2000 RECLAIMED WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE - DECEMBER 2001���'��fi� � �� � .�_ � rv�� �* �S� � , .:. , ', � � �� � �
������ ������ �� �g� ... �� �
�
�
�
�-
U
prepared for
DECEMBER 2001
�
,,��. ►l�/��=�[��E�� D�
'
'
'
,
�
�
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
,
'
�
,
'
2000 Reclaimed Water
Master Plan Update
Prepared for
City of Clearwater
December 2001
Prepared by
McKim & Creed, P.A.
601 Cleveland Street, Suite 205
Clearwater, FL 33755
CO,�_it�,pdF�� �N
�r F�
�.;;,+ � 1��2
CLERKp arr��NF_y
'
'
'
'
t
'
1
'
1
1
,
'
'
1
'
'
t
,
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary ....................................................................................:........................................... 1
1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................5
2.0 Reclaimed Water Background ........................................................................................6
3.0 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................. 8
4.0 Status of Current Reclaimed Water Projects ...............................................................10
5.0 Historical Reclaimed Water Use ...................................................................................13
5.1 Island Estates, Philip Jones Field, Jack Russell Stadium, Coachman Park,
Memorial Causeway, and Pier 60 ...........................................................................13
5.2 Clearwater Country Club ........................................................................................14
5.3 Countryside Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf Course, Countryside Sports
Complex, and Countryside Driving Range ..............................................................14
6.0 Projected Reclaimed Water Demands of Urban System .............................................15
7.0 Treated Wastewater Flow Projections .........................................................................18
8.0 supply/demand Seasonal Variations ............................................................................21
8.1 Wastewater Flow Variations ...................................................................................21
8.2 Reclaimed Water Demand Variations .....................................................................21
9.0 Storage Requirements ..................................................................................................23
9.1 Seasonal Storage Requirements ............................................................................23
9.1.1 Storage Requirements for Build Out of Urban Reclaimed Water
System..................................................................................................... 23
9.1.2 Storage Requirements with 3 MGD to Pinellas County and 5.4 MGD to
RIBs, Balance to Urban Reclaimed Water System ...............................25
9.1.3 Storage Requirements with 3 MGD to Pinellas and Balance to Urban
Reclaimed Water System .......................................................................25
9.2 Daily Reclaimed Water Storage .............................................................................25
9.3 Reject Storage ....................................................................................................... 30
10.0 Update of Project Priority for Urban System ...............................................................31
10.1 Projection of Potable Water Offset ......................................................................... 31
10.2 Project Prioritization ............................................................................................... 33
10.3 Project Phasing ...................................................................................................... 37
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page i
'
,
1
'
'
'
'
'
'
t
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
11.0 Zero Discharge Alternatives .........................................................................................42
11.1 Land Application ....................................................................................................42
11.1.1 Slow-Rate Land Application, Public Access Areas ..............................42
11.1.2 Slow-Rate Land Application, Restricted Pub.lic Access (Spray
Irrigation) .................................................................................................43
11.1.3 Rapid-Rate Land Application (Rapid Infiltration Basins) .....................43
11.2 Bulk Sale or Purchase of Reclaimed Water ............................................................45
11.3 Storage Basins or Tanks ........................................................................................47
11.4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery ...............................................................................49
11.5 Wet Weather Discharge ......................................................................................... 49
12.0 Scenarios ....................................................................................................................... 50
12.1 Scenario 1— Urban Reclaimed Water System, Surface Water Discharge ..............50
12.2 Scenario 2— 5.4 MGD to RIBS, 3 MGD to Pinellas Co., Urban RCW System, Zero
Discharge............................................................................................................... 52
12.3 Scenario 3— Urban Reclaimed Water System, Zero Discharge ............................. 53
13.0 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................55
14.0 Recommendations ........................................................................................................56
15.0 Implementation Plan .....................................................................................................57
Appendix A— Comparison of Current to Previous Ranking .............................................. A-1
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page ii
'
,
'
1
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
LIST OF TABLES
4-1 Status of Reciaimed Water Projects ...............................................................................10
6-1 Projected Reclaimed Water Demand per Service Area ...................................................16
6-2 Projected Reclaimed Water Demand .....................................:........................................17
9-1 Existing / Proposed Reclaimed Water Storage ...............................................................28
10-1 Average Residential Irrigation and Domestic Usage .......................................................32
10-2 Potable Water Offset ...................................................................................................... 33
10-3 Cost / Benefit Ratio ......................................................................................................... 35
10-4 Northeast A,PCF Reclaimed Water Users ....................................................................... 37
10-5 Project Phasing of Proposed RCW Projects through 2020 ..............................................39
10-6 Cumulative Reclaimed Water Demand ...........................................................................40
11-1 Land Application within Florida Power Corporation's ROWs and at Northeast APCF .....45
12-1 Scenario 2 Capital Costs ................................................................................................ 53
12-2 Scenario 2(w/ASR) Capital Costs .................................................................................. 53
12-3 Scenario 3 Capital Costs ................................................................................................ 54
12-4 Scenario 3(w/ASR) Capitai Costs .................................................................................. 54
LIST OF FIGURES
4-1 Service Area Boundaries w/Existing or Under Construction Reclaimed Water Systems .11
7-1 Marshall Street APCF Projected Wastewater Flows .......................................................19
7-2 Northeast APCF Projected Wastewater Flows ................................................................19
7-3 East APCF Projected Wastewater Flows ........................................................................ 20
7-4 Combined VWVTP Flows .................................................................................................20
8-1 Seasonal Wastewater Flow and Reclaimed Water Demand ........................................... 22
9-1 Wastewater Flow and Reclaimed Water Demand (Build Out of Urban System) ..............24
9-2 Wastewater Flow & Reclaimed Water Demand (3 mgd to Pinellas Co./5.4 mgd to RIBs)26
9-3 Wastewater Flow & Reclaimed Water Demand (3 mgd to Pinellas Co.) ..........................27
9-4 Reclaimed Water Pumping and Storage Plan ................................................................. 29
10-1 Reclaimed Water Service Areas with Priority Ranking .................................................... 36
10-2 Projected RCW Demand and WWTP Flows ...................................................................41
11-1 Proposed Land Application Areas ...................................................................................44
11-2 Clearwater/Largo Reclaimed Water Interconnect ............................................................46
11-3 Reclaimed Water Storage Pod .......................................................................................48
12-1 Reclaimed Water Demand Year 2020 ............................................................................. 51
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page iii
'
u
'
'
l_1,
'
'
�
'
,
1
�J
'
1
u
'
,
'
'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Clearwater is in the midst of expanding its reclaimed water system to meet multiple
objectives including (1) reducing potable water consumption for irrigation and (2) reducing
discharges of highly treated effluent to adjacent surface waters. In 1998, the City developed an
Updated Master Plan that has guided project development for the past 4 years. The City has
completed construction of reclaimed water systems to serve the Clearwater Beach areas.
Currently, the City is designing an expansion of service along Drew Street west of McMullen-
Booth to serve areas adjacent to Drew Street, Old Coachman Road and Park Place Boulevard.
This project will also expand service on Union Street between McMullen-Booth and U.S. 19.
Funding approval has been received for design and construction of reclaimed water systems in
the Harbor Oaks area of the City.
Funding for reclaimed water projects is typically provided through revenues from the Water and
Sewer Enterprise Funds, grant funding and from reclaimed water sales. Due to the extensive
capital costs required to construct the infrastructure to provide reclaimed water service and the
relatively low revenues generated from reclaimed water sales, outside funding has been a key
component to the funding the necessary capital projects. Recent changes in funding eligibility
requirements and issues related to the City's surface water discharges have prompted the City
staff to request a review and update of the project prioritization.
A significant portion of project funding for reclaimed water system development has historically
been through grants from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The
District's funding criteria has evolved in the last few years to rely heavily on a project's cost
relative to the benefit received from offsetting the use of potable water and groundwater.
Communities throughout the District are vying for limited funding and the project cost/benefit
ratio is a key factor in project selection to receive funds. This re-visit of the Master Plan has
included a review and update of project priority based on the Cost/Benefit ratio of the project.
The intent of relying on the Cost/Benefit evaluation is to insure that the City of Clearwater's
proposed reclaimed water project are cost competitive with other projects seeking limited grant
funding. Without this funding source, the City's progress on reclaimed water system
development will be significantly reduced. The table on the following page outlines the results
of reprioritization of the projects to be implemented over the next 20 years.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 1
u
l__J
u
,
'
t
'
�J
'
'
'
'
'
�
L__1
'
'
'
Project Phasing of Proposed RCW Projects through 2020
Service Project Reclaimed Construction Capital Cost
Area Name Water Demand gegins (2001 Dollars)
�9Pd)
1 Seville/Sunset Drive 591,150 2004 $2,197,400
East APCF Pump Station 2005 $1,133,100
2 Del Oro Groves 800,730 2005 $2,591,100
3 Morningside 959,770 2006 $3,443,300
7.5 MG Storage @ Air Park 2007 $2,000,000
ASR Storage Facility 2007 $5,000,000
4 Skycrest 643,890 2007 $4,323,000
5 Coachman Ridge 556,710 2008 $2,346,300
6 Enterprise 825,620 2009 $2,658,200
7 East Drew Street 327,070 2010 $1,651,800
8 Countryside South 942,580 2011 $4,792,800
9 Lake Park 599,760 2012 $3,187,200
5 MG Storage @ NE APCF 2012 $1,500,000
10 South Betty Lane 751,660 2013 $6,791,300
11 Countryside North 942,580 2014 $4,974,100
12 North Greenwood 820,720 2015 $4,324,500
13 North Hercules 466,330 2016 $2,901,600
14 County Club Estates 675,480 2017 $3,888,700
15 Clearwater High 714,290 2018 $4,290,100
16 Glen Oaks 625,840 2019 $4,620,000
17 North Belcher 622,080 2020 $2,723,300
Total 11,886,260 $71,337,800
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 2
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
�
,
L_J
'
In addition to the project prioritization being established, the following summary outlines key
recommendations or information for the City to consider in the continued development of the
reclaimed water system:
• Flow projections indicate that the Year 2020 reclaimed water supply will be 19 to 20 MGD
depending on such factors as continued growth trends, redevelopment activities, and
improvements in collection system integrity. The City's demand could exceed the available
supply with full build-out of the reclaimed water system. Further, to maximize the full
potential of 20 MGD storage during wet weather periods is required for as much as 1.1
billion galions of reciaimed water.
• Based on projections, the City will exceed the daily demand for reclaimed water for periods
of lowest supply availability as eariy as 2008. The City can continue distribution system
expansion beyond 2008 with more restrictive ordinances for the use of reclaimed water.
Other options for continued expansion of the system will require seasonal storage to meet
the peak flows during the dry season with water stored during the wetter months. Above
ground storage options of the magnitude necessary will be extremely costly, if not, wholly
impractical. Aquifer Storage and Recovery provides a potential for developing large
volumes of storage locally with minimal land impacts. The suitability of the geologic
formations in this area need to be closely evaluated to insure the aquifer can support the
needs for storage while protecting the sensitive water supply aquifer in which the City is
investing for potable water supply. The City should proceed with the joint feasibility study
with the Southwest Florida Water Management District to begin to understand the potential
for this option.
• The option of expediting construction of reclaimed water systems in order to eliminate the
two surface water discharges was evaluated. The least cost alternative to meet this
objective is to construct reclaimed water infrastructure with estimated costs of $102 million.
The extensive capital requirements coupled with extensive permitting issues make this
approach very difficult to implement in a short time frame. In addition, the City would not
capitalize on the SWFWMD cooperative funding with a short-term capital requirement of this
magnitude.
• The City will need to continue expansion of above ground storage facilities and pumping
facilities to support the operation of the reclaimed water system and the daily fluctuations in
supply and demand. The City currently has no pumping capability from the East APCF for
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 3
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
�
1
'
,
,
'
'
'
1
,
'
'
utilization of East plant effiuent in the system. It is recommended that a minimum of one
day's reciaimed water storage capacity should be provided. For the 20 year planning period
this will require: �
New reclaimed water pumping facility at the East APCF.
New 7.5 MG storage and pump station near the Clearwater Air Park.
■ Additional 5.0 MG storage tank at the Northeast APCF.
• The cost of interconnecting the City of Clearwater with the City of Largo is estimated to be
$5.0 million. This interconnect could provide some operational flexibility, however,
opportunities to transfer water from one system to the other is limited because typically both
systems will have high demands or excess water at the same times. Neither community has
addressed the seasonal storage issue which could afford some greater opportunity to shift
flows during high demand periods, therefore, this interconnect is not considered a high
priority at this time.
• City staff presented the Draft Report to the City of Clearwater Commission on April 30, 2001.
This Final Report incorporates the comments received during the Presentation. Appendix A
contains details on these items.
• The City staff conducted Public Meetings on August 6 and 7 to present the Draft Plan to the
residents and to seek input for the Final Report. A recap of resident's comments are also
included in Appendix A.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 4
'
'
l__1
,
'
'
'
lJ
'
,
,
1
,
l J,
t
'
'
'
,
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Clearwater has an established program of reclaimed water system expansion.
Beginning in 1998, the City initiated its first residential/commercial reclaimed water system by
expanding from the Marshall Street Advanced Pollution Control Facility (APCF) to the Island
Estates community. Prior to this time, the City provided reclaimed water to a few golf course
areas and recreation spaces near two of the APCFs. The City is continuing the expansion of
the system on Clearwater Beach, with plans following to service areas targeted in the 1998
Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update.
From late 1999 and through early 2001, Clearwater and the Tampa Bay region experienced
severe drought conditions. In response to the drought conditions, more stringent watering
restrictions were implemented across the region, including the City of Clearwater. With the
increasing burden placed on our water resources, the City desires to re-visit the 1998
Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update to evaluate the appropriateness of the plan given the
ever-changing conditions and the need to continually maximize the effectiveness of the
reclaimed water program. McKim & Creed, P.A. was contracted by the City of Clearwater to
review the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update (McKim & Creed, P.A., 1998) and provide a
re-assessment of the reclaimed water service areas.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 5
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
2.0 RECLAIMED WATER BACKGROUND
The City began utilization of treated effluent in the 1980s with the completion of an effluent
pumping station and low pressure transmission main at the Northeast APCF. This system
serves the Countryside Golf Course and the Chi Chi Rodriquez Driving Range area. In 1990,
the City began to explore a City-wide expansion of the reclaimed water system. The City's first
Reclaimed Water Master Pan was prepared in 1990 by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. and
included a three-phase, $70 million expansion program. Support for this program was not
sufficient to make significant progress. It was not until 1998 that the system began to expand to
serve residential customers by constructing the system that now serves the Island Estates area
and other City parks and open spaces in the western portion of the City. The facilities to serve
these areas include a new pumping facility and a storage system at the Marshall Street
Advanced Pollution Control Facility. Due to the time that elapsed between completing the
original master plan and beginning the expansion, and due to changes in the fundamental
approach to developing the reclaimed water program that became evident with the expansion of
the system to serve Island Estates, the City recognized the need to update the reclaimed water
master plan to take into consideration the then current conditions and the re-direction of the
system development. McKim & Creed, P.A, developed the Reclaimed Water Master Plan
Update in 1998. This document has provided the guidance for expansion of six subsequent
projects to extend reclaimed water service. These projects are in various stages of planning,
design, construction or operation and are described in Section 4.0.
Funding for reclaimed water projects is difficult from the standpoint that reclaimed water sales
typically do not generate sufficient revenues to cover both operating costs and capital cost
repayment. The City has been successful in attracting the support of the Southwest Florida
Water Management District and the Pinellas-Anclote Basin Board for a portion of the funding of
all previous reclaimed water projects beginning with the Island Estates Reclaimed Water Project
in 1998. To date, the City has received commitments of over $9.5 million dollars from the
Pinellas-Anclote Basin Board for reclaimed water projects totaling over $22 million in cost. The
City has funded the remaining portion of the cost of these projects using revenues generated
from the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds and with a small portion from reclaimed water
sales. The continued success of developing reclaimed water systems at a reasonable pace will
be dependent on continued success in grant funding from SWFWMD to sustain. The scope of
this project included an evaluation of the City's Master Plan to insure that projects are
competing favorable for the limited grant funds available from the SWFWMD. The project
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 6
,
tCost/Benefit ratio of proposed projects detailed later in this report is a key factor in eligibility for
funding. Therefore, this report focuses around projected Cost/Benefit ratios for comparing
' project priorities. This report will amend the 1998 Master Plan based on current conditions and
based on a review of cost/benefit ratios. The report wiil also address specific issues the City
' Staff has requested to be further evaluated. The foilowing section provides a more detailed
scope of this report.
'
'
�
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
�_.J
�J
'
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of C/earwater
, 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 7
'
��
'
'
'
'
'
'
LJ
'
'
,
,
'
'
L_J
'
'
C
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Upon consultation with the City Public Works Administration and Public Utilities staff, McKim &
Creed has identified the following scope of work for this project:
A. Review the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update (1998).
B. Identify areas that have large numbers of private, residential irrigation well users by
discussions with City staff and reviewing well construction records obtained from the
SWFWMD. We may also contact homeowners groups through the association of
homeowners.
C. Obtain and review lawn meter usage and potable water usage from the City billing
records for target areas.
D. Evaluate the impact to the expanding reclaimed water pumping, storage and
transmission system at the Northeast Advanced Pollution Control Facility (APCF) with
proposed additional reclaimed water users in the Northeast Clearwater area.
E. Develop projected irrigation rates and refined demands for reclaimed water for the
identified areas.
F. Review the most recent funding criteria changes by the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD), primarily with respect to funding of distribution
systems. Evaluate the impact of these changes on the priorities and costs for extending
reclaimed water service to target areas identified and areas previously programmed in
the Master plan.
G. Define infrastructure requirements necessary to extend reclaimed water service to these
target areas. Utilize hydraulic model as needed.
H. Develop budgetary costs of expanding the reclaimed water system to these target areas.
Review and prepare revisions and/or updates as appropriate to project costs for those
areas in the Master Plan based on new information.
I. Determine potable water and ground water offsets for the target reclaimed water service
area(s). Prepare estimates of cost/benefit utilized by the SWFWMD to evaluate project
viability for funding.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 8
'
'
,
'
'
'
l J.
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
�
'
'
,
J. Review and refine existing prioritized lists of projects to reflect addition of the northeast
Clearwater area and other areas that are identified for cost effective reclaimed water
service. �
K. Refine maps of the City to iilustrate and exhibit the proposed modification to the areas
and/or priorities previously proposed.
L. Assist the City in obtaining grant funding for newly defined reclaimed water project in
northeast Clearwater area that may result from this study.
M. Prepare brief draft report in the form of an amendment to the Master Plan Update for
submittal to the City. Incorporate comments into a final report that will amend the
previous Master Plan Update.
N. Attend meetings with the City to review progress on the project and to review results of
preliminary and final findings and recommendations. Assist in preparing presentations of
findings as needed.
Subsequent to the drafting of this scope, the City has determined a need to address other
related factors that may affect the long-term development of the reclaimed water system. These
issues include:
➢ More stringent limitation on discharge of treated effluent included in new NPDES permits
and possible future permit limitations.
➢ Possible coordination with adjoining communities to improve system reliability.
➢ Consideration of elimination of effluent discharges to surface water.
➢ Coordination of SWFWMD planning efforts.
We have incorporated these issues in the review and update of the Master Plan. The City will
face several decisions in deciding on the most cost effective and most environmentally
acceptable system configuration. This report intends to provide data, information and
evaluations to facilitate these decisions.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2009 Page 9
'
'
lJ
'
'
'
'
'
u
�
,
'
'
'
'
'
�
'
i
4.0 STATUS OF CURRENT RECLAIMED WATER PROJECTS
The City of Clearwater is continuing expansion of its reclaimed water system. The system
expansion has been in general accordance with the priorities established in the 1998 Reclaimed
Water Master Plan Update as modified to meet current specific goals. The following table
outlines the current status of projects and the expected completion dates assuming continued
support for the program.
Table 4-1
Status of Reclaimed Water Projects
Project Name Status Target Completion
Island Estates Complete 1999
N. Clearwater Beach Complete 2001
S. Clearwater Beach Complete 2001
Northeast Storage and Under construction 2002
Pumping Facility
N. Greenwood Under construction 2003
Drew Street / Union Street Design phase 2004
Harbor Oaks SWFWMD Funding approved 2005
The City of Clearwater has received cooperative funding from the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) for all of the reclaimed water projects listed above. The
projects discussed above are shown on Figure 4-1.
For the purposes of this report, "existing" reclaimed water projects are those identified through
the North Greenwood project as shown in Table 4-1, which includes those areas of the City
currently utilizing reclaimed water and areas where reclaimed water projects are currently under
construction or are in design. It is projected that the total reclaimed water demand of the
"existing" reclaimed water areas is 2.5 MGD (million gallons per day).
The Drew Street / Union Street and Harbor Oaks projects are identified as "pending" reclaimed
water projects. It is projected that these service areas will have a combined average reclaimed
water demand of 1.6 MGD.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 10
oe9z
r'�`��
,<`,�
:�
v_
:-`;�
r^j'= yv
,�+-w
�a
���
( fi �;
[:=. :
,s�-�=:
F= y;
.
i
�
.
f�Tl �R1 �X X Dp p��
z mc� �cn cn <?< c��
O DD �� � �Z ��O
Z Z z _{
� pm G� G� �m �N�7
m z° � � ° ���
n �� n n � �D
D � -Di D D � r��7 �7
� � � � � C D D
rn m m � � —�
� � � � z D�
D < � D C�
O
� m � � �
�
�
0
� N r
m
� �
rr
: � \
m `�3� �' t
� s ���
m _�
D - �,
� �
C_� D 4�
� �
� W
p O
� C
Z �
D � � �
� m � y
� N �
D �
rn �
� _
I m
� x � �� .
� :
� .,
m z �� �
D � �
�
N � � �� �
O � � � � _�� �`=�'
O C ,, �
O Z ,
� p 'i��l� _
m m - i;u��=
n � : �--
r ��� � I �
D O
� Z `
m � , _::s'=
o � _
D C �
0
m -'
� Z � _-
� �
cn ri ,�
m � a
� D
� -
f�Tl v _ _a: �'1� �c►� io
< - -
r�i � ' ; i ' —
I-
� � � ��' _- ., � � � �
r+i =- ,� , _
� � lu�'���� , -
� f �:���
� �_ i�
.
( ��
N � .� �'�^-� T .��-' .�';�.
�
3
�
I
�
�
�� -
�°� �wr'
�
>
���
�
r
fTl
�
(TI
Z
0
o °
O �
� � �
� Z —
� � �
�
�N
��� �� ��
��
v� � _
o: i
;
_ _.
� r"�=
.�laml,om�
.�(.�v�.,�,
�� �
�o
r� , �
'�
-,�
i
'
' In addition to these projects, the City has signed a 12-year agreement with Pineilas County to
provide 3 MGD of reclaimed water to a new County storage facility proposed north of the City's
' Northeast APCF. This facility should be on line by the end of 2004. �
' The City has proposed a site development project in the downtown Clearwater area that may
demand reclaimed water. This site development is part of the Town Pond Rehabilitation Project
which is currently under design. This project is located south of Cleveland Street between
' Greenwood Avenue and Myrtle Street.
,
�
�
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C'�
1
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of C/earwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 12
1
'
'
5.0 HISTORICAL RECLAIMED WATER USE
The City utilizes reclaimed water from two of its advanced wastewater treatment facilities - the
Marshall Street APCF and the Northeast APCF. The Marshall Street APCF currently produces
' a minimum of 6 MGD (million gallons per day) of treated effluent and a 3-month average of 7
MGD. Reclaimed water from the facility is utilized at the following areas: Clearwater Country
Club, Philip Jones Field, Jack Russell Stadium, Coachman Park, Memorial Causeway median,
' Pier 60, Island Estates and Clearwater Beach.
1
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
The Northeast APCF currently produces a minimum of 5 MGD of treated effluent and a 3-month
average of 6 MGD. Approximately 1 MGD of reclaimed water is utilized by the following
facilities: Countryside Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf Course, Countryside Golf Driving
Range, and Countryside Sports Complex.
The East APCF produces treated wastewater to reclaimed water standards, but due to the lack
of pumping and storage facilities at the plant, reclaimed water from the plant is currently not
utilized in the City's reclaimed water system. Future reclaimed water plans for the East APCF
include the addition of a pumping station at the plant and potentially an offsite storage facility.
McKim & Creed reviewed the City's reclaimed water pumpage information to calculate
reclaimed water irrigation rates for the areas currently using reclaimed water. Review of these
areas is provided below and indicates that the reclaimed water irrigation rate is 1" per week on
average and 1.5" per week during peak demand times, which equals a peaking factor of 1.5.
5.1 Island Estates, Philip Jones Field, Jack Russell Stadium, Coachman
Park, Memorial Causeway, and Pier 60
Island Estates, Philip Jones Field, Jack Russell Stadium, Coachman Park, Memorial
' Causeway median, and Pier 60 have approximately 173 acres open to irrigation. Based
on the City's records, these areas used an average of 474,100 gpd (gallons per day)
� during 1999 once the entire Island Estates area was brought on line in March 1999. The
majority of this water was used to irrigate the Island Estates community. Using the
'
'
'
,
following equation and an 80% connection factor for the Island Estates community, a
reclaimed water irrigation rate of 0.9" per week is calculated:
➢
�
In/week =(474,100 gpd/173 acres) *(7 days/wk)'` (ft^3/7.48 gal)
*(acre/43560 ft^2) *(12"/ft) / .8
In/week = 0.9" per week
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 93
'
�
'
'
�
�
'
'
'
�J
,
,
'
An 80% connection factor refiects the percentage of customers estimated to be
connected to the reclaimed water system. During 1999, a peak reclaimed water usage
of 705,600 gpd occurred in May, which equates to an irrigation rate of 1.3" per week.
During drought conditions in May and June 2000, these areas had a demand of 798,000
gpd of reclaimed water, equating to 1.5" per week.
5.2 Clearwater Country Club
Ciearwater Country Club has approximately 65 irrigable acres. Based on the City's
records, Ciearwater Country Club used an average of 218,000 gpd during 1999, which
calculates to an irrigation rate of 0.9" per week by using the following equation:
IJ
➢
In/week =(218,000 gpd/ 65 acres) *(7 days/wk) *(ft^3/7.48 gal)
*(acre/43560 ft^2) *(12"/ft)
In/week = 0.9" per week
During 1999, a peak reclaimed water usage of 340,000 gpd occurred in April, which
equates to an irrigation rate of 1.3" per week. During drought conditions in May and
June 2000, Clearwater Country Club used approximately 380,000 gpd of reclaimed
water, equating to an irrigation rate of 1.5" per week.
5.3 Countryside Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf Course,
Countryside Sports Complex, and Countryside Driving Range.
The Countryside Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf Course, Countryside Sports
Complex, and Countryside Driving Range have approximately 196 irrigable acres. In
1999, an average of 774,247 gpd of reclaimed water was used by these four areas,
which calculates to an irrigation rate of 1.0" per week. The peak month during 1999 was
May and 1,238,000 gpd of reclaimed water was utilized during that month, equating to
' an irrigation rate of 1.6" per week. During drought conditions in May and June 2000,
these areas demanded approximately 1,461,000 gpd, which equals an irrigation rate of
'
'
'
'
'
1.9" per week.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 14
'
'
'
1
6.0 PROJECTED RECLAIMED WATER DEMANDS OF URBAN
SYSTEM
The area within the City of Clearwater is delineated into 25 potential reclaimed water service
areas as shown on Figure 4-1. These areas were defined by land use, size, major roadway
boundaries and other related features. Reclaimed water demand for each service area was
determined by projecting the amount of land open to irrigation, or irrigable space. Irrigable
tspace acreage per service area was determined in the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
(1998) and those acreage values were utilized in this report. As a comparison, irrigable acreage
' information was obtained from the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County GIS (Geographic
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
Information Systems) Departments. Their acreage information compared favorably to the
irrigable acreage determined in the 1998 Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update.
Based on the review of the existing reclaimed water demand as discussed in Section 5.0, an
average reclaimed water demand of 1" per week was utilized to estimate the reclaimed water
demand of the City's 25 reclaimed water service areas. These reclaimed water service areas
and the projected demand are shown in Table 6-1 on the following page. Each area has a"%
Connected" factor which relates to the projected number of connections relative to the total
potential customer base. For example, areas that have more commercial or industrial land use
have a lower "% Connected" factor since it is projected that fewer of these customers will
connect to the reclaimed water system. The "Other RCW Demand" category accounts for
properties within the reclaimed water service area such as parks, cemeteries, landscaped
medians, golf courses, and schools projected to utilize reclaimed water. The "Total RCW
Demand" is the sum of the "Irrigable Acreage RCW Demand" and the "Other RCW Demand".
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 15
'
'
�
'
'
,
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
Table 6-1
Projected Reclaimed Water Demand per Service Area
Irrigable Total RCW
Irrigable Other RCW
Name Acreage °/a Connected Acreage RCW Demand Demand in
(acres) Demand �gpd� Service Area
d d
Seville 107 80 332,035 - 332,035
Del Oro Groves 195 80 605,731 195,000 800,731
Morningside 285 80 883,772 76,000 959,772
Skycrest 213 70 578,889 65,000 643,889
Coachman Ridge 162 80 502,707 54,000 556,707
Enterprise 223 80 692,619 133,000 825,619
E. Drew Street 84 70 228,080 98,990 327,070
Countryside South 243 90 848,276 94,300 942,576
Lake Park 171 70 463,763 136,000 599,763
South Betty Lane 292 60 678,655 73,000 751,655
Countryside North 243 90 848,276 94,300 942,576
North Greenwood 212 70 576,717 244,000 820,717
North Hercules 132 70 357,326 109,000 466,326
Country Club 127 80 393,477 282,000 675,477
Estates
Clearwater High 187 70 508,293 206,000 714,293
Glen Oaks 194 70 527,843 98,000 625,843
North Belcher 191 80 592,077 30,000 622,077
Palmetto Street 186 70 505,035 136,000 641,035
Clearwater Harbor 151 80 469,193 62,000 531,193
Woodmont 134 70 362,756 43,000 405,756
Hercules Industrial 95 60 220,284 - 220,284
Sunset Point 164 70 444,213 16,000 460,213
YMCA 138 70 375,789 - 375,789
Sylvan Abbey 65 80 201,705 50,400 252,105
Old Coachman 59 80 183,090 44,100 227,190
Total = 4,253 - 12,380,601 2,340,090 14,720,691
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
, 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 96
,
1
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
�
'
Table 6-2 indicates that the City's 25 reclaimed water service areas are projected to utilize an
average of 14.7 MGD of reclaimed water.
The total projected reclaimed water demand for the City is the sum of the reclaimed water
demand for the existing and pending reclaimed water service areas (as discussed in Section
4.0), the reclaimed water allocation to Pinellas County, and the proposed 25 urban service
areas. This total reclaimed water demand is estimated to be 21.8 MGD, as shown in the table
below.
Table 6-2
Projected Reclaimed Water Demand
Project
Average Reclaimed Water Demand
(MGD)
Existing Reclaimed Water Systems 2.5
Pending Reclaimed Water Systems 1.6
Pinellas County RCW Interconnect 3.0
25 Urban RCW Projects 14.7
Total 21.8
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 17
,
,
'
,
'
1
7.0 TREATED WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
The City monitors influent wastewater flows to the three wastewater treatment facilities. It is
assumed that the influent wastewater flow to each treatment facility is equal to the treated
wastewater flow (i.e. reclaimed water). The historical influent wastewater flows to the Marshall
Street, Northeast, and East APCFs are shown in Figures 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3, respectively. The
combined flow of the three facilities is shown in Figure 7-4. Using a best-fit linear projection
from historic flows produces a flow projection of 19 to 20 MGD for the combined facilities in the
year 2020. Many factors will affect the change in flow to the then wastewater facilities. These
include 1) City efforts to reduce inflow/infiltration which would curb future flow increases and 2)
redevelopment efforts which may tend to increase flow rates. The City will need to continue to
' monitor the effects of future change to the system. Since some of these features act to effect
the individual efforts and the magnitude of these changes is uncertain, we will work from
, straight-line projection for this report. Additionally, these figures show the projected wastewater
flows through the year 2020. These figures indicate that wastewater flows will continue to
'
,
'
,
,
'
'
1
'
,
increase. It is projected that in the year 2020, the combined ffow of the three facilities will
average between 19 and 20 MGD.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 18
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
o�
��
co
�v �.
o �
� O
N �
�
�
n
�
�
�
Q
A�i
�
�
�
�
v
�
�
�
�
�
w
3
o aQ
3 °
�
cD
�
N
O
O
�
n
'C
O
�
C)
� a�i
� �
� p�i
� �
�O 1
�
0
�
�
T
0
f
m
�
�
�
�
m
a
�
m
n
�
v
�
m
f
v
m
�
i
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
� 2002
� 2003
' 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
, 2010
��, 2011
' 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MGD
O N A Q1 O� O N A
�
-�
�D�
� Z
° o
� �. T
�' �D =
tU
� � �
�
� � N
fD i�i
-s -n
"n
O
�
N
��
0
MGD
O N A � 00 O N
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
, 1999
2000
200�
� .� 2002
! d 2003
2004
2005
2006
�,i 2007
2008
, 2009
I 2010
' 2011
, 2012
2013
2014
2015
2��6
2017
2018
2019
2020
�
n
0
0
0
A
x
+
rn
w
�
�
�
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�'
�'
�
�
�
�
��
�'
�
�
�
i
�
�
�`p' �
� y
Q' � "ii
= c�
�1 � C
� � �
� ~
� '
SU �
� D
� �
'il n
O �
�
N
,
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
�
'
'
�
�
'
�
�
'
25
20
15
�
c�
�
10
5
Figure 7-3 '
East APCF
Projected Wastewater Flows
6
5 - - - ----- - - -- ---- -- -- - - - - - - - -- - -
. -
.
4 -- - - - -- -- - - - - -- - � - ' '
-- - ----
_ _ _ _ _ - - " � y = 0.0059x + 2.4952
�3- -- - - - -- -- - -- - --- --
� --- - - -
2 - ------ - - - -- - --
1 - - - --- - --- - -- --
- - -- ---- - - -
0
N M �' tn (O f� 00 � O N M �f � (p (� Op � O�-- N M V' �(O f� a0 � O
� � 67 O) ����� O O O O O O O O O O (V
��� 07 ����� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r' � � � � � e- e- � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Year
�I Average Nbnthly Flow s---- Projected Average Nbnthly Flow s i
Figure 7-4
Combined VWVf P Flows
0� � � � � � �
N M V tn (p f� OD � O N M �t tn CO I� N m O � N M �t � (p I� 00 � O
� 07 � � O) 01 m � � O O O O O O O O O O
O� 6� O) O) O) � � � O) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
�"" '"' � �"' �'- � r' � � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Year
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 20
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � r � � � �
o�
��
N �,
°o�
N�
�
�
=
a�
�'
c�
Q
�
�
�
�
3
d
�
�
�
�
n�
�
O�
� �
3 `D
a
�
�
0
0
�
n
►,
�
0
�
c�
o�i j
m �
N�
30
25
Figure 8-1
Seasonal Wastewater Flow 8� Reclaimed Water Demand
1988-2000*
(July 1997,1une 1898 Exeluded)
t----- -- ------
20 ---
0
�
«
�
a, ..
� C9 15 ---
w g
y ..'
�
m
>
Q
10 ---
5
0
-- -- ---------------------------------- —�'11-YearAverageWastewaterFlow
�—Projected Monthly Reclaimed Water Demand
Avera e
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
�
'
'
�
'
'
'
'
i
l�
1
'
r
�
8.0 SUPPLY/DEMAND SEASONAL VARIATIONS
The changes in wastewater flows and reclaimed water demand throughout the year can have
dramatic impacts on the operation of the reclaimed water system and the facilities required to
support maximum use of reclaimed water. Influent flow records for the City's three wastewater
treatment facilities and the reclaimed water flow demand records were reviewed to estimate the
difference in rates and volume between the two. The following paragraphs discuss the
requirements for storage for the various operating conditions that the City will face as the
system expands and usage increases closer to the seasonal low flows of the plants.
8.1 Wastewater Flow Variations
The City's influent wastewater flow records for Marshall Street APCF, East APCF, and
Northeast APCF from 1989 to present (excluding the EI Nino impacted months in later
1997 and early 1998) were evaluated to estimate the seasonal wastewater flow
variations. Figure 8-1 illustrates the typical monthly variations in flow throughout the
year. The flow pattern was adjusted to reflect the current average wastewater flow rate
of 15.4 MGD.
8.2 Reclaimed Water Demand Variations
McKim and Creed reviewed the City's existing reclaimed water demand for the year,
beginning May 1999, to estimate the seasonal variation in reclaimed water demand.
The flows were generally in the 1 to 2 MGD range. This is the reclaimed water demand
as measured flowing from the Marshall Street and Northeast APCFs. The seasonal
demand pattern shown on Figure 8-1 was adjusted so that the average yearly reclaimed
water demand matches the average flow rate of treated wastewater of 15.4 MGD.
The seasonal peaking factor for the reclaimed water system, based on the curve shown
in Figure 8-1 is 1.5. As a comparison, potable water demand from mid 1994 to mid 1999
' was reviewed to determine an average seasonal peaking factor. The average seasonal
peaking factor for the potable water system is calculated to be 1.1. The reclaimed water
seasonal peaking factor is expected to be greater than the potable water seasonal
' peaking factor since the use of reclaimed water is more dramatically impacted by wet
weather and dry weather conditions.
�
,
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 21
'
�
'
�
�
'
'
,
,
�'
'
'
'
'
�
'
'
,
9.0 STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
Storage of reclaimed water is necessary, at a minimum, to meet daily demands by the
reclaimed water customers. If the City wishes to maximize the use of reclaimed water while
reducing or eliminating effluent discharges, then reclaimed water will need to be stored during
the wet season in order to meet the demand during the dry season. These types of storage
requirements are discussed below.
9.1 Seasonal Storage Requirements
9.1.1 Storage Requirements for Build Out of Urban Reclaimed Water
System
Wastewater treatment plant flows for the City's three wastewater treatment plants
are projected to average 20 MGD in 2020. If the City wishes to build out their
urban reclaimed water system to an average reclaimed water demand of 20
MGD, then seasonal storage of reclaimed water during the wet season is
necessary to meet demands during the dry season. To estimate the amount of
reclaimed water that would need to be stored in 2020, the average flow shown on
Figure 8-1 (15.4 MGD) for reclaimed water supply and demand is adjusted to
match to the projected average flow of 20 MGD as shown on Figure 9-1.
The difference between the supply and demand volume was calculated to
estimate the reclaimed water deficit or reclaimed water excess. This estimate
was created assuming the City does not provide 3 MGD of reclaimed water to
Pinellas County in 2020 to illustrate a worst case reclaimed water storage
scenario in the event the 12-year City/County agreement is not extended. Figure
9-1 indicates that during a year, the City could see an approximate 1.1 billion
gallon (BG) deficit in dry season demand of effluent indicating that the City would
need to store 1.1 BG during the balance of the year to meet the reclaimed water
demand. Building out the urban reclaimed water system and related storage will
decrease the amount of effluent discharged to surface waters.
Review of Rec/aimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
� 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 23
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
o�
��
N �.
o�
N °,
�
�
=
�
3
�
Q
�
�
m
�
3
y
..�
cD
�
�
�
�
O �C
a
�°
a
�
N
0
0
�
n
�
0
-�,
n
v �m v
�:
35
30 ---
25
3
0
�
�
� ^20
�
W �
p� �15
�a
L
d
�
a
10
5
0
Figure 9-1
Seasonal Wastewater Flow* � Reclaimed Water Demand
Build out of Urban Reclaimed Water System
*1989-2000 (July 1997-June 1998 Excluded)
"♦— Projected 20-Year Average Wastewater Flow
-- ------ --- -- —�Projected Monthly Reclaimed Water Demand ---
20-Year Avera e �
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
9.1.2 Storage Requirements with 3 MGD to Pinellas County and 5.4 MGD
to RIBs, Balance to Urban Reclaimed Water System
If in 2020, the City provides 3 MGD of reclaimed water to Pinellas County by
extension of their 12-year reclaimed water agreement, discharges 5.4 MGD of
reclaimed water to rapid infiltration basins (RIBs), and utilizes the balance of the
reclaimed water (11.6 MGD) for the urban reclaimed water system, then it is
estimated that 600 million gallons (MG) would need to be stored to meet the
seasonal demand for reclaimed water. This storage requirement is lower
because constant demand for reclaimed water has a dampening effect on the
seasonal reclaimed water demand, whereas varying demand from urban
reclaimed water customers (i.e. more demand in the dry season, less demand in
the wet season) amplifies the seasonal demand for reclaimed water. Figure 9-2
shows the projected seasonal reclaimed water supply and demand in 2020.
9.1.3 Storage Requirements with 3 MGD to Pinellas and Balance to Urban
Reclaimed Water System
If in 2020, the City continues to provide 3 MGD of reclaimed water to Pinellas
County and uses 17 MGD for the urban reclaimed water system in 2020, then it
is estimated that the City will need to store 900 MG of reclaimed water to meet
seasonal demand. Figure 9-3 shows the projected seasonal reclaimed water
supply and demand in 2020 with 3 MGD of reclaimed water dedicated to Pinellas
County.
9.2 Daily Reclaimed Water Storage
Reclaimed water storage is necessary to meet daily fluctuations in reclaimed water
demand. It is recommended that the City have reclaimed water storage at least equal to
the volume of reclaimed water demand on a daily basis. The Marshall Street, East, and
Northeast APCFs have capacity to treat average wastewater flows of 10 MGD, 5 MGD,
and 13.5 MGD, respectively, equaling 28.5 MGD. The projected year 2020 flow is
approximately 20 MGD. Currently, the Marshall Street facility has a 5 MG reclaimed
water storage tank. The Northeast facility has a 5 MG reclaimed water storage tank
planned to be on line in late 2002. The East facility has no reclaimed water storage.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 25
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
o�
��
N �.
o�
N °�
�
�
�
a�
3
�
a
v
�
�
�
3
d
y
m
�
_v
a�
�
va
4
� �
a
�
�
0
0
�
n
�
0
�
n
a�i �m m
o�
�
25
0 20
Li.
�
c
d .�
�p
W � 15
� „
�
�
L
d
a �o
5
�
Figure 9-2
Seasonal Wastewater Flow* � Reclaimed Water Demand
3 MGD to Pinellas County/5.4 MGD to RIB's
*1989-2000 (July 1997-June 1998 Excluded)
- ----- - — ------- — - - - --- ------�
Average = 20 MGD �I
�
T____'____" _____'_____" '_____'_____ " ______" '_ " _____'_ " " 1
Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Jun Jul
Month
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
, � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
o�
��
n1`°, �.
o�
0
N °,
�
�
=
�
3
�
a
v
�
c�
�
3
d
y
�
�D
1
�
�
�
oa
a
� °
a
m
�
N
0
0
�
n
`c
0
�
n
o�i j
m �
V 1
35
30
25
3
0
�
� ^20
�p
� �
W �
p� V 15
�
�
>
�a
' 10
5
0
Figure 9-3
Seasonal Wastewater Flow* & Reclaimed Water Demand
3 MGD to Pinellas County
*1989-2000 (July 1997-June 1998 Excluded)
D
�
�-11-YearAverage Wastewater Flow
-""""----------------------------------- '}Projected Monthly Reclaimed Water Demand ----"-----
Avera e
Jan Feb Mar
Apr May Jun Jul
Month
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1
' The City has three elevated storage tanks on the potable water system that could
potentially be utilized to store reclaimed water. Those tanks are Dei Oro (1 MG), Otten
, Street (1 MG), and South Greenwood (1 MG). The Del O�o tank is expected to be
converted to a reciaimed water storage tank as part of the Drew-Union Street project.
r�l
l
'
,
'
'
'
t
,
'
,
,
'
,
,
'
�i
�.1
The locations of the Otten Street and South Greenwood elevated tanks are not
conducive to converting these tanks to reciaimed water use in the near future.
An additional 10 MG is needed to achieve the full 20 MG of daily reclaimed water
storage. The City should consider addition of a 7.5 MG storage tank near the
Clearwater Air Park to provide additional storage for flow from Marshall Street and East
APCF's. A second 5 MG storage tank at the Northeast APCF should be considered to
provide the added capacity to handle the total 20 MG projection. Table 9-1 is a listing of
these storage facilities and related volume. These facilities are shown on Figure 9-4.
Table 9-1
Existing / Proposed Reclaimed Water Storage
Storage Tank
Facility �MG� Comments
Marshall Street APCF 5 Existing
East APCF - no storage
Northeast APCF 5 Currently under construction
5 proposed on site
Del Oro Elevated Tank 1 Existing on potable system
Clearwater Air Park 7.5 Proposed off site (Clearwater Air Park)
Total = 23.5 MG
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 28
'
, 9.3 Reject Storage
If the City were to discontinue their surface water disposai option then a separate, off-
' line reject storage system would be necessary to store reclaimed water that does not
meet established reclaimed water quality criteria resulting from a plant upset. A Florida
' Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requirement (Rule 62-610.464, F.A.C.)
stipulates that at a minimum, "this capacity shall be the volume equai to one day flow at
' the average daily design flow of the treatment plant or the average daily permitted flow
of the reuse system, whichever is less." This requirement was implemented so that
, reclaimed water could be stored then recycled through the wastewater treatment facility
prior to it being distributed in the reclaimed water system.
' Reject storage is not an immediate issue with the City because surface water discharge
points for treated effluent currently exist and the current operating permit does not
' require reject storage. However, due to more stringent FDEP regulations on surface
water discharges, reject storage could become a pressing need and require
' consideration in planning for the future.
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
,
'
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 30
,
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
,
'
'
,
'
'
10.0 UPDATE OF PROJECT PRIORITY FOR URBAN SYSTEM
10.1 Projection of Potable Water Offset
The potable water offset is the amount of potable water and groundwater projected to be
reduced by utilizing reclaimed water. A review of existing rectaimed water systems in
the City indicates that when reclaimed water becomes available, the total reclaimed
water used in a service area exceeds the measured potable water consumption prior to
reclaimed water availability. This is a result of replacing unmetered individual well use
with reclaimed water and the fact that reclaimed water is less restrictive than potable
water use. The current policies restricting reclaimed water usage will be continually
scrutinized by the City to balance the objectives of development of reclaimed water
systems in the City.
The City's domestic and irrigation meter accounts were reviewed to determine potable
water usage for several reclaimed water service areas from June 1997 through May
1998. A"domestic" meter records the amount of potable water used for bathing,
drinking, washing dishes and clothes, and other in-home activities. An "irrigation" meter
records the amount of potable water utilized for irrigation. The majority of the customers
have a domestic meter, many customers have an irrigation meter in addition to the
domestic meter, and very few customers only have an irrigation meter.
McKim & Creed reviewed domestic and irrigation meter usage in the Harbor Oaks, Del
Oro, and Coachman Ridge reclaimed water service areas. In the Harbor Oaks
reclaimed water service area, an average potable water usage of 712,000 gpd for all
customers was recorded from June 1997 to May 1998. Additionally, these meter
records indicate that Harbor Oaks' residential customers used 183 gpd / account for
domestic uses (478 accounts) and 315 gpd / account for irrigation (94 accounts).
The City's meter records for the Del Oro reclaimed water service area from June 1997 to
May 1998 indicate that the average potable water usage for all customers was 270,000
gpd. Additionally, these meter records indicate that Del Oro's residential customers
used on average 196 gpd / account for domestic uses (581 accounts) and 134 gpd /
account for irrigation (135 accounts).
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 31
'
,
City meter records for the Coachman Ridge reclaimed water service area from June
1997 to May 1998 indicate that the average potable water usage for all customers was
� 241,000 gpd. Additionally, these meter records indicate that Coachman Ridge's
residential customers used on average 201 gpd / account for domestic uses (648
,
'
'
'
L_J
,
'
'
'
,
,
'
'
'
'
accounts) and 238 gpd / account for irrigation (125 accounts). This information is
tabulated in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1
Average Residential Irrigation and Domestic Usage
June 1997 to May 1998
Residential Residential
RCW Service Area Domestic Usage Irrigation Usage
d / account d / account
Harbor Oaks 183 315
Del Oro 196 134
Coachman Ridge 201 238
The potable water offsets for the Harbor Oaks, Del Oro, and Coachman Ridge reclaimed
water service areas were compared to the projected reclaimed water usage for these
areas. The comparison indicates that the potable water offset is over 50% of the total
projected reclaimed water usage. This information was utilized to project the potable
water offset for the other reclaimed water service areas. Using the estimate of 50%, the
reclaimed water service areas have estimated potable water offsets as shown in Table
10-2.
It is estimated that for the proposed 25 reclaimed water service areas, the total potable
water and groundwater offset will be approximately 7.5 MGD.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 32
'
'
�
'
�
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
,
,
'
'
'
'
I__1
Table 10-2
Potable Water Offset
Service Area Name Potable Water Offset (gpd)
1 Seville/Sunset Drive 265,000
2 Del Oro Groves 370,755
3 Morningside 485,486
4 Skycrest 324,945
5 Coachman Ridge 284,854
6 Enterprise 417,809
7 E. Drew Street 168,335
8 Countryside South 477,588
9 Lake Park 303,181
10 South Betty Lane 379,627
11 Countryside North 477,588
12 North Greenwood 412,658
13 North Hercules 236,163
14 Country Club Estates 339,839
15 Clearwater High 362,146
16 Glen Oaks 316,421
17 North Belcher 313,739
18 Palmetto Street 324,317
19 Clearwater Harbor 268,197
20 Woodmont 206,578
21 Hercules Industrial 114,642
22 Sunset Point 233,907
23 YMCA 189,295
24 Sylvan Abbey 129,352
25 Old Coachman 119,492
Total 7,521,914
10.2 Project Prioritization
The recfaimed water service areas were prioritized based on a cost / benefit ratio. The
cost / benefit ratio is the cost of constructing reclaimed water infrastructure for a service
area divided by the benefit (i.e. potable water offset) for the service area. A lower cost /
benefit ratio is preferred since it is advantageous to have a greater potable water offset
relative to the cost of constructing a reclaimed water system. The cost / benefit ratio is
calculated by multiplying the capital cost of the reclaimed water project by an
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 33
,
'
i
lJ
�
'
�
'
'
,
�J
'
�I!
,
'
l_J
�
�
amortization factor (in this case, 30 years at 8% interest = 0.0888) and dividing by the
potable water offset (in thousands of gallons per year) projected for the project. The
capital cost used for the purposes of establishing the cost/benefit ratio includes the cost
of constructing distribution systems in the service areas and a prorated cost of all
transmission, storage and pumping required to extend services to a particular area. The
actual cost of construction of a given project is included in Table 10-5. For example, the
cost / benefit ratio for the Seville/Sunset Drive reclaimed water service area is calculated
by the following equation:
Cost / Benefit = ( $2,200,000 * 0.0888 * 1000 gal ) / ( 265,000 gpd * 365 days )
_$2.00 / 1000 gallons of potable water
The cost / benefit ratios for the 25 different reclaimed water service areas are shown in
Table 10-3 in increasing order. Projects are ranked based on this order and are shown
in Figure 10-1.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 34
'
�
�
t
i
�
,
,
'
'
'
�
'
,
'
,
�
'
Table 10-3
Cost / Benefit Ratio
Irrigable Total RCW Potable
Acres Demand in Total Water Cost/Benefit
In City Service Area Cost/Service Offset Ratio
Rank Name (acres) (gpd) Area (gpd) ($/1000 gal)
1 Seville/Sunset Drive 191 591,150 $1,885,530 265,000 $2.00
2 Del Oro Groves 195 800,730 $3,351,210 370,755 $2.05
3 Morningside 285 959,770 $4,187,120 485,486 $2.11
4 Skycrest 213 643,890 $2,828,140 324,945 $2.23
5 Coachman Ridge 162 556,710 $2,664,860 284,854 $2.29
6 Enterprise 223 825,620 $3,996,340 417,809 $2.28
7 E. Drew Street 84 327,070 $1,651,820 168,335 $3.08
8 Countryside South 243 942,580 $4,792,770 477,588 $3.14
9 Lake Park 171 599,760 $3,049,740 303,181 $2.46
10 South Betty Lane 292 751,660 $3,857,810 379,627 $3.48
11 Countryside North 243 942,580 $4,974,140 477,588 $3.24
12 North Greenwood 212 820,720 $4,465,730 412,658 $2.59
13 North Hercules 132 466,330 $2,549,040 236,163 $3.76
14 County Club Estates 127 675,480 $3,728,050 339,839 $2.44
15 Clearwater High 187 714,290 $4,487,830 362,146 $3.59
16 Glen Oaks 194 625,840 $4,180,750 316,421 $3.37
17 North Belcher 191 622,080 $4,315,120 313,739 $2.95
18 Palmetto Street 186 641,040 $4,634,210 324,317 $3.60
19 Clearwater Harbor 151 531,190 $3,923,470 268,197 $3.40
20 Woodmont 134 405,760 $3,023,300 206,578 $3.80
21 Hercules Industrial 95 220,280 $1,742,320 114,642 $4.21
22 Sunset Point 164 460,210 $3,661,950 233,907 $3.98
23 YMCA 138 375,790 $3,138,110 189,295 $3.37
24 Sylvan Abbey 65 252,110 $2,459,510 129,352 $5.32
25 Old Coachman 59 227,190 $2,494,320 119,492 $5.76
Totals= 4,253 14,720,691 $86,043,189 7,521,914
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 35
S:W992�FIGURESICITYMAP2-2-01.DWC. 12/12/2001 06:1�:39 AM
� No. os�ws�aTrll�ws-�-rn
,_
h��
�
�
�
0
�
n �
r m
m n
D �
� D
� �
D m
� v
� �
D
1 m
I �
"� N
frl m
D �
ZJJ �
N n
O m
O D
O �
� m
m N
n
�
D �
� �
m x
v �
� �
� �p n
D O o
-� �
rn
� �
-c
� �
� �
� z
� �
� z
� �
m
<
f�'1
�
�
O
1
�
r--i
�
"O D� D� m '�D ��n
z r�im m� x n� OD�
� D� D� N � D Zrj�
D D Z �
Z �- �- � � � O
� �� �� m �y�i
m z� �� � � ���
m � <�
D � D � D y � m�
r
� � � � m � DD
:i7 -+
� Z1 �1 � Z D �
D �
< < D [7
� m m � O
�
� N �
O
� �
rn �
� �
�
a
m
e�
�
9
�
��
��
�� y�'
t1
r
�
a
�
a
-j
�
�
r
rrt
�
r�
Z
�
��
,��� _ -�.-�_ �;: -- -a:� �
=�:�� _ _. �r ' � - -� - _
� � t�� �
�. ,�, r� ,`./�S�'
�9,g� 1 `�✓a•.— ._.,.
�°i�;� �
=��=
. ; .-�
_ � ,�lo�4e+�
-�, _ ���
� (.
� � �
� �
�C �
;
0
N
�
.
� o°
�
z
� �
� �
�
g
�
a�
0
N
.�c�.
;, __ :���-;,-- �, ;�
-� == �� � '-„ ; . . -
--_-- _-_, � �--�r ��. -
� .
/�,�,� 1��
,, :
i , Y` .
� / � �
_ �
�
D �
�� ; �
;� �
'
�
10.3 Project Phasing
The reclaimed water service areas are ranked as shown in Table 10-3 without
' consideration of the available sources of reclaimed water. The phasing of these
reclaimed water projects must be considered if reclaimed water is not yet available from
' the related wastewater treatment facility. For example, the Northeast Advanced
Pollution Control Facility (APCF) currently produces an average of 6 MGD (million
' gallons per day) of reclaimed water as shown in Figure 7-2. Minimum flows were
approximatefy 5 MGD during drought conditions in May and June 2000. An average of 1
' MGD of reclaimed water is allocated to the following areas: Countryside Golf Course,
Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf Course, Countryside Golf Driving Range, and Countryside
' Sports Complex. Another 3 MGD will be allocated to Pinellas County's reclaimed water
system for 12 years as part of an agreement developed in 2000.
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
t
'
'
�J
The next project slated for reclaimed water from the Northeast APCF is the Drew / Union
Streets project. It is projected to utilize an average of 0.55 MGD of reclaimed water.
The distribution of reclaimed water from the Northeast APCF is shown below in Table
10-4. Table 10-4 illustrates that following the Drew Street / Union Street project, a
minimal amount of reclaimed water will be available to serve future reclaimed water
service areas in the proximity of the Northeast facility.
Table 10-4
Northeast APCF
Reclaimed Water Users
Reclaimed Water Usage
Reclaimed Water User
(MGD)
Countryside Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf
Course, Countryside Golf Driving Range, 1(average), 1.5 (peak — dry season)
Countryside Sports Complex
Pinellas County Utilities 3(constant rate)
Drew Street / Union Street Service Area 0.5 (average)
Total 4.5 (average)
Minimum Reclaimed Water Produced 5
Reclaimed Water Available 5- 4.5 (average) = 0.5
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 37
'
'
lJ
'
'
1
'
!J
'
'
'
'
'
'
�
C'
�
�J
,
It is recommended that the Seville area project be constructed after the Drew-Union
Street project. The projected demand of 0.33 MGD for Seville can be met by the flows
from the Northeast APCF and the system can be easily ex�ended from the transmission
main system that is part of the Drew/Union project. In addition, the Sunset Drive area of
Clearwater Harbor has significant potable water use for irrigation. We recommend that
this segment be included with the Seville area project since the cosUbenefit of these
combined areas is lowest. The projected demand of 0.26 MGD for the Sunset Drive
area will be provided from the Marshall Street facility, which currently has ample capacity
for this additional area.
It is recommended that a reclaimed water pumping station be constructed at the East
APCF so that reclaimed water produced by the East facility may be used in the
reclaimed water system. It is expected that the availability of reclaimed water from the
Northeast APCF for use by the City's east reclaimed water service areas will become
limited, therefore, reclaimed water from the East APCF will be necessary prior to other
areas in the eastern portion of the City being brought on-line.
The proposed phasing and associated costs of the reclaimed water projects, along with
the pumping and storage facility recommendations through the year 2020 are shown in
Table 10-6.
Table 10-7 shows the cumulative average reclaimed water demand projected through
2020. This average demand will require seasonal storage to meet seasonal peak
demands. A comparison was made between this cumulative reclaimed water demand
and the projected average reclaimed water supply through 2020 if the proposed
schedule for bringing reclaimed water service areas on line is followed. This comparison
is itlustrated in Figure 10-3 and indicates that there will be a net excess of less than 1
MGD of reclaimed water in 2020.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 38
,
'
,
,
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
�
,
'
'
L_J
�
'
Table 10-5
Project Phasing of Proposed RCW Projects
through 2020
Service Project RCW Demand Construction Capital Cost
Area Name in Service Area Begins (2001 Dollars)
�Jpd�
1 Seville/Sunset Drive 591,150 2004 $2,197,400
East APCF Pump Station 2005 $1,133,100
2 Del Oro Groves 800,730 2005 $2,591,100
3 Morningside 959,770 2006 $3,443,300
7.5 MG Storage @ Air Park 2007 $2,000,000
ASR Storage Facility 2007 $5,000,000
4 Skycrest 643,890 2007 $4,323,000
5 Coachman Ridge 556,710 2008 $2,346,300
6 Enterprise 825,620 2009 $2,658,200
7 East Drew Street 327,070 2010 $1,651,800
8 Countryside South 942,580 2011 $4,792,800
9 Lake Park 599,760 2012 $3,187,200
5 MG Storage @ NE APCF 2012 $1,500,000
10 South Betty Lane 751,660 2013 $6,791,300
11 Countryside North 942,580 2014 $4,974,100
12 North Greenwood 820,720 2015 $4,324,500
13 North Hercules 466,330 2016 $2,901,600
14 County Club Estates 675,480 2017 $3,888,700
15 Clearwater High 714,290 2018 $4,290,100
16 Glen Oaks 625,840 2019 $4,620,000
17 North Belcher 622,080 2020 $2,723,300
Total 11,886,260 $71,337,800
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 39
'
'
'
,
'
,
,
'
'
'
'
,
,
,
1
'
,
'
,
Table 10-6
Cumulative Reclaimed Water Demand
Total RCW Cumulative
Service Construction Demand in
Name RCW Demand
Area Begins Service Area �MGD)
�9pd)
- Existing RCW Service Areas - 2,500,000 2,500,000
- Pinellas County RCW Demand - 3,000,000 5,500,000
- Drew — Union Street - 550,000 6,050,000
- Harbor Oaks - 1,088,863 7,138,863
1 Seville/Sunset Drive 2004 591,147 7,730,010
2 Del Oro Groves 2005 800,731 8,530,741
3 Morningside 2006 959,772 9,490,513
4 Skycrest 2007 643,889 10,134,402
5 Coachman Ridge 2008 556,707 10,691,109
6 Enterprise 2009 825,619 11,516,728
7 East Drew Street 2010 327,070 11,843,798
8 Countryside South 2011 942,576 12,786,374
9 Lake Park 2012 599,763 13,386,137
10 South Betty Lane 2013 751,655 14,137,792
11 Countryside North 2014 942,576 15,080,368
12 North Greenwood 2015 820,717 15,901,085
13 North Hercules 2016 466,326 16,367,411
14 County Club Estates 2017 675,477 17,042,888
15 Clearwater High 2018 714,293 17,757,181
16 Glen Oaks 2019 625,843 18,383,024
17 North Belcher 2020 622,077 19,005,101
Total= 19,005,101
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 40
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
o�
��
N �.
o�
N °,
�
�
�
�
3
m
4
�
�
m
�
3
m
y
0
�
�
�
�
O �C
� o,
� �
a
�
�
N
0
0
�
n
�
0
�
n
a�i �'
��
��
��
25
2�
15
0
C�
�
10
5
�
���
FIGURE 10-2
Projected Reclaimed Water Demand and Wastewater Treatment Plant Fiows
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Year
,
'
lJ
'
,
'
1
'
11.0 ZERO DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES
This section identifies possible options that would eliminate discharge from the City's advanced
wastewater treatment facilities to surface waters. Currently, the Marshall Street APCF
discharges treated wastewater into Stevenson Creek, which flows to Clearwater Harbor, and the
Northeast and East APCFs discharge to Old Tampa Bay.
Several options for a zero discharge system were considered including land application for large
users (e.g. golf courses, parks), high rate land application (i.e. spray fields), rapid infiltration
basins (RIBS), and bulk sale of reclaimed water to Pinellas County and / or other municipalities
coupled with evaluating non-discharge alternatives, storage basins, tanks, and aquifer storage
and recovery (ASR). ASR facilities were evaluated to support the storage required under non-
discharge scenarios.
Achieving zero discharge during the wet weather events will be challenging because
wastewater flows to the treatment facilities generally increase during wet weather events due to
' infiltration and inflow in the collection system, and the reclaimed water demand is lower during
wet weather. Zero discharge can be achieved by storing the reclaimed water unused during wet
' weather. This stored reclaimed water can then be utilized during the dry season to supplement
the reclaimed water produced by the wastewater treatment facilities to meet demand.
'
,
,
'
'
'
'
'
i
11.1 Land Application
Several sites in the City have been identified as areas to receive reclaimed water at set
irrigation rates. These areas are divided into slow-rate land application areas (public
access and restricted public access areas) and rapid-rate land application areas.
11.1.1 Slow-Rate Land Application, Public Access Areas
The slow-rate land application, public access areas are generally open space
areas utilized by the public for recreation (e.g. golf courses, parks, sports fields)
and are projected to utilize an average of 1" per week of reclaimed water.
Currently, the City provides reclaimed water to slow-rate land application, public
access areas including Memorial Causeway, Coachman Park, Jack Russell
Stadium, Philip Jones Field, Countryside Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf
Course, Driving Range at Countryside, and Countryside Sports Complex. The
Drew-Union Street project currently under design will provide reclaimed water to
the following slow-rate land application, public access areas: Chesapeake Field,
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 42
,
,
'
'
,
'
�
'
'
,
,
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
Eddie C. Moore Complex, St. Petersburg Junior Coilege, Carpenter Field, and
Sylvan Abbey Memorial Park Cemetery.
Other areas have been identified in the City that meet the criteria for slow-rate
land application, public access areas. The areas are shown on Figure 11-1 and
include the following: Clearwater Air Park Golf Course, Countryside Executive
Golf Course, Glen Oaks Golf Course, David Martin Soccer Field, Sid Lickton
Park, Crest Lake Park, Ed Wright Park, Ross Norton Complex, and Clearwater
Muriicipal Cemetery. The total acreage for these slow-rate land application areas
is estimated to be 370 acres. Using the land application rate of 1" per week, it is
estimated that approximately 1.42 MGD can be utilized by these areas.
11.1.2 Slow-Rate Land Application, Restricted Public Access (Spray
Irrigation)
Two areas within the City of Clearwater that have been identified for slow-rate
land application, restricted public access are Florida Power Corporation's Power
Line Right of Ways (ROWs) and greenspace areas at the Northeast APCF.
These areas are identified on Figure 11-1. An option that has been evaluated is
a spray irrigation system with an application rate of 2" per week for the areas
discussed above. The 2" per week application rate is the conservative maximum
annual hydraulic loading rate recommended in F.A.C. 62-610, Reuse of
Reclaimed Water and Land Application. The Florida Power Corporation ROWs
and Northeast APCF areas total approximately 176 acres, which equates to an
application of approximately 1.37 MGD.
11.1.3 Rapid-Rate Land Application (Rapid Infiltration Basins)
McKim & Creed has identified Florida Power Corporation's Power Line ROWs
and greenspace areas at the Northeast APCF as possible sites for rapid-rate
land application. Rapid infiltration basins (RIBS) are a rapid-rate land application
option that allow for an application rate greater than spray irrigation. For this
report, McKim & Creed utilized an average application rate of 3" per day as
outlined in F.A.C. 62-610. It is projected that the RIBS will cover an area of
approximately 45 acres within Florida Power Corporation's ROWs, which
equates to an application of approximately 3.67 MGD. The RIBS are proposed
to be located between the power line towers, sized approximately 700 feet by
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 43
�
-�
�
�
�
n
r
�
D
�
D
�
m
�
�
�
m
D
�
N
Q
�
O
�
�
n
r
D
�
f�l
�
D
---I
m
T1
N
-<
�
-�
m
�
�
m
<
mC
C
�
��
tA
-,�
�
�
�
�
-II
�
�
�
�
N
m
v
�
�
v
D
-D
�
r
n
D
�
O
Z
D
�
r�
D
N
�
D� D� �(n tn W�C7
�tTl Z7fTi D� r OD�
Dr D� �D � Z��
D D �� 1 p�0
ap- �- I
�
� � D '�7
Z� �� D� r�T1 �.Zm7r
p� Z`� �G� Sf*7
� D �
D D
�D D— Z m
�� � aZ � DD
:0 --i
� � �� � D�
< s � �
m m D D
� �
o Z
Z
r
m
G�
r�
z
�
0
�
m
� �
z z
� � �
�
�
8
0
�
... ... .... .... ........ .
.. . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . ... .... . .... . . _ .. . .. . . _ ... . . . .. . . _ .. .. ... . __ ... ... . .... .. _"_"__
I�
N
` �r +
�;����-. �"� v� .,«
� �
_;
� �� _, ----- �,��, � � , __ _r __�— — — �
t� .,� _ _ --------� ' -�
_.��� �/I I(nl�iJ ��r i�., I, c JG ��; . �
t� r//�/ ,�i� � �� :� �, I I, :� .� t,���-,�°"�
4� _ , ` _ -_ . '
��k �� ,�,I) �� /%� =ry �� � � ?l/_
�Q `,,\� �j/1 �= �� _ .___ ,J
!.t �.
��.1 r� r � ..1� "l- , .-.�..
ii � L � 7�-"'/ � �' C � .
� � ., ,�r� �� .
m � � .�iavr�e�
� `
� � }'r .
�:
;i .
„ - ,r-
- _i; )I. �
. ._.. -, r � �._ _ ,
� ir
� , �:
�. i �..i'.�. ', .!r ..L �i i.� ^_ .
.'- ,.. � '31 il !{II�' �h - _
.� '_J� .I�. . L� t�i,... � .
. .. � 'i� :..�"'i.'� .'_lfilrl'" .-�...7.. J .. �
�.
_ � � 1 4 � �
`� .: _ (l � . . . �. , /.. , ....
.,.. _ _ l: , �� � J 4 �r �I;, J�` -1 J' %��lO � �' ���. i � J --.,. .
f �� � I � \ . �����.f ... _
... / ._ . _JC . ��< <�\__. . J A!^_J / Ia I I. .
U�+ l� C � rSL -
G+ =� !�.'y {�a ,!-,) e� -�tr r -
�:-t ; Q: ' I-. I ' ^. �'tiG --,. {i�lll `�_ .
F : ; /G�:IC.,�.. (
.:_ .t.^j �L � -, _ t � �ti �_ .� � /��' t i_ - )�7C''�'7L i 04a(_'_j .
\J ..� _- �Ol��.:iU'lt7❑ 6. __
, - '� i, i ��� �;, ,n�;n�- r�
.. q , .. I" , L L:UE.I�
'�� ii + r --+��jc��� �
�L�� �
` � "! 5 I ".. - �.� �iun�r
( al��, ��i '� � �r�,i ; ��`�` � ;, "� - ��c { oc�� �
:.. :., ' �U��n .
Y � �-��--� I
� �. � ��`li��i �'l�Io�1�,_,__
EI
(� �; , �
' `� � `=/�0 � � .��i` '� � " i
� ,o� `~ ���.�� � ���a�i: :
�.
!
z���, _-_ - ;r ���
..,,:, = ` - ,� ii �,.Y��
�
� -i ,l
,i ,� - • r
^ - ' 'A " ,� ' '� !T
� . �C ,. �
� � _ , �� � �:� , �c;� w ` ti _ .
- . ,� �,:'j�t�- , Q ,� ,!i, � ,. � �
��:� Q - �—, �- rq�' _ .
d � - � '�T 7�,�»��J,ntF��~,�._._ ��
, �;. .,� b i f _ �,:- -
�
-' ' ='� � ' `'� �Ii.
� �' � 'L_1 - � ' t i � - - .
, a
!: f �c:!!fl � IO.. 'r-� —{ I — �`i, . . . � - I'"'i I T . . . . . . � .
_ ., , , ,_`.�; �
_ ... _ -
. . } � - - �
.
� :: ; -- _
_ , , , �. _' _ _ . _ . -. _ ,,; °
-;I , ;�
.� .I1 t'C � . �. 1i _ _ . ..-_ ' �, . .
� �u . . I W� ' +. . . � :� ^ � ' _' .
�! � � "`G' � � _ � � � � �,� � - �
- 4 �'
,� _ (
-�s ' ' �i _ �; _ _ i ` _,. _ , ��I J�3s ' ' "s'-
--:
� _ — �
;� .,�
� 4
-' ' �l ( I � I '�(+' I�t ^-) !i , t- f � r L �.
_ Vai - �.: � JI
, "t i il� � i_._ > r 1.^ ��
i.� j� "J 'r--� _ � �I���� - " 't� -�Z
� '� �d 7 � � ... -�- ✓ i
1 ^ ��
�� l�j_, �--�- ��- __ f�(�'�'\ � �� ��,,,��,� �' � �t � -
-��-�, � r''"°�--= f � _. �� ��' � s;� `
� �� � ��� �'` �- � _ � `�? , ` -
,x -r - ; � _ � ,� - . �� ��, c �: ,
� '��+ � � ' -��=�� ���!� ���( ,. A� �� �� � --
i
. �` __ � I _ J V G� \�� .. . :��\ �1, ._
� �� � ��,r� ���
�__ � ' � �
�, � ; ; v
-cO�il ' � - � -- 7L - o S( ..��j �/ -
�=} �'� - ��i .. _ � ;
-. " �t�"1� .
�d'"° _ .....• �
�� ��
_G�- ` � '
O_., `;
���� L i i r � � �
1,�1 + �
¢ '
`;,
� �—�
�
�
V` ,
� � ` V
� � �
�
�
� �
��
�
s
-
, f��� � r,,�� ��o �, ,
� ' _ `- �r� ti � , �_ '�'�cn ,' � �
�� \J�
� i �
\ ,�i�J � �'_,i._.JL._%` /
\ �'� .��!
^_ /
v'�� bo �v
i_�, _ �,�
���,� ��i I�� ..
� ,1S
il. ,
i
'
�
1
,
'
'
,
�
'
'
'
'
140 feet with four foot high berms. Within the Northeast APCF property, RIBS
are estimated to cover 21.7 acres, which equates to an application of 1.77 MGD.
The total reclaimed water volume handled by the RIBS system would be a
maximum of 5.4 MGD.
Table 11-1 below is a comparison of the land application systems within Florida
Power Corporation's ROWs and at the Northeast APCF.
Table 11-1
Land Application within Florida Power Corporation's ROWs and at Northeast APCF
Volume Capital
Application Application Acreage Discharged Estimated Cost Cost per
Method Rate (MGD) (in millions) gallon
System = $2.3
Spray Irrigation 2" / week 176 1.37 Land =$4.5 $4.97
Total = $6.8
Rapid Infiltration System = $4.1
Basins (RIBS) 3" / day 66.7 5.4 Land =$4.5 $1.60
Total = $8.6
11.2 Bulk Sale or Purchase of Reclaimed Water
The bulk sale of reclaimed water to other municipalities is an option for the City. The
City is currently contracted to deliver 3 MGD of reclaimed water from the Northeast
APCF to Pinellas County for a 12 year period.
� The City of Clearwater may want to consider an emergency reclaimed water connection
with another municipality. This connection could allow the City to serve its reclaimed
' water customers during severe dry weather conditions or in the event that the reclaimed
water produced by the City fails to meet FDEP's water quality regulations. A connection
with the City of Largo has been identified as a possible connection as shown in Figure
, 11-2. This connection is approximately 6 miles long and is proposed to be 24-inch pipe.
'
'
'
�
The approximate cost for this pipeline is $4.4 million. The total cost will be
approximately $5 million with the addition of high service pumps at Largo's wastewater
treatment plant.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 45
11.3 Storage Basins or Tanks
Section 8 provides a discussion of the seasonal variations in the availability of reclaimed
water and the reclaimed water demand by customers. Based on the current average
reclaimed water availability of 15.4 MGD and assuming a fully developed urban
reclaimed water system, it is estimated that 820 MG of reclaimed water would need to
be stored during the year to achieve zero discharge. Assuming a berm height of 40 feet
for a lined storage pond, the City would need a minimum of 117 acres to store 820 MG
of reclaimed water. The representative size of this pond is illustrated on Figure 11-3 in
relation to the map of the City. Obviously, siting of a facility of this size will have a
significant impact anywhere within the City.
The total cost of the pond including the pond, pumping facilities, piping, engineering and
permitting is estimated to be $52 million. This includes $32 million for the pond
(including the pond, pumping facilities, and piping), $12 million for purchasing urban
property (approximately $100,000 per acre), and $8 million for engineering and
permitting costs.
Section 9 is a discussion of the storage requirements for three different scenarios in the
year 2020, including storage for a fully developed urban reclaimed water system (1.1
BG), storage for a fully developed urban reclaimed water system with 3 MGD sold to
Pinellas County and 5.4 MGD discharged to the RIBs system (600 MG), and storage for
a fully developed urban reclaimed water system with 3 MGD sold to Pinellas County
(900 MG).
The quantity of reclaimed water required to be stored is at a maximum when the
reclaimed water is used primarily for the urban reclaimed water system. This is due to
the seasonal variations in reclaimed water demand (more demand during the dry season
and less demand in the wet season). The quantity of reclaimed water storage is
reduced as more reclaimed water is discharged at a constant rate, such as to a land
application system or a bulk purchaser (e.g. Pinellas County).
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 47
J:\U��FIIiUKtS�II TMAP2-2i17.UlNCi, iUiL/L�i l➢J:1J:4si�11
�ac Na o�rs\atW�vz-i-rn
c�
�
�
0
�
c�
r
�
D
�
�
--�
m
� �
1 �
(7
I �
-< �
� m
D p
:L3
N D
O �
O �
O �
� �
f�l �
(7 �
r �
D �
� �
m m
� �
�I O a
� � o
� �
m
� �
ce�
�
N
� a
m
�
�
r�
<
m
�
I
(r�
m
�
�
a
�
� '3
D� D� m -ra D aD g c�
mn r�in x �Dja OD�
DD �D � rD Z��
�_ �_ Z a7
Om D,m � '�m Dtl�O �
Z� �� � � ��r
r�
D D � D � �O {_� ID
���+d � D r ��
� 70 � � D D
f�r11 m � �O f'i �
Zi T) � Z � �
< < D � �
� I
m � � �Z
�
!/1 �
� �
�
�
!°7
�
��
�
d°°� n�+r'
�
�
>
�
�
s
-_3
1,�
't
r
m
G�
�7
Z
�
0
�
R
a V/ O
� � O
�pv . N TI
�� �� I Z
o�= , .� a
m �
� y -
��
�
� �
\
:�
�`
�,�: \
t -..
t � ��_ � �_���� � __:��� .
.�: ' �}
^, � ._,a - -_
� �
� � � � .�iaw%pem
�� � s��
� � � I
� � �
�
��
$
0
�
tA
n
� I
'z -
w
�
�QQ7l�C,A,
� ^ ' �
.s^� `'�`�
��lJ�?+'�
; �';,1 � R
e' I �'X�SiY �'�1
r.,---_cy.�_--
: s_ _
,O
D �
�� : �
a
'� �
�
�
L�
'
'
'
'
lJ
'
'
'
'
1
'
�''
1
'
'
1
1
11.4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a technology for storing reclaimed water, surface
water, or potable water underground. Several ASR projects are ongoing in the Tampa
Bay area.
An ASR system for reclaimed water is proposed in Hillsborough County. The ASR
application for one ASR well has been approved by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP). Testing will be completed on the well prior to
approval of other ASR wells.
The City of St. Petersburg has an expansive reclaimed water system and is pursuing
ASR wells to store reclaimed water. They have received approval from the FDEP to drill
and test one ASR well, and may be allowed by the FDEP to install and test future ASR
wells based on the test results of this initial well. The well is constructed and will be
cycle tested for two years. The feasibility and application process has taken three years
to complete. A total of five years will have transpired from the start of this one ASR well
approval process through the cycle testing.
SWFWMD is investigating the potential for reclaimed water ASR wells in the Pinellas
County area. The City of Clearwater has tentatively agreed to participate in a SWFWMD
initiated project to investigate the feasibility of ASR storage in the Clearwater area.
It is estimated that costs for reclaimed water ASR capacity are $700,000 for the first
MGD. Beyond the first MGD, it is expected that ASR cost will be $500,000 per MGD.
Further investigation of an ASR system is necessary to evaluate the potential ASR
capacity of the aquifer system within the City.
ASR may be the only practical alternative to meet the massive storage requirements of a
non-discharge option and/or to develop the reclaimed water system beyond the 8 to 9.0
MGD daily average demand.
11.5 Wet Weather Discharge
In severe wet weather events, it is expected that increased wastewater flows will enter
the City's three wastewater treatment facilities and that the City will not be able to
discharge all of the treated water (reclaimed water) to land application sites. McKim &
Creed recommends that the City maintain the existing surface water discharge points as
emergency discharge points.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 49
'
'
,
'
'
u
'
'
u
'
'
�I�'
�
'
'
'
L_J
'
L�
12.0 SCENARIOS
Three scenarios have been developed for comparing approaches the City may wish to consider
when developing its reclaimed water system. The basic components of these scenarios are
described below and are a balance of the options discussed above.
12.1 Scenario 1—Urban Reclaimed Water System, Surface Water
Discharge
Scenario 1 includes building out the reclaimed water system such that the seasonal
peak demand is equal to the projected reclaimed water availability of 20 MGD in 2020.
This scenario includes providing 3 MGD to Pinellas County as part of the 12 year
reclaimed water agreement and assumes that 3 MGD will be provided through 2020.
Figure 12-1 shows this scenario and indicates that the average reclaimed water demand
is approximately 13 MGD, with a peaking factor of about 1.5. About 10 MGD of
reclaimed water will be available for the City's urban reclaimed water system and 3 MGD
will be allocated to Pinellas County. It is estimated that 2.6 BG per year of excess
reclaimed water will be discharged to surFace waters under this scenario.
Table 10-7 indicates that reclaimed water can be delivered to the existing service areas
and to the proposed reclaimed water service areas through the Lake Park project at the
average 13 MGD reclaimed water demand. An advantage of this scenario is that the
City will not need to construct additional storage facilities (e.g. storage tanks, ponds,
ASR system) to store reclaimed water to meet seasonal demand. A disadvantage is that
excess reclaimed water will be discharged to surface waters and the resource will not be
utilized for future reclaimed water projects. Estimated costs for this scenario are
$33,100, 000.
The issue of greatest concern related to operating a surface water discharge is meeting
surface water discharge standards. These standards will likely become more stringent
in the future as more constituents of concern are monitored. The City received their
renewed surface water discharge permits for Stevenson Creek and Old Tampa Bay
outfalls in 2000. These renewed permits include discharge standards for constituents
that have not been enforced in the past, namely copper and trihalomethanes (THMs).
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 50
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
o�
��
N �.
o�
N °,
�
�
�
�
3
�
Q
d
�
�
�
3
�
;
�
�
�
v ac
a
� `°
a�
�
N
0
0
�
n
�
0
�
n
� �� �,
c� �
�,
25
3 20
0
�
L
d
�
� 15
� ...
� �
'�a �
v�
� 10
W}�
V�
�
L
�
�
a 5
�
Figure 12-1
Reclaimed Water Demand
Year 2020
Average RCW Demand =13 MGD (10 MGD to Urban System, 3 MGD to Pinellas)
� Average RCW Availability = 20 MGD 'I
------- --------- �
Y.___ ___ _____ ___ F_________F____________� _________________________ i____I
Jan Feb Mar Apr May
fProjected Monthly Reclaimed Water Demand
Jun Jul
Month
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
'
' The City is investigating the corrosion potential of their potable water, and whether
improvements to potable water quality will improve the quality of the wastewater. The
' City's and County's potable water is slightly aggressive and causes corrosion of the
potable water distribution system piping and to a limited extent, corrosion of the
'
'
�J
'
'
'
'
t
1
,
'
,
'
'
'
wastewater collection system piping. Corrosion of the piping may result in constituents
of concern being dissolved into the water and wastewater, eventually leading to the
wastewater treatment plants. If it is determined that improvements to potable water
quality do not improve the quality of the wastewater, then reductions in the amount of
constituents in the wastewater may be required at the wastewater treatment facilities.
Costs for improvements to either potable water treatment or wastewater treatment have
not been determined at this time.
12.2 Scenario 2— 5.4 MGD to RIBS, 3 MGD to Pinellas Co., Urban RCW
System, Zero Discharge
Scenario 2 includes discharging 5.4 MGD to a rapid infiltration basin (RIB) system,
selling 3 MGD to Pinellas County, developing the City's urban reclaimed water system
(11.6 MGD), and having no discharge of reclaimed water to surface waters except
during extreme wet weather conditions. The advantage of discharging reclaimed water
to the RIB system and providing water to Pinellas County is that the water is utilized at a
constant rate which diminishes the magnitude of the reclaimed water demand variations
during the year (i.e. high demand during dry weather months and low demand during
wet weather months). In addition, a RIB system may enhance the surficial aquifer
system by providing a constant source of recharge.
Based on an 11.6 MGD availability for urban reclaimed water customers, the City would
be able to develop the reclaimed water system through the East Drew Street project as
shown in Table 10-7. At an average reclaimed water availability of 20 MGD in the year
2020, the City will need to store at least 600 MG of reclaimed water to accommodate the
seasonal urban demand during the year. The projected annual variation in reclaimed
water demand is shown in Figure 9-2. The costs associated with this scenario are
provided in Table 12-1.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
' 0992-0072 December 2001 Page 52
,
'
'
'
'
LJ
1
'
u
,
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
Table 12-1
Scenario Z Capital Costs
Action ' Cost
5.4 MGD to RIB System $8,600,000
3 MGD to Pinellas County -
Urban RCW System (11.6 MGD) $25,200,000
600 MG Aboveground Storage $40,000,000
Total (20 MGD in year 2020)= $73,800,000
It is estimated that a storage pond large enough to hold 600 MG would be constructed
on at least 90 acres. It is likely that this amount of contiguous, vacant property is not
available within the City. Therefore, the City may want to consider an ASR system in
place of or in conjunction with above ground storage. The costs for an ASR system that
could accommodate 600 MG of storage a year is as follows:
Table 12-2
Scenario 2(w/ ASR) Capital Costs
Action Cost
5.4 MGD to RIB System $8,600,000
3 MGD to Pinellas County -
Urban RCW System (11.6 MGD) $25,200,000
600 MG ASR (max. storage = 6.62 MGD) $6,510,000
Total (20 MGD in year 2020)= $40,310,000
The capital cost savings of Scenario 2 with an ASR system are estimated to be $33
million. Due to this difference in cost, it is recommended that an evaluation of an ASR
system within the City of Clearwater be conducted to determine system feasibility.
12.3 Scenario 3— Urban Reclaimed Water System, Zero Discharge
Scenario 3 includes fully developing the urban reclaimed water system (20 MGD) and
providing for storage of reclaimed water (1.1 BG per year). Full development of the
urban reclaimed water system is defined as providing a yearly average reclaimed water
volume equal to the yearly average volume of treated wastewater. Table 10-7 indicates
that reclaimed water can be delivered to the existing service areas and to the proposed
reclaimed water service areas at least through the North Belcher project.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 53
l _J
�
'
�
'
'
'
l� J
'
'
'
'
,
�
'
'
'
'
'
Development of this system provides several challenges, including providing
uninterrupted reclaimed water service to customers during those dry weather months
when the demand for reclaimed water is greater than the yearly average reclaimed water
supply. Equally challenging is providing storage for reclaimed water during the wet
weather events when customers reduce their demand for reclaimed water.
As discussed in Section 9.1, the City needs to store 1.1 BG per year for a zero discharge
system. Approximately 160 acres would be necessary to construct a storage pond able
to hold 1.1 BG. A breakdown of the costs for this system are provided below:
Table 12-3
Scenario 3 Capital Costs
Action Cost
Full Development of Urban RCW $62,500,000
System (year 2020)
1.1 BG Above Ground Storage $70,000,000
Total (20 MGD in Year 2020) _ $132,500,000
Similar to Scenario 2, the City may want to consider an ASR system to replace or
supplement above ground storage. The costs for the reclaimed water system with ASR
are the following:
Table 12-4
Scenario 3(w/ ASR) Capital Costs
Action Cost
Full Development of Urban RCW
System (year 2020) $62,500,000
BG ASR Storage
(max. storage = 10.94 MGD) $10,670,000
Total (20 MGD in Year 2020) _ $73,170,000
The estimated capital cost savings with an ASR system are about $59 million.
As discussed above in Scenario 2, the feasibility of an ASR system would need
to be investigated prior to implementation of a program.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 54
1
'
,
�
'
1
�J
C�'
'
'
,
'
'
CI'
'
'
'
1
'
13.0 CONCLUSIONS
The City's reclaimed water system was evaluated to rank the reclaimed water service areas
established in the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update (McKim & Creed, 1998) based on a
cost / benefit ratio. The ranking indicates that several of the reclaimed water service areas in
the east portion of the City are priority projects. In order to bring these projects on line, the City
should consider constructing an East-West Interconnection within the next few years due to the
projected deficit of additional reclaimed water from the Northeast APCF as shown in Table 10-5.
This will allow for greater utilization of the reclaimed water from both the Northeast and Marshall
Street APCFs. Additionally, a pump station at the East APCF should be considered shortly after
construction of the East-West Interconnection to allow for utilization of reclaimed water from that
facility. Storage facilities at or near the Northeast and Marshall Street APCFs are proposed
within the next 20 years.
Three scenarios for managing the City's reclaimed water were evaluated in Section 12. Of the
three scenarios, Scenario 1 has the least expensive capital costs ($33.1 million). This option
includes building out the reclaimed water system such that the seasonal peak demand is equal
to the projected reclaimed water availability of 20 MGD in 2020 and providing 3 MGD of
reclaimed water to Pinellas County. Under this option, excess reclaimed water will be
discharged to surface waters.
The estimated capital costs for Scenarios 2 and 3 are greater than for Scenario 1. Scenarios 2
and 3 are zero discharge alternatives, which may become an important issue if surface water
discharge standards become stringent to the point of requiring additional treatment of the
wastewater prior to discharge. If that is the case, then the costs for additional wastewater
treatment should be compared to the costs for a zero surface water discharge system.
It appears that utilizing an ASR system for storage of reclaimed water can provide cost savings.
Further evaluation of the feasibility of an ASR system is necessary prior to implementation.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2009 Page 55
,
'
�
��
'
1
'
lJ
14.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the City continue to build out its reclaimed water system as outlined in
the prioritization plan herein. This plan will allow the City to minimize the impact to its budget,
evaluate the actual reciaimed water usage of each service area, and be more likely to receive
cooperative funding from SWFWMD since they typically fund one project per municipality per
year. It is recommended that the City follow the reclaimed water service area ranking provided
in this report since SWFWMD ranks cooperative funded projects on a cost / benefit ratio.
The City should maintain its current surface water discharge and should continue to pursue the
alternative treatment methods and permit compliance improvements currently underway to
address the more stringent discharge limits. The continued discharge will allow a more ordely
development of reclaimed water infrastructure and allow the City time to evaluate seasonal
storage alternatives.
While the City is proceeding with its reclaimed water program, it is recommended that the
' feasibility of ASR be evaluated. It is understood that SWFWMD is encouraging municipalities to
evaluate the potential for ASR projects and is providing cooperative funding for feasibility
, studies and related design, construction, and cycle testing of ASR wells. The lack of available
land for above ground storage and the potential for more stringent requirements on surface
,
'
'
'
water discharges supports the recommendation to further evaluate the potential of ASR. Based
on the reclaimed water projects and phasing shown in Table 10-7 and the availability of
reclaimed water as shown on Figure 7-4, it is estimated that the City's peak reclaimed water
demands can be satisfied without seasonal storage or further usage restrictions when the
average reclaimed water demand is no more than 12 MGD (9 MGD to urban customers and 3
MGD to Pinellas County). This would bring reclaimed water to the projects listed in Table 10-7
through the Morningside project, which is projected to begin construction in 2006 and be on line
in 2008. The City will need to continue to evaluate supply and demand projections for reclaimed
water and may be required to implement further restrictions to continue expansion of the system
, beyond the 2008 time frame without a major seasonal storage capability. Due to the lengthy
evaluation, permitting and ASR well cycle testing process, it is recommended that the City begin
,
'
'
'
studying the feasibility of a reclaimed water ASR system. Additionally, the City may wish to
consider pursuing reclaimed water storage projects with other municipalities to help meet
seasonal demands.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of Clearwater
0992-0072 December 2001 Page 56
,
' 15.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
'
'
It is recommended that the City foilow the reclaimed water service area implementation program
as shown in Table 10-5. The City Commission should approve the Cooperative Funding
Agreement with the Southwest Florida Water Management District for funding of the Harbor
Oaks Reclaimed Water System in early 2002 and should simultaneously authorize City staff to
move forward with the project. The City should prepare the application for FY 2003 funding for
� the next priority project — Seville/Sunset Drive Reclaimed Water Project as outlined in this plan.
In addition, it is recommended that the City contribute to the ASR preliminary feasibility study
' with the Southwest Florida Water Management District to begin evaluating options for seasonal
storage of reclaimed water. The City should review and update the 6-Year Capital Improvement
' Plan to reflect adequate funding levels for reclaimed water projects based on this plan.
,
'
�
'
'
'
'
lJ
'
'
'
Review of Reclaimed Water Master P/an Update City of Clearwater
' 0992-0072 December 2009 Page 57
'
'
1
'
'
'
�
��
�
1J
'
'
'
,
'
C
�
,
Appendix A
Comparison of Current to Previous Ranking
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update City of C/earwater
' 0992-0072 December 2009 Page A-9
,
1
'
L'
'
'
1
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor & City Commissioners
.
Bill Horne, City Manager
CC: Garry Brumback, Assistant City Manager
Mahshid Arasteh, Public Works Administrator
Cyndie Goudeau, City Clerk
Andy Neff, Public Utilities Director
susJECT:
DATE:
�UG 2 2 200?
Reclaimed Water Master Plan Revision and Revised Water Plant Location
August 21, 2001
IAttached is additional information on the topics referenced above. Provided are:
�
'
'
'
'
'
'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Background memo
Attachment A— Response to May 21n Commission Questions
Attachment B— August 6`h Public Utilities Presentation Recap to Coalition of Clearwater
Homeowners Association
Attachment C— August 7`h Public Meeting Presentation Recap of Water Plant Site
Relocation and Reclaimed Water
Attachment D— Preliminary Project Development and Map prepared by McKim & Creed
Attachment E— Aerial showing previous site versus current proposed site prepared by
McKim & Creed
As a result of the public meetings and my review of the attached information, I will submit the
following actions for your approval at the September 20 Commission meeting.
1. Authorization to proceed with the revised Reclaimed Water Master Plan as presented to the
City Commission on April 30, 2001.
2. Authorization to proceed with the design of the water plant in the revised location adjacent to
our existing facilities as presented to the City Commission on July 9, 2001.
' Attachments
' �
��V�
1
i
,
C
�
�
'
'
'
To:
From:
CC:
Date:
RE:
William Horne II, City Manager
Mahshid Arasteh, Public Works Administrator
Andrew Neff, Public Utilities Director
Garry Brumback, Assistant City Manager
August 20, 2001
Reclaimed Master Plan Revision/Water Plant Siting
LL �
� � A k`+
H 7...'.. vy �ar�va �r
_ ��
U
Interoffice Correspondence Sheet
We previously presented our request for revisions to the Reclaimed Water Master Plan on April 30, 2001 and ot
' request for re-siting of the water plant to the City Commission on July 9, 2001. At this point we have answere
questions conceming these items and have obtained public input.
'
,
'
'
'
�
�
,
'
'
'
Reclaimed Water Master Plan Revisions
�th regard to the Reclaimed Water Master Plan revisions, we were asked a number of questions during the presentatio,
and had a request from the Commission to obtain public input. We answered the questions in a subsequent submissior
dated May 21, 2001 (see attachment A�. For public input, we presented the revised plan to the Coalition c
Homeowners Association meeting the evening of August 6 and then again on August 7 during our water plant re-sitin
presentauon. �
Public input received is included in detail on the attached reports (attachments B and C). In general, there is som-
concern about when projects will occur in certain areas and other questions relating to reclaimed water health effects
We stressed our rationale for determining priorities including the need to secure future grant funding to offset capita
costs. These questions were answered to the best of our ability at the time. A follow-up memo will be sent to th;
Coalition of Homeowners Association to affum our responses and address responses that required more explanauor
(attachment B).
We recommend authorization to proceed with the revised Reclaimed Water Master Plan as previously presented to thE
City Commission and as shown on attachment D.
Water Plant Re-Sitina
The re-siting of the water plant moves the plant location from the south end of Sid Lickton Park to the north enc
adjacent to our existing facilities (attachment E showing old location and new). When we discussed the water plant re-
siting with the Ciry Comrnission, the Commission requested we present the new location to the neighborhood as quickh�
as possible. As a result, we moved the public meeting from August 29 to August 7.
Not many people attended the meeting, although it was well advertised. Those who came had favorable comments anc
generally liked the new location. Most comments received indicated the new location blended in better with the
neighborhood (attachment C�.
We recommend auEhorization to proceed with design of the water plant in the revised location adjacent to our existing
facilities.
Attachr
City of Clearwater ' .
2001 Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
Response to Commission Questions
May 21, 2001
Were only three neighborhood's irrigation usage reviewed to develop the Master Plan?
Irrigation usage for metered customers was collected for the entire City for evaluation. Three
areas were selected to study in detail to ascertain the estimated potable water offset that one
might expect if reclaimed water were made available under the current program, since only a
fraction of City customers have separate irrigation meters. Many areas of the City have very few
irrigation accounts, with many using shallow wells and others simply irrigating from their single
potable water metered connection. Evaluating areas with higher percentages of irrigation meters
allows us to compare expected usage at the higher rates assuming the lower cost of reclaimed
water and the current availability charge to promote participation. The only actual data on
irrigation usage currently available directly is through review the metered irrigation usage for
those that have irrigation accounts. Attached to this response is a Table that was utilized in the
1998 report and as data for refinement of the current planning document that outlines metered
irrigation usage for all of the areas in the City.
For what purpose will reclaimed water be utilized in the Town Pond project?
, Reclaimed water may be utilized in the Town Pond project for irrigation of green space in lieu of
using potable water. Reclaimed water would be utilized in City areas as well as any surrounding
developments that will have landscaping and green space. It is recommended that pipelines for
' reclaimed water be installed as this area is developed. Reclaimed transmission mains will be
located near the intersection of Cleveland and Missouri as part of the proposed Greenwood
Corridor Enhancement project.
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
What is the history of neighborhood petitions for reclaimed water service?
The City's original ordinance pe�taining to reclaimed water provided for reclaimed water
extension at the discretion of the Public Works Administrator for areas that petitioned the City
for service. In the planning efforts represented by the 1998 Master Plan Update, the City
modified the approach to expansion of the reclaimed water system to be based on a
prioritization based on such factors as potable water offset, cost, and location proximate to
existing facilities in addition to public receptiveness to reclaimed water. Building a system solely
based on petitioning can lead to significant costs in the early stages of the system development
and to very inefficient construction and operation.
Coachmen Ridge has indicated to the City in the past that the neighborhood desires reclaimed
water. Due to the central location of Coachman Ridge with respect ,to the three water
reclamation facilities, conveying reclaimed water to this area will be relatively expensive until
pipelines and pumping facilities are in place. Progress is being made in this regard given the
No�theast Storage and Pumping Facility project beginning construction and design being
initiated on the D�ew-Union Street transmission mains.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMPWttch A.doc
C�
,
'
'
'
,
'
,
IJ
'
��
,
,
'
�
'
'
'
r-,
�
Aicac}
What percentage of potable water revenue lost due to reduced water demand will be
offset by increased reclaimed water revenue?
As this question illustrates, the sale of potable water goes down as reclaimed water use offsets
the potable water use. The revenue generated by the sale of reclaimed water does not offset
the lost revenue from potable water in the strictest sense. Reclaimed water revenue does offset
reclaimed water system operating costs and some capital costs. As we had presented in the
graphic illustration of capital costs sources, the majority of reclaimed water capital costs are
borne by the Water and Sewer fund with some assistance from outside grant funding when
projects are selected for funding by the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Reclaimed water system development is extremely costly and is typically not a self-sufficient
enterprise. As an example of the financial impact, consider the recently developed Island
Estates area. As a result of the new reclaimed water system operation, the loss of potable
revenues over the last year is $413,300. This is based predominantly on the reduction of sales
of potable water through irrigation meter accounts. For the same time period, the revenues
generated through sales of reclaimed water was $122,550 for the past year. This influence was
factored into the previous rate study conducted to include not only Island Estates, but also the
areas programmed to be on-line within the planning horizon.
Are deep wells and shallow wells included in Table 10-3 of the Draft Repo�t?
The numbers of wells represented in the report are the wells that are permitted and included in
the database of SWFWMD. These permitted wells would include deep wells and shallow wells,
however the vast majority are shallow wells withdrawing water from the su�cial aquifer. The
total number of wells in any given area may exceed the information presented in the table. This
data was used as a guide for developing estimated irrigation usage in a relative sense. This
data will be reviewed and adjusted if appropriate to estimate the full offset of groundwater usage
and potable water usage.
What influenced the changes in the priority of service areas?
The primary factor influencing the differences in the prioritization are the changes that the
Southwest Florida Water Management District made in its evaluation criteria for funding
reclaimed water projects. In the last two years, the criteria has become much more stringent
from the standpoint of the cost of a project compared to its benefit expressed in terms of offset
of potable and/or ground water. The Master Plan in 1998 considered this heavily, but also
considered a few more issues including public acceptance, proximity to sources of reclaimed
water and availability of alternative sources of irrigation water. With project funding so heavily
contingent on the Cost/Benefit ratio and having success with the availability charge in securing
greater than 50% participation in a given area, the most recent update relies on the cosUbenefit
ratio more heavily than the 1998 plan. Additionally, in 1999, facing this revised criteria, the City
opted to propose the Drew and Union Street project that was more competitive for grant funding
since it focused on larger tracts of irrigable space without the large cost for distribution piping
like you would see in a residential project area. With this project moving forward, the
transmission facilities constructed will favor areas that are in proximity to the new transmission
system. This project also allows the City to accelerate interconnecting the three treatment
facilities to provide a greater operational flexibility and reliability. A table is attached that shows
the comparison befinreen the previous rankings and the currently proposed prioritization. A
separate table also outlines the costs of out-year projects at their escalated capital costs.
Escalation of costs must be considered in preparation of Annual Operating and Capital
Improvements Budgets as well as rate evaluations. Previous budgeting and rate studies did in
fact include escalation of costs. For purposes of prioritizing and comparing options, present
costs are more appropriate to use.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMPWttch A.doc
,
'
'
�
1
'
'
'
'
�
�
'
�
�
'
'
'
'
1
LAWN METER USAGE BY SERVICE AREA
May 21, 2001
Service Area Monthly Usage Monthly Usage Usage
(Hundred CF/MO) (MG) (GPD)
Island Estates 13,549 10.135 337822
Harbor Oaks 9,470 7.084 236119
Sand Key* 7,310 5.468 182263
South Beach 6,110 4.570 152343
North Beach 5,590 4.181 139377
Clearwater Harbor 3,530 2.640 88015
Enterprise 2,890 2.162 72057
Sylvan Abbey 2,780 2.079 69315
Seville 2,170 1.623 54105
Glen Oaks 2,080 1.556 51861
S. Betty Lane 1,600 1.197 39893
Coachman Ridge 1,470 1.100 36652
North Greenwood 1,410 1.055 35156
Countryside 1,350 1.01 33660
Del Oro Groves 1,280 0.957 31915
Lake Park 1,270 0.950 31665
Country Club Estates 1,250 0.935 31167
Clearwater High 1,140 0.853 28424
East Drew 1,040 0.778 25931
Morningside 1,000 0.748 24933
Palmetto Street 920 0.688 22939
YMCA 710 0.531 17703
Hercules Industrial 670 0.501 16705
Old Coachman 660 0.494 16456
Skycrest 600 0.449 14960
Sunset Point 570 0.426 14212
Woodmont 480 0.359 11968
North Hercules 180 0.135 4488
North Belcher 167 0.125 4164
* Sand Key to be served by extensive of Pinellas County system
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP1Attch A.doc
Attact
'
,
'
'
,
,
'
'
,
�
�
'
�
,
�
'
'
'
,
COMPARISON OF CURRENT TO PREVIOUS PRIORITIZATION
RECLAIMED WATER MASTER PLANNING
May 21, 2001 ' .
Current Rank Previous Rank Service Area Current Project Cost
Constructed 1 N. Beach $2,434,842'
Under Construction 2 S. Beach $1,686,195Z
Pending 3 Harbor Oaks $2,595,261
1 15 Seviile $1,219,516
2 4 Del Oro Groves $3,351,211
3 18 Morningside $4,187,121
4 11 Skycrest $2,828,143
5 8 Coachman Ridge $2,664,856
6 23 Enterprise $3,996,340
7 6 E. Drew Street $1,651,821
8 22 Countryside South $4,792,774
9 7 Lake Park $3,049,740
10 19 South Betty Lane $3,857,809
11 22 Countryside North $4,974,139
12 17 North Greenwood $4,465,728
13 26 North Hercules $2,549,043
14 13 Country Club Estates $3,728,052
15 21 Clearwater High $4,487,832
16 14 Glen Oaks $4,180,746
17 25 North Belcher $4,315,117
18 10 Palmetto Street $4,634,214
19 5 Clearwater Harbor $3,923,465
20 16 Woodmont $3,023,302
21 12 Hercules Industrial $1,742,317
22 27 Sunset Point $3,661,954
23 20 YMCA $3,138,113
24 24 Sylvan Abbey $2,459,507
25 9 Old Coachman $2,494,324
1 Actual Cost.
2 Current Contract Value plus Engineering
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP1Attch A.doc
Atlacl
�
'
'
'
'
'
�
'
'
,
'
�
'
�J
'
�
'
�_J
'
1
atcach
COMPARISON OF CURRENT COST TO
FUTURE COST OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
RECLAIMED WATER MASTER PLANNING
May 21, 2001
Rank Service Area Current Project Cost Year to be Escalated Project Cost
Constructed @3.5 /o/YR
1 Seville $1,219,516 2004 $1,352,099
2 Del Oro Groves $3,351,211 2005 $3,845,592
3 Morningside $4,187,121 2006 $4,972,986
4 Skycrest $2,828,143 2007 $3,476,510
5 Coachman Ridge $2,664,856 2008 $3,390,441
6 Enterprise $3,996,340 2009 $5,262,417
7 E. Drew Street $1,651,821 2010 $2,251,262
8 Countryside South $4,792,774 2011 $6,760,681
9 Lake Park $3,049,740 2012 $4,452,528
10 South Betty Lane $3,857,809 1013 $5,829,414
11 Countryside North $4,974,139 2014 $7,779,335
12 North Greenwood $4,465,728 2015 $7,228,649
13 North Hercules $2,549,043 2016 $4,270,536
14 Country Club Estates $3,728,052 2017 $6,464,390
15 Clearwater High $4,487,832 2018 $8,054,202
16 Glen Oaks $4,180,746 2019 $7,765,691
17 North Belcher $4,315,117 2020 $8,295,818
18 Palmetto Street $4,634,214 2021 $9,221,107
19 Clearwater Harbor $3,923,465 2022 $8,080,107
20 Woodmont $3,023,302 2023 $6,444,203
21 Hercules Industrial $1,742,317 2024 $3,843,751
22 Sunset Point $3,661,954 2025 $8,361,444
23 YMCA $3,138,113 2026 $7,416,130
24 Sylvan Abbey $2,459,507 2027 $6,015,852
25 Old Coachman $2,494,324 2028 $6,314,549
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP�Attch A.doc
,
C�
'
CII
�
'
'
'
'
�
,
,
,
'
'
,
'
,
'
Attachment B
Recap of
Public Utilities Presentation
to •
The Coalition of Clearwater Homeowners Associations
August 6, 2001
The purpose of the presentation was to provide the rationale and preliminary project sequencing to the Coalition
to better inform the public of the revisions to the reclaimed master plan. A short PowerPoint presentation was
provided to explain the rationale and priorities followed by questions and answers.
Following are the questions asked at the meeting and include staff responses:
What is the priority of projects 25 — 30 years out?
71aere are otl�-areas indircl�l in tl� plan in tlae y�ars after 2020. This pmsentatron inducf�oniy those ar�as thraugh th�
�ar 2020.
What about areas not on the master plan?
Far tl� most par5 th� entirP City�s iruliu� in th� �la�zaxrrer euzluatiorc �md priaritizatiaz T�ery fecv 9nall out-
parr.�ls due to location 2epre not ecrrluata�
We live 1000 feet from East Plant. Why aren't we on list, whereas the beach areas are far from the plant and on
the list?
If ia,e hcrc� ida�if�yncrr a�rea mrr�rtly, ynu liz,� in the Del Oro Gfrnrs am�r. 7lae Del Oro �PS ama is scl� to
l�gnz va tlae ypar 2005.
How long will it be until all reclaimed water is used up? How many years out?
Basxi on czrrrertt �rlarirt�i�zter irrzgatiort�cttems and proj«�tai zuasterz�zter treabn�tt plmzt flozvs as pr�sentai in tlae
Drafi 2000 Rerlavna� Water Master Plmz U�ate, r�da�izenter slaaidd 1� azYrilable throicgh tlae Mommgside proj�rt
in tlae ypar 2006. With mnserzrrtio�z cmd seasoncrl storag�, r�rla��ztermay � auzilable ou�- the 20 }�ar plan.
What is the reclaimed plan for Sand Key? Will the rates be the same?
Fn�rrc w�zt � har,� �c told by the c�wzty, Pinellas Cocozty �ce�ill prvvide r�la�zerzter to Scmd Key in alxnrt 2003.
The rystosz will l� f�l fn�n tlae south end of Smul Key. Pinellas Cor�ry has its ozen set of rates that ar� diff 'er�ru fi�am tl�
City's. For res�i�irl, Pinellas Cocn�tty charges a$7. 00 per martd� ircail�rbility' f� aruj ayy additioncrj $2. 00 p�er martth
`usa�' fc�
How are the priorities set?
Areas ze� priaritizs�l by a mst/Fz�-1ef t ratio. The Cost/Benefzt i.s u:lculata� by divrding tlae cnst of tlae infrast�zuzzcre for a
seruic� m-ea by tlae �nefzt of potable z�xrter offsez A lore�- Cost/Benef t is preferable
Are you plannuig to take reclaimed to the new Plullies stadium? If so, and you are going past our neighborhood,
why then can't we get reclaimed water?
Yes, r�rla�nttl zerzxer will 1� pr►7vid�1 to tlae Phillies Stuc��umz. Hareec�-, the f� a�«tioPC zvill � f»am tlae east side of
tar�rt fnrri tlae rerla�7zrtter line that �zfns north/south alang McMullen-Booth Raad Plmu are that samecnne in the
futacre tl,�ere z�vill l� inren�wm�rs �n rlae �srecerrrer npa�nou plants
Au�ust 6, 2001
Pa�e 1.
,
,
'
,
Attachment B
Don't understand why we can't get reclaimed water. Our neighborhood is close to Clearwater Country Club. Is
it possible to hook up to the lines going to Clearwater Country Club?
- What is the cost/benefit? �
- Why is our neigklborhood so far down the list?
- Are we alreacty conserving too much and it is working against us?
- It is unfair that we are following the watering rules but can't get reclaimed.
, Each arna across tlae Ciry zerrs ecnlucit� using a mst/laeriefit mza�ysis. These areas �re tl�z prioritiz�l � on this cmaiysis.
T� factors that muld result in a lace�r priority are high infrasc�ucnrre msts and lat� potab�e �e�rter o�}'set Also anotlaer key factor is
aanlvnr�i SWFWMD m-fiardri�zg to n�liu� msts ��hid� is linka:i to tlae mst/lz�refit ratro.
�
What happens if you can't afford the $9.00 per month availability fee?
' Tlae arpas that �lavn�l za,rzter are govzg to fzrn hac� a lor.v cnst/l�rrefit z,alire cmd high potal�e �r�rter offset Marry ha►nes
in tlaese area.s har,� establisl�rl irrigatian rystons cmd are irrigatvzg rrsvzg potable zeerter or p�zcttte zedls. Z3ae mst to irrigate
zzith n�la5n�l is less than irrigatircgwith potable ier�ter and will gerrerate a sazvzgs to tlae au�taner.
�
,
�
�
��I
.,
�
�
�J
,
�
'
What are the characteristics of reclaimed water and why is it different from potable water?
. •
' r i i 1' L i i i 3/ i i I i�' / i/' / I i/' i' i i :/ ' i ' / I� ! 1 i/'
�i/' i i i 11 i i i � �S ii / I� Ii :/ //�� / I 1/' I � I� I'i/' r// i/'
�i/' /' II' i L i '/.' I' f1 :/ �� I i:/ / �'I� v 9 I /'i �3 i I:•I�
• i ii /' ii I n i i i :/ � i ' / r/ i /i /' ' I / I' / i' i i :/ i' I
L / '/ ' / '
What are the time increments for each project?
Each prv�rt is approxvrrate�y one �ar
Why does reclaimed water at the Long Center smell?
Ra�la��zter is not F�ing u.sa� at tlae Lang Center. If strong aciars a�re aasrrin� tl� aiars may lx c�rnvzg frnm zerll
zerrter Well z�zter .u�netanes has a�vtt� egg adar rnusa� by hy�lro�en sulfide
R�la�zerrxer should not hacP an adorwith tlae exceptiorc of chlrnme
, August 6, 2001
Pa�e 2.
'
'
'
,
�J
'
'
'
'
'
Attachment C
Recap of
Public Meeting
Water Plant Site Relocation
&
Reclaimed Water
August 7, 2001
The meeting was held at the Polish Center of John Paul II. The meeting was scheduled from 630 p.m. to 830
p.m. on Tuesday August 7, 2001.
The purpose of the meeting was to assess the reaction of the neighborhood to the new location for the water
plant and to provide information on the revised reclaimed master plan to the general public.
City Staff Attendees: Bill Horne, Garry Bnunback, Mahshid Arasteh, Anc�y Neff, Joe Reckenwald, Dave Sickler,
Glenn, Daniel, Andy Bachtel, and Tom Miller.
Consultant staff: Street Lee, Mitch Chiavaroli, Jack Hicky, and Joe Hughs.
Advertisements: Posted by Ciry Clerk's office
C-View
Press Release
Website
Variable Message Board
St. Pete Times (Clearwater) Sunday & Tuesday�'
* The ad for Tuesday did not run. It actually ran on Wednesday, one day late and the Ciry will not be charged.
The room was set up with stations showing the water plant relocauon, building appearance, costs, timelines and
, other displays relevant to the new water treatment faciliry. Other displays included geology of the area,
reclaimed water and a table with handouts conceming grease.
,
'
i
'
'
i
Tumout was light, thirteen people attended. Of the 13 who signed, one was a Commissioner (Jonson) and one
was Asst. City Manager, Garry Bnunback and two were ciry employees.
As residents entered they were asked to sign in and were given a fact sheet and a comment sheet. As each
resident left, they were asked if they would like to return the comment sheet.
WATER PLANT CONIMENTS /QUESTIONS
One resident asked if this project was moving forward for development purposes. We explained the project was
based on economics not intended to support future development needs. The water plant will produce water at
$1.68/ 1000 gallons. Currently we purchase water from Pinellas County at $1.79/ 1000 gallons and that price is
going to rise. Based on quantiry of water anticipated from the plant, and the difference in price of water
produced and water purchased, substantial economical savings will be realized.
Ms. Rita Garvey, who previously had concerns about the water plant location, indicated she would support the
new location since it was less obuusive and fit into the surroundings better than the previous plan.
Other general comments and questions were:
Why not build the water plant sooner?
, The new location makes sense.
The new building is much improved over the previous metal building.
� August 7, 2001
Pa�e #.
,
'
,
'
�
�_J
'
l.�
�
,
'
��
,
,
'
,
L
[�
�
Attachment C
Overall, it is a good plan & project and my questions were answered.
RECLAIMED WATER COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
Following is a generalized summary of the questions asked and answers provided by staff.
Why can't you do more? ANSWER Staff explained the reclaimed master plan, how a cost/benefit analysis was
developed and how it was used to prioritize areas. Staff also discussed opportunities for co-funding grants from
the SWFVUMD to offset and reduce the costs of the projects. The total cost of the 20-year program exceeds
$100 million dollars. The projects are spread out due to the cost and to maX;m»e SWF\`UMD funding.
What are the criteria for bringing reclaimed water to an area? Why are areas in the order that they are?
ANSWER: Criteria are: proximity to existing infrastructure, cost/benefit analysis, potable water offset, high
irrigation use, customer demand, and number of shallow wells in area. The areas are in the order shown because
those at the top have the best cost/benefit analysis. SV�IFV�IMD prioritizes projects based on a cost/benefit
ratio. The City must remain competitive for future grant funding.
Why is the master plan so long (20 years)? ANSWER To take advantage of SWF��INID grant funding and
offset the cost to our customers as much as possible and to spread out the costs over time.
Why did the City run the reclaimed water to the beaches first? ANSWER: The infrastructure was run to Island
Estates iu-st, north Clearwater Beach second and south Clearwater Beach third. These areas were first because
they had the lowest cost/benefit analysis and very high potable water offset.
When is reclaimed water coming to my subdivision? ANSWER It depends where your area is according to the
revised reclaimed Master plan.
Does reclaimed hurt animals (dogs & cats) if they drink it� ANSWER No, they have different digestion
systems, in small amounu it should not harm them. However, we advise people not to purposely fill their pets
bowls with reclaimed water.
Does reclaimed water smell? ANSWER: Sometimes, depending on the level of chlorine.
Wlry not spend all the money for the water treatment plant on the reclaimed water system? ANSWER 'The
plant will produce 2 million gallons/day of water. If the same amount were spent on the reclaimed system we
would not realize the same potable offset benefit. The same amount of money to produce 2 mgd of potable
water would only provide 0.7 mgd of reclaimed water. Building the water plant is a better investment in terms of
producing more potable water while purchased water costs will continue to rise.
When (year) will all the reclaimed water be used up? ANSWER Appro�cimately 2007-2009 if no action is taken
to conserve the resource.
Why are we selling reclaimed water to Pinellas County? ANSWER At the tune the agreement was approved
reclaimed water was not considered a resource as it is today. Based on the previous master plan, the amount
provided to Pinellas County was in excess of City needs for the duration of the agreement. Additionally, there is
not yet an extensive reclaimed infrastructure in the northeast part of town.
au�USt �, Zoo i
Page #.
� � � � � � � � � � i � � � � � � � �
o i/t t � in a
r.rc � .au
o wm �mo �mo �000 �a000
�GIL M /Qi
LEGEND
---- - arr oF aFnRw��R
WATER SERVICE AREA
BWNDARY
n^ ^�^*ti� ADVANCED POLlUT10N CONTROI
� ' FACIUTY
�,?� EX1571NG RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM
� YEAR CONSTRUCiION BEGINS
RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE
AREA 80UNDARY
� PENDINC RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM
�
�
�
DUN�IX
-.
r
(, ' ,,
`�i `t
`l.j,•2, � .
/�.i''.%; \ . �
r, .
�� ii � ,
_. ..._ . __._._
�.
� ....�
Attachmeilt D
�`
— ��
�-� �`
_ � \\�� )�owa�tax
.� 4��-
��--� :t
� � � .,
.� � � ., _ > ���,
��j. �: , r.. . .
?s., � -�
:�,`.!:�. .
� F�cwn
.�... .� It7R1l6M�CI�IMGE
�� NOMHq►ACil�f�
! f ' �.
R �.�1 2�� `
2 0 t�
rw�r �-
f > >
.........._._ �.. I 1 +//,
I ae�rrr aa�oa
� � i 1 ;� \ _ � i .� � %
E �I ,III I Ip �
fi�';� �I'11f � T91 J:`^�l �TI!�Q M ( � _ r Q /;,
l i � _ '�1 ,l 1 ' �� � � ..�. �s. .o�0 2V 1g ' G r "� I� I 1 , � �
.:
�I �' � �
,f�}'� � 1-r. , � � �i� i.._ {� . � ' � — � j ._ � �,, �
�k :'y .�� MARSHALL ILQ�8IMOOD �,�CQpQ '. I1'�. ' ,'� n, �� � ! ; " f ��
`''+ i � S APCT "'�7 �.I f� .. �lr � _ :P' � '�'O �ACi�M I . � � ' � � 9.+�.u�.�
����71 r� � �Ej FACIl1TY �'�� � i� ' � � y� -.1•,,p� m �1'
r�Li��.���I��:{3��� . A/11C r�����. � ��� •,!� '�. �� �� � � �� i.� �,y'2 y�14' .._.. .A7.�a�
" Y�'
+� ,4 if, � cvw �: �' .. f u�rAHC ''
,:�. f;�;� . , � �.,.. , v , �.
� # �� �_ ,� ��! r;�rm � � r � �'
`� � �'� � °m�r � f �:_ ,�) r� . ' �� . �1 ° i` �
�l�v����a '\ 0011111lf � �, .r• �• ';� ,, �.
��,..� , � � aLe .... , � f °' ,
�Nr�� �. �fAl� �' i.. '•;, I.6 �'.
. � ,
, .. �...-..� eb�r . � � . �::i! ,; � n �...._1j � ; a....-
C1EAR1fATER � . ..�_� .. : � M"� (� ,�LI �'�- r .' -
2(Yf01 �-
���J 1'yq� �101 � � i t__� �� _
j 2 : � �.,.i , �ti� ' ^. �AST
� --•— ��j t`':... ��•• WI/�! � APC
Ll�v w i _ :
! �
$ � i1.: �� '''•i� e i f'._ e � � FACIUTY
�' l�T1YLYE � , .,� ..) (� �
�/ . . �..4I ��i_ . ' � �
� � ��'��� (1 ��.
� �� �:.t; _"I �� _ � i �•� i ---
a
.- ..._._.... __._._...._.... -- _ i
� . i�n..J � �� � �' ��... !�_.. .... �_'i.,.......' _ _'.. _.. �ii=, Y/'-
I ��i �
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
i
'
�
�
'
,
,
'
�
�
,
�
Preliminary Project Develo ment
�,.
p
.�� _. _ : � .
Phase Service Area Project Cost ($M)
� Seviile � ,2
2 Del Oro Groves 3.4
3 Morningside 4.2
4 � Skycrest 2,8
5 Coachman Ridge 2.7
6 Enterprise 4.0
7 East Drew Street 1.6
$ Countryside South 4,8
9 Lake Park 3.0
10 South Betty Lane 3.8
11 Countryside North 4.9
'12 North Greenwood 4.5
13 North Hercules 2.5
14 Country Club Estates 3.7
15 Clearwater High 4.5
16 Glen Oaks 4.1
� 7 North Belcher 4.3
� 8 Palmetto 4.6
• 19 Clearwater Harbor 3.9
20 Woodmont 3.0
2� Hercules Industrial 1.7
22 Sunset Point 3.7
23 YMCA 3.1
24 Sylvan Abbey 2.5
25 Old Coachman 2.5
° Clearwater
u�
�����
nr
� � �:.
. � ]� �'�� ' ,
641 Clev�land S�r�et, ��itie 20�
Clearwater, �L 33'�SS
Ph (72'1') 4'���71g6
Fx (727) 4�1-3827