-treated wastewater, and that some agricultural areas are irrigated with self-abstracted water whose quality is lower than secondary-treated water. It is not widely 24 Insert reference to CIS Guidance

32

known either that, in many urbanized catchments, the water cycles actually include indirect, unplanned and uncontrolled reuse of - sometimes even untreated - wastewater (Bixio et al., 2006).

Public awareness about the allocation of costs and benefits can reduce public acceptance, when this allocation does not appear as socially just. Concerns about risks may also be reduced by the public gaining confidence in the technologies available for water treatment (WSSTP, 2013).

The first stage of acceptance of the use of reclaimed water is the acceptance by the community of the need. In this case, the use of reclaimed water becomes a solution to a problem and this, in turn, is an important driver of public perception (UK Water Research Industry, 2003).

Public acceptance also strongly relies on the understanding of the local water cycle. An important consideration is the question of when does wastewater cease to become wastewater and become just another water resource (UK Water Research Industry, 2003). In this respect, separating the reclamation phase and the application phase by dilution and storage either in a reservoir or in groundwater may be an important step in achieving acceptance, particularly when retention can be measured in weeks or months rather than days (Strang, 2004). This approach has been used with considerable success in a number of circumstances where reclaimed water has been used to directly supplement drinking water sources in Singapore and the UK (Walker, 2001).

Box: public perceptions are affected by the level of information provision

A US-based study aimed to assess whether prior knowledge of unplanned potable reuse affects acceptance of planned potable reuse (McPherson and Snyder, 2011). It revealed that users’ perception of reclaimed water can improve significantly once they receive information about the holistic water cycle and the existence of unplanned potable reuse. It also revealed that the terminology continues to have a strong influence on the level of acceptability (e.g. ‘purified water’ much better perceived than ‘treated wastewater’) and that more information on monitoring and testing is needed to increase trust.

Box: Public perceptions of reclaimed water can be positive

In France, a good level of acceptability with regard to water reuse has also been observed during a recent survey (CGDD, 2014): a majority of the French population (68%) agrees to consume fruits and vegetables irrigated with reclaimed water. However, the survey showed that less than half of the population (45%) would accept domestic supply of drinking water produced from reclaimed water. A perception survey was also conducted in the context of the Clermont reuse scheme (crops irrigation), showing high acceptability of the nearby inhabitants.

Box: Examples of where communication with the public builds trust for using reclaimed

33

water

A study carried out in the Segura River Basin, Spain, showed that the acceptability of using reclaimed water for agricultural purposes increases when the population is made aware of the cost of traditional supplies and the savings that can be made from reusing water (Alcon et al., 2010).

A study was conducted in 2002 by Hills et al. in order to evaluate the customer perception of the “Watercycle” recycling scheme of the London Millennium Dome (now called the O2 Arena). The use of reclaimed water was explained in the venue thanks to signage in the washrooms and a Watercycle exhibit. The study showed, notably, that the acceptability of reclaimed water systems was significantly enhanced for the individuals who had seen the signage or the exhibit.

Box: Non-European examples of increasing public acceptance

Experience from major reuse projects in the USA and Australia and with a focus on irrigation of products consumed raw points to major early investments in marketing and awareness-raising campaigns as key success factors. In Adelaide, for example, the Virginia Pipeline project was supported by an extensive (3 year) education programme including a market study, display of reclaimed water at public meetings and ongoing support of the local health authority, resulting in a clear change of public perceptions over the period. In this case, upfront capital investment was high, at EUR 16m, but operational expenditures were able to be recovered through the unit charge (Lazarova, 2013). This suggests that even relatively extensive educational programmes can be commercially viable, if these result in increased demand or willingness to use reclaimed water.

Studies from Australia and Israel, in particular, highlight perceived public health risks as the key concern for public opinion of reuse options and a major barrier to uptake. One of the major goals of any campaigns should be to fully inform the public of the degree of public health risks associated with each reuse option and to outline the steps taken to address this. Based on experience from Australia, the most effective means to achieve confidence amongst the wider public that health risks are fully addressed is through constructing and operating demonstration sites, accessible to the public, prior to large-scale implementation (Friedler et al., 2005). In some MS, this would entail increasing access and visibility of existing reuse projects, whilst in others, additional capital investments would be necessary to undertake feasibility studies.

A successful public awareness campaign is the NEWater programme in Singapore, which has resulted in a 98% acceptance rate for water reuse schemes amongst the public. In this case, substantial investment in a national media campaign has been key.

34

8.3 How to raise awareness of the benefits of reclaimed water use.

Many developers are aware that stakeholder participation is a key success factor for the development and efficient operation of water reuse schemes.

In order to build trust and get support, developers and local authorities therefore have to initiate stakeholder awareness raising actions, consultation and collaboration activities during the development of new water reuse schemes. In most cases, the development of water reuse projects is thus an opportunity to enhance good governance practices and public participation

Experience of use of reclaimed water points to the importance of establishing effective channels of communication between government departments or regulatory bodies responsible for different parts of the reclaimed water cycle, with regulators pointing to coordination between environmental and public health authorities as the key factor to effective water reuse policy and communication (GE Power and Water, 2008).

According to the WHO (2006) following variables will determine the acceptability of wastewater reuse projects:

The degree of public awareness (for example, the number of people informed about the procedure);

The average understanding of sanitation issues; The average knowledge of water stress issues, Existing alternatives to wastewater reuse; The degree of confidence in the wastewater treatment technology; and The degree of confidence in the sanitary regulations established by the government.

Awareness raising campaigns, development of awareness raising tools and dissemination of information on the various benefits of reclaimed water use among all key stakeholders have two main objectives: to build trust, credibility and confidence in reclaimed water (addressing health risks-related concerns of the general public and workers potentially exposed to reclaimed water); and raise awareness on the benefits of reuse for the various stakeholders involved in the development of reclaimed water schemes. The implementation of such instruments could build on previously developed guidance (e.g. guidance on participative planning developed by the EU-funded AQUAREC project), on successful examples, and could involve working with NGOs to help build trust among the different groups of stakeholders that need to be targeted. Recent research has shown that key success factors to gain public acceptance are to make people aware of the water cycle – and thus the existence of unplanned potable reuse, of the need to recycle water and of the associated benefits.

In summary, the steps that need to be undertaken for communication with the public are set out here. Firstly, it is important to gather sufficient information before communication begins. This includes information on:

The justification of the need for reclaimed water use, e.g. the context of water scarcity, including under future climate conditions.

35

The costs of installing appropriate treatment and distribution systems. The environmental benefits. The social and economic benefits. All of these should be analysed within the planning process in order to provide a

clear justification for the introduction of the reclaimed water scheme. Clarity on exposure risks to the public and the treatment levels to appropriate

standards.

This information should be communication to all relevant authorities, including water managers, local government, health authorities, etc.. This should be the case even if they are not chosen as key proactive communication channels with the public as the public may turn to them for further information or for additional views.

In communicating with the public it is then important to clarify the communication context. It may be that the context is a particular consultation on a specific reclaimed water scheme. However, the role of reclaimed water may be address with the public in wider contexts, such as in developing RBMPs or in plans for addressing water scarcity and droughts. These wider planning contexts should be preferred as these are able to set out all of the problems facing a catchment and the water users within it and the potential role of reclaimed water alongside other possible solutions.

It is important to ensure that all information is available as far as is possible. Further, before engaging directly with the public, it may be good practice to discuss reclaimed water issues with relevant NGOs. This will ensure that they understand the context of any reclaimed water proposals and potentially obtain support during the communication process.

The actually communication processes themselves will vary and it is not possible in this guidance to detail every option. The processes will vary by the scale of the scheme/size of the population. For example, a local scheme might involve a small local rural population. In contrast, discussion at river basin level could involve large population numbers across many rural and urban centres. The appropriate means of communication also vary between Member States based on their traditions of working with people, but will involve meetings, use of the media, etc.

Information sought from WG members:

Examples of how communication with the public has been undertaken, particularly for different scales of introduction of reclaimed water schemes. In particular, it is useful to highlight successful techniques or communication tools or how particular public concerns were addressed.

36

9 Funding Reclaimed Water Schemes

9.1 Introduction

Delivering reclaimed water schemes has costs, particularly with regard to the construction of appropriate treatment works and distribution systems of the water to users.

Investment costs vary from 45-75% of the total cost of a reclaimed water project (Asano et al., 1998). The volume of these costs is contingent on a number of factors, such as existing water treatment infrastructure (France, for example, relies heavily on aerated lagoons for wastewater treatment, which increases the capital costs of reclaimed water projects). Access to domestic technology can significantly influence unit costs, so MS such as Spain with strong domestic providers of water reuse technology may be able to develop reuse projects with lower capital, operations and maintenance costs.

Fragmentation of the water supply and wastewater disposal cycle is a major obstacle for coordination of supply and demand. Responsibilities for both regulating and supplying water services and wastewater treatment and disposal are typically separated, obscuring costs such as water pollution control – which consumes 50% of environmental spending in the EU (EUWI, 2007). Reclaimed water can be seen as a cost-effective alternative to some point-source pollution abatement measures required under the UWWT Directive, for example (Bixio, et al. 2006). It is, therefore, important that investment needs for reclaimed water are considered alongside wider investment needs for the collection of waste water, waste water treatment and also alongside wider investment considerations for water users, such as irrigation systems. This allows for the investment decisions to be more coherent with wider water management decisions and the spending associated with them.

Separation of water supply and wastewater disposal may act as a constraint on the supply of treated effluent for reclaimed water use, both in terms of infrastructure – major investments may be needed to link treatment plants to consumers – and the relative distribution of costs and benefits. For water suppliers, benefits of reclaimed water are largely limited to financial returns (if any), and reducing demand for freshwater may impact on overall investment in water infrastructure (Fatta et al., 2005). For water suppliers, a degree of ‘benefit leakage’ may occur, with few obvious methods for compensation.

Note that in costing a reclaimed water scheme, it is important to take account of appropriate externalities, so identifying avoided costs from the introduction of such schemes. These should be compared to investment costs and so help decision makers make appropriate investment choices. Of course, avoided costs may fall to different actors than investment costs and understanding who pays and who gains requires a broad overview from relevant authorities. The main externalities from reclaimed water use are presented in Table below.

Table: Identification of externalities from reclaimed water use (Hernandez et al., 2006)

37

Evidence suggests the economic returns on water reuse can significantly outweigh costs, when such externalities and public goods are accounted for (Molinos-Senante et al, 2011). Quantifying these benefits can strengthen the case for reuse schemes and public support.

Information sought from WG members:

Examples of the calculation of investment needs for reclaimed water and, in particular, how these compared to avoided costs, etc.

9.2 Water pricing as a source of funding

Payment the right price for water is one way to raise the funds for the development and/or operation of reclaimed water schemes. There are insufficient price differentials between reclaimed water and freshwater, exacerbated by a lack of sufficient cost recovery within most EU water markets and the existence of public subsidies to conventional water resources in many EU areas. This is both a regulatory failure (improper implementation of Art. 9 of the WFD) and a market failure as prices of conventional resources and reclaimed water do not reflect their actual cost. This situation leads to a limited economic attractiveness of reclaimed water projects and improper decisions by water users and decision makers.

Water pricing for water services in the EU is defined within Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive according to the principle of cost recovery (including environmental and resource costs) as well as the polluter-pays principle (proportionality to the pressures imposed on aquatic ecosystems by the main water users). Evidence available suggests that,

38

at best, only financial costs of water treatment and distribution are included in tariffs: few MS apply direct charges to polluters for the purification of their wastewater as well as other activities that impact on water quality, and charging for the resource costs of water abstraction is rare (EEA, 2013). Furthermore, whilst financial cost recovery is high for domestic users, in agriculture low levels of cost recovery (20-80%) point to heavy subsidisation of freshwater use, even in water-scarce Mediterranean countries (EEA, 2013).

The persistence of such regulatory and price signals would dis-incentivise both water efficiency and reclaimed water by failing to account for the full external costs of freshwater abstraction and wastewater discharge. Because these external costs are typically borne by taxpayers, price support measures for water reuse may be justified, to enhance its competitiveness. This is the case in two MS where water reuse schemes have significant uptake (Spain and Cyprus) and subsidies, together with an integrated supportive regulatory regime. However these cases remain highly atypical for the EU overall, and concerns over their financial sustainability persist.

Example: tarrifs in Cyprus

Reused water tariffs in Cyprus range from 33%-44% of freshwater rates, ratios which appear typical for the Mediterranean (Hidalgo & Irusta, 2005). Although such subsidised price structures have been in place for many years, ratios are often based on perceptions of willingness to pay (WTP) within different groups rather than empirical evidence of substitution rates.

In Cyprus, rates for reused water were until recently set at 100% of freshwater rates. Increases in freshwater pricing in recent years have lowered the relative cost of reused water, whilst strong pollution abatement regulations have also increased the overall capacity of treated effluent supplies. Comparison with uptake levels in 2005 indicates a relatively inelastic demand within the agricultural sector, attributed to distribution and infrastructure constraints, but noticeable elasticity of demand for uses in landscape irrigation (sports, hotels and gardens).

Although the dominant uses of reclaimed water in such regions are irrigated agriculture and landscape irrigation, growing demand from urban centres and tourism is contributing to increased local competition for water resources. Costs can be expected to increase substantially in the absence of remedial solutions such as reuse.

In this context, water reuse may be favourable in comparison to other unconventional sources (Plan Bleu, 2012). Reclaimed water in Spain’s Segura river basin, for example, is sold to irrigators at around EUR 0.12/m3. Whilst this represents a fraction of the estimated 0.40 EUR/m2 cost including capital, operational and environmental expenditures, this compares favourably with 1 EUR/m3 for equivalent desalinated supplies and 99% of available wastewater resources are currently reused (GWI, 2012a).

Competitive tariffs for water reuse (at or below those of fresh water) have been seen as essential to drive uptake: given the higher salinity of reused water which necessitates

39

greater application volumes, the need for economies of scale in energy-intensive reclamation processes, and perceived quality and safety issues which may suppress willingness to pay (Hidalgo and Irusta, 2005).

In considering appropriate pricing for reclaimed water provision, the following options may be analysed:

No charging – reclaimed water may be charged at a zero tariff so as to increase its demand and therefore reduce or avoid effluent discharge into sensitive aquatic environments. For example, some schemes in Australia, with the aim to avoid or reduce effluent discharge into sensitive aquatic environments, do not charge at all for treated wastewater reuse (WSAA, 2005).

Defined percentage of the potable water price - reclaimed water is often offered for a lower price than potable water. This price signal highlights the advantages of reclaimed water for the customers and increases its acceptance. A few examples include: a 2005 survey of 11 southern Californian reclaimed water projects mostly supplying irrigation water showed a reclaimed water price as a percentage of potable water prices ranging from 45 to 100% with an average of 77%. (APWA 2005); Sydney Water provides reclaimed water for domestic uses in the Rouse Hill residential area for only 30%of the potable water price. Sydney Water has proposed price increase by 2009 from the current 30% of potable water price to 80% to reduce overuse and wastage (Sydney morning Herald July2006); and in Sydney Olympic Park the price is fixed at AUS$ 0.15 below the drinking water price (AATSE, 2004, SOPA, 2006). Another simpler and more operative possibility is to set an arbitrary percentage of the price of drinking water as a rate for reclaimed water, in light of the fact that the latter is lower quality (e.g. in Durban, the price for reclaimed water for industry is more than 25% cheaper than potable water).

Price adjusted to the willingness to pay of users - From a demand viewpoint, knowing how much, different users would be willing to pay for the reclaimed water is important. Under this premise, rates for reclaimed water would be based on what the market could uphold, without taking into account the costs required. That is, the aim would be to charge users the value they assign to reclaimed water. The willingness to pay for different customers varies depending on the expected economic return. Moreover an increased awareness of the benefits of reclaimed water use amongst the public can lead to increased demand and also induce consumers to state a higher willingness to use and willingness to pay.

Same prices for conventional and reclaimed water - In this case there is no differential in prices been conventional and reclaimed water. For example in Cyprus, some schemes started selling recycled water for agricultural irrigation at the same price as farmers paid for conventional freshwater, i.e. € 0.1 EUR/m³ As the implementation of the price reform will further increase prices for conventional irrigation water to € 0.20, reclaimed water will become even more competitive (Hidalgo, 2005).

40

It is important though, to assure a suitable relationship between the rates for conventional resources and reclaimed water prices. Setting an excessively low price for reclaimed water in relation to existing alternatives could over-encourage the use of this water, provoking unsuitable uses and even external costs. A solution to this is the use of an increasing block tariff - stepped increases in tariffs as usage increases. In essence, fixing the price for reclaimed water is always a trade-off of cost distribution between the beneficiaries, the operators and the tax payer in general.

Information sought from WG members:

Further information on pricing of water from reclaimed water schemes, how this applies to different users, how this compares to other sources and the relationship to the funding of the scheme.

9.3 The use of EU level funds

There are many different EU level funding sources which may be used to support financing of reclaimed water schemes. These include: the ERDF and Cohesion Fund, EAFRD, Horizon 2020, LIFE, Natural Capital Financial Facility and EIB Grants. Some are grants, some loans. Some are 100% funded, some require co-funding. Some apply to eligible areas/situations, others are universal. Some apply to particular types of recipients. All have different planning and application processes which need to be taken account of in developing and implementing reclaimed water schemes. A summary of the relevance of each of these EU level funding sources is provided below.

Regional Funds and Cohesion FundThe European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) includes 11 thematic areas. Thematic Objective 6 (protecting the environment and promotion resource efficiency) includes:

• Investing in the water sector to meet the EU requirements and to address needs, identified by MS, for investment going beyond those requirements

• Promoting ecosystem services, green infrastructure, innovative technologies, resource efficiency in water sector, etc.

Therefore, the ERDF is able to be used for funding reclaimed water schemes, based on their contribution to water efficiency and, more generally, on delivering objectives in the water sector where these meet EU needs. The Cohesion Fund helps Member States with a GNI per inhabitant of less than 90% of the EU-27 average to invest in, inter alia, the environment. Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes should have been adopted, but opportunities for reclaimed water schemes may be identified within them.

Example of the use of Regional Funds

In Spain’s Segura River Basin District, 99% of all treated effluent is currently reused for

41

agricultural irrigation or environmental allocations by 96 plants. This scheme has been made possible through a large capital investment of EUR 630m sourced from European Structural and Investment Funds

Rural Development Funds (EAFRD) The funding through Pillar II of the CAP is for funding in rural areas. Rural Development Plans have been adopted. However, the most relevant rural development priorities / focus areas are

• (5) (a) increasing efficiency in water use by agriculture• Art. 18: Investments in physical assets • Art. 19: Restoring agricultural production potential, "preventing" natural disasters

Reclaimed water schemes for irrigation increase water efficiency use by agriculture, they are an investment in a physical asset, help ‘prevent’ drought problems, etc. Therefore, appropriate reclaimed water schemes should be eligible for support.

Horizon 2020 H2020 funds projects addressing “societal challenges”, including “Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials”. Water is a main focus and this includes the Innovation Partnerships, including EIP Water. Calls have been published and one focus area is on 'water innovation'. Further calls will arise and it is likely that some aspects of reclaimed water schemes may be eligible, especially if there are innovative elements. The EIP Water website gives more information: http://www.eip-water.eu/horizon-2020-launched-%E2%82%AC15-billion-over-first-two-years

LIFE Projects: 2014-2020 LIFE projects include different types of project support with different levels of funding support. These include:

• Interventions – traditional projects, NGO support, technical assistance (60% co-financing)

• Integrated projects (IPs)(60% co-financing)• Capacity building (100% financing)

Of these different types, Integrated Projects have particular potential. These are aimed at implementing plans/strategies (e.g. RBMPs) at large scale. Proposed actions should target significant pressures affecting the environment’s capacity for water retention and the use of low impact measures identified in RBMPs, etc. There is a maximum of €855 million for 7 years (of which around €637million in the sub-programme for Environment), with 3 IPs per Member State over 7 years. Therefore, if reclaimed water schemes are part of the integrated approach to water management within RBMPs, IPs might form a funding source.

European Investment Bank The EIB provides loans for investment. In its stated priorities on the environment, types of projects eligible include water supply and waste water treatment and disposal. Therefore, construction of appropriate treatment facilities for reclaimed water and distribution systems

42

may be eligible for loans. Information is available at: http://www.eib.org/projects/cycle/applying_loan/index.htm

Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF) The NCFF is an EU financial instrument funded by the EIB and the European Commission, but managed by EIB. The NCFF will provide debt and equity finance for a range of different types of projects. These include projects relating to reclaimed water. A pilot phase was established 2014-2017 with a total amount of €100m for financing of operations, with additional grant support facility of €10m for technical assistance. Information is available at: http://www.eib.org/products/blending/ncff/index.htm

Information sought from WG members:

Examples of use of EU funds for reclaimed water schemes and, if useful, how these were justified according to the particular criteria of the relevant funding source.

Examples of EU-funded research projects aiming to promote water reuse

AQUAREC project (2002-2006) on ‘Integrated Concepts for Reuse of Upgraded Wastewater’ (http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/69076_en.html) This project aimed to provide knowledge to support rational strategies for municipal wastewater reclamation and reuse as a major component of sustainable water management practices. It produced several deliverables of relevance for policy makers and reuse project developers, including:

A ‘Guideline for quality standards for water reuse in Europe’ with proposed limits for reclaimed water reuse (Chapter 4 of the document);

A ‘Water Reuse System Management Manual’ including proposed water quality criteria for different end-uses (agriculture, urban uses, industrial uses and groundwater recharge);

A ‘Handbook on Feasibility Studies for Water Reuse Systems’, primarily intended for reuse project developers; and

A guideline on ‘Participative Planning for Water Reuse Projects’, dealing with public acceptance issues.

SAFIR project (2006-2010) on ‘Safe and high quality food production using low quality waters and improved irrigation systems and management’ (http://www.safir4eu.org/). This project addressed two problems that have become public concerns: the first is the safety and quality of our food products, and the second the increasing competition for clean fresh water around the globe. One of the objectives was to test new technology for water recycling and use in agriculture in southern Europe and other areas with insufficient potable drinking water. The project assessed the impact of the new technology on product quality and safety, production system, and the environment as well as risks from farm to fork.

DEMOWARE project (2014-2016) on Innovation Demonstration for a Competitive and Innovative European Water Reuse Sector’ (http://demoware.eu/en) This project will execute ‘a highly collaborative programme of demonstration and exploitation, using nine

43

existing and one greenfield site to stimulate innovation and improve cohesion within the evolving European water reuse sector’. The project is guided by SME & industry priorities and has two central ambitions: to enhance the availability and reliability of innovative water reuse solutions, and to create a unified professional identity for the European Water Reuse sector. The project ultimately aims to improve both operator and public confidence in reuse schemes.

44