S-contra t1_iwodq94 wrote on November 17, 2022 at 3:15 AM

Reply to comment by gunplumber700 in Recycled wastewater is not only as safe to drink as conventional potable water, it may even be less toxic than many sources of water we already drink daily by giuliomagnifico

It's funny you bring up cost. If you're in the water sector you know the biggest impediment to dealing with non revenue water is the cost of pipe replacement vastly outweighs the value of lost water. My utility estimates we lose around 10-20% of our water to leaks/old pipes, which amounts to several million dollars a year in lost revenue and billions of gallons of water. That sounds insane right? Of course the cost of fully replacing all the past service life lines is in the billions, thus the driver for spending all the capital is tough to sell to rate payers. As water professionals it's our job to evaluate the best health outcomes for our customers against the reality of infrastructure costs that rate payers will accept. Basically if the solution someone is peddling for improving water security involves building a bunch of pipelines (eg. piping Mississippi out west) there's almost always a more economical alternative.

DPR has a huge value proposition in many areas because you can avoid a ton of cost from additional distribution infrastructure. Comparing the non-potable reuse system (purple pipe) in California, which is estimated to cost 8k/acre-ft, while building a full scale water purification plant like San Diego is around $500-$600/acre foot. This compares very favorably against desalination ($1000>), ipr and especially building new reservoirs (which in drought stricken areas really doesn't do much good).

I see some folks have brought up phaceuticals and other trace chemicals, another great benefit is dpr systems using UF to RO will exclude most of these organic compounds, pfas included.

Of course in places where water scarcity isn't a driver, added treatment systems will be excessive, but there are increasingly regions of the country experiencing long term drought and the need to secure stable water supply. In many cases, the costs make sense

gunplumber700 t1_iwpw40w wrote on November 17, 2022 at 1:47 PM

The bigger point is look where source water comes from in LA. Look at all the water they steal from everywhere else. Don’t claim you NEED water if 10-15% of it gets thrown away.

If you went to a gas pump to fill your 20 gallon tank, paid for 25, but still only got 20 would you say there’s a problem? Why it’s acceptable in this industry BeCaUsE iTs ExPeNsIvE is beyond me.

Failing to maintain a distribution system because you don’t want to pay to fix it is just neglect. Regardless of whether poor management practices have set the precedent it’s ok to be negligent they still need to be maintained.

Rate payers will always complain whether valid or not. Years of poor managing and failing to raise rates creates its own set of problems. Incompetent water managers acting like rates can stay the same forever is half the problem.