PUBLIC OPINION OF POTABLE WATER REUSE IN DENVER, COLORADO

By

BRANDI LEIGH HONEYCUTT

B.S., University of North Carolina, Asheville, 2004

A thesis submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate School of the

University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science Environmental Science

2015

© 2015

BRANDI LEIGH HONEYCUTT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii

This thesis for the Master of Science degree by

Brandi Leigh Honeycutt

has been approved for the

Department of Geography and Environmental Science

by

Gregory Simon, Chair

Peter Anthamatten

Brian Good

November 18, 2015

iii

Honeycutt, Brandi Leigh (M.S., Environmental Science)

Public Opinion of Potable Water Reuse in Denver, Colorado

Thesis directed by Associate Professor Gregory Simon

ABSTRACT

Potable water reuse is becoming a more prevalent water supply augmentation

option as water utilities face supply threats from climate change, drought and population

growth. Potable water reuse involves purifying municipal wastewater to drinking water

quality and reusing the water for potable purposes. Public acceptance of potable water

reuse is one of the most important factors driving potable reuse projects and lack of

adequate public support has led to project failure. Water reuse professionals recommend

that public opinion surveys regarding potable reuse are executed and maintained in

regions that may implement potable reuse in the future. Since potable water reuse could

help to alleviate water supply pressures in Denver, Colorado, an online public opinion

survey was performed in the Denver metropolitan area. Major findings reveal that the

Denver metro area public values environmental benefits, drought and climate change

resiliency from implementing potable water reuse. Additionally, potable water reuse that

involves storing the recycled water in an environmental buffer for some time prior to

retreating it and using it for potable purposes is preferred. Finally, most of the

respondents were comfortable with water reuse applications that do not involve ingesting

the water.

The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.

Approved: Gregory Simon

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the Rocky Mountain Section American Water Works Association

for granting me the James B. Warner Scholarship worth $2,000 that helped fund this

research. I am especially grateful for Mr. and Mrs. Warner for their contribution and

support.

I also extend the upmost gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Gregory Simon, Dr.

Peter Anthamatten and Deputy Manager of Denver Water Brian Good for their guidance

and contribution to my completion of this research.

Last but not least, I appreciate Denver Water’s financial support and for providing me

with a flexible schedule, which enabled me to complete the course work for this degree.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................... 1

Non-Potable Reuse ...................................................................................................................... 8

Indirect Potable Reuse ............................................................................................................... 10

Direct Potable Reuse ................................................................................................................. 11

II. LITERATURE REVIEW OF DIRECT POTABLE REUSE AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE ................................................................................................................ 13

DPR Facilities in Existence ....................................................................................................... 14

Review of Public Acceptance of Water Reuse .......................................................................... 17

Success and Failure of Potable Water Reuse Implementation .............................................. 17

Factors Influencing Success of Potable Water Reuse Implementation ................................. 21

Survey Findings on Public Perception of Water Reuse ........................................................ 23

Context of Research................................................................................................................... 29

III. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 35

Subjects...................................................................................................................................... 35

Denver Metro Area Public .................................................................................................... 35

Denver Water Employees...................................................................................................... 36

Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................... 36

Content .................................................................................................................................. 37

Design ................................................................................................................................... 38

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 40

IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 41

Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................................. 41

Demographic Attributes ........................................................................................................ 41

Other Respondent Characteristics ......................................................................................... 42

Water Supply Ranks .............................................................................................................. 44

Support for IPR, DPR and Statements Regarding DPR ........................................................ 44

Analyses .................................................................................................................................... 46

Assoications between Beliefs and Experiences……………………………………………. 46 Demographic Comparisons ................................................................................................... 47

V. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 50

Major Findings .......................................................................................................................... 51

Environmental Benefits are the Most Compelling Reason to Support DPR ......................... 51

Drought and Support for DPR ............................................................................................... 53

De Facto Water Reuse and Support for DPR ........................................................................ 53

Climate Change and Support for IPR and DPR .................................................................... 54

Importance of Localized Data Collection ............................................................................. 56

Public and Denver Water Employee Comparisons ............................................................... 57

vi

Hypotheses and Results ............................................................................................................. 58

1985 and 2015 Survey Results .................................................................................................. 59

Limitations and Delimitations to the Research .......................................................................... 60

VI. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 62

Decades of Silence and the Impact on Water Reuse Acceptance in the Denver metro area ..... 63

Decrease in Water Reuse Acceptance ................................................................................... 63

Leverage Environmental Benefits, Drought and Climate Change Resiliency in the Denver Metro Area ............................................................................................................................ 64

Empower Denver Water Employees with Knowledge .......................................................... 66

Applicability .............................................................................................................................. 67

Future Research in the Denver metro area ............................................................................ 68

Theoretical and Additional Policy Implications ........................................................................ 69

Theoretical ............................................................................................................................. 69

Policy..................................................................................................................................... 70

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 71

APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 79

A. ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS .................................................. 79

B. COMIRB CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION .......................................................................... 81

C. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ........................................................................................................ 84

D. RESPONDENT COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 99

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACT Australian Capital Territory

ACTEW Australian Capital Territory Electricity and Water Corporation, Ltd.

AWWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment

CECs Chemicals of Emerging Concern

COMIRB Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board

CRMWD Colorado River Municipal Water District

DPR Direct Potable Reuse

IPR Indirect Potable Reuse

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPR Non-potable Reuse

TSS Total Suspended Solids

U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

WHO World Health Organization

WRF WateReuse Foundation

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Professor Cyrus Thomas, a noted climate scientist during the 19th century was a

leading proponent of the concept that “Rain follows the plow”. Professor Thomas once

stated,

“Since the territory of Colorado has begun to be settled, towns and

cities built up, farms cultivated, mines opened, and roads made and

travelled, there has been a gradual increase in moisture….I therefore

give it as my firm conviction that this increase is of a permanent

nature, and not periodical, and that it has commended within eight

years past, and that as population increases the moisture will

increase.” This ideal was harnessed to propagate the settlement of the American West (Reisner,

1986). Water right allocations from the Colorado River Compact Agreement were

developed and agreed upon early in the 20th century during one of the highest

precipitation periods on record. The compact regulates water allocations of the Colorado

River for seven basin states: Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah

and Wyoming (Denver Water, 2014). Since the agreement was signed, the western region

of the United States has experienced a substantial challenge with managing water

resources and will continue to do so in the future. While the train of thought posed by

professor Thomas is no longer a salient belief in the American West, water continues to

be a contentious issue. Utilizing water resources efficiently is considered to be of upmost

importance, and integrating community values, needs and cultural sentiments into local

water supply management is a necessary component of water supply planning.

2

There is an urgent need to develop water supply options that meet the increasing

needs of municipalities, agriculture and industry while protecting watersheds and the

environment. As demand for water rapidly increases, the rate of aquifer depletion exceeds

the rate of replenishment. Surface water supplies are losing water to evaporation from

rising temperatures, which also results in higher evapotranspiration rates and higher

demand for irrigation water. Population growth increases demand for industrial,

municipal and agricultural purposes. The American West is the fastest growing region in

the United States. In Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West, the Bureau

of Reclamation claims that, “In some areas the water supply will not be adequate to meet

all demands for water even in normal years. Inevitable droughts merely magnify the

impacts of water shortages” (USBR, 2005). In a period of time when water resources are

over allocated in many parts of the world, and with the uncertainties presented by global

climate change and population growth, water reuse is a viable solution to augment fresh

water supplies.

Water reuse is the use of advanced treated municipal wastewater from homes,

businesses and industries for beneficial purposes. Beneficial uses commonly include

irrigation for parks and golf courses, industrial cooling and other processes, ground and

surface water recharge, agricultural irrigation and even drinking water. Wastewater that

is treated for reuse has traditionally been called reclaimed water or recycled water and

these terms are used interchangeably (Asano et al., 2007).

Reclaimed water use is beneficial for water providers, society and the

environment. Treating and reusing wastewater can reduce the need for or prolong the

time to develop additional freshwater supply. During drought years, reclaimed water can

3

supplant the use of freshwater, thereby preserving water in aquifers and storage

reservoirs. Water utilities can better plan for future supplies by relying on reclaimed

water as a long-term source. The use of reclaimed water for irrigation maintains

landscape appearance and property values without diminishing drinking water supplies.

When a region can supplant freshwater supplies with reclaimed water by a large volume,

aquatic ecosystems are sustained (Asano et al., 2007). Allocating water of a suitable

quality for intended beneficial uses makes the most efficient use of the world’s water

supplies.

There are three types of planned water reuse: non-potable reuse (NPR), indirect

potable reuse (IPR), and direct potable reuse (DPR). Reclaimed water for non-potable

(NPR) use is typically treated to a grade below drinking water standards, while reclaimed

water for potable purposes (IPR and DPR) undergoes advanced treatment with safeguards

to ensure public safety when ingested (Asano et al., 2007). It is important to note that

unplanned or de facto potable water reuse has been practiced since the onset of

wastewater treatment. Communities downstream of a wastewater treatment plant are

treating and drinking diluted wastewater from upstream users (Meeker, 2014).

Arid climates, drought, population growth, urbanization and regions generally

suffering from growing water supply shortages drive reclaimed water projects into

implementation (Asano et al, 2007). There are many challenges that influence whether

water reuse is a viable option to augment water supply (Bischel et al., 2012). Questions

for decision makers may include: Are the environmental, monetary and social costs of

implementing water reuse worthwhile? How will the process of reclaiming wastewater

affect upstream and downstream flows and users? Is there an urgent need to seek

4

alternatives to freshwater supplies? How will the public respond to using reclaimed water

for irrigation, agriculture, industry or potable purposes? (Dave Little, former Director of

Planning, Denver Water, personal interview October 27, 2014). The answers to these

questions have been evolving over the last half-century as reclaimed water use has

increased in many parts of the globe. Specifically with regards to public response to

water reuse applications; multiple surveys have been administered across the world in

communities that intend to implement water reuse projects. This research aims to

determine the opinion of the Denver metro area public in Colorado on various reuse

applications with an emphasis on potable water reuse and DPR.

One of the most significant contributors to water reuse implementation has been

advancement in wastewater treatment technology coupled with more stringent

wastewater effluent regulations. Under the United States Clean Water Act, the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program requires that

wastewater, prior to being released into the environment to flow downstream must

undergo significant treatment processes (US EPA, 1998). Additional treatments for

reclaimed water use depend on the purpose or potential application of the reclaimed

water, and are typically more rigorous than wastewater treatment alone. Reclaimed water

treatment plants utilize multiple barriers to ensure that if one treatment method fails, one

of the other treatments will remove constituents of concern from the wastewater (Asano

et al., 2007).

The level of wastewater treatment for reuse is contextual and depends upon the

intended application, constituents in the wastewater and availability of funding for

treatment technology. Primary and secondary treatments are applied for traditional

5

wastewater treatment and thus are applied prior to reclaiming wastewater for reuse.

Primary treatment removes large objects and abrasive materials to prepare wastewater for

downstream processes. The goal is to reduce particle size and remove grit that could be

abrasive to equipment further down the treatment train. Primary treatment also removes

solids and floating materials that are easy to settle (total suspended solids or TSS).

Secondary treatment decomposes organic material and flocculates solids materials that do

not easily settle. Microorganisms convert organic matter into cell material, carbon

dioxide and water, and convert ammonia to nitrate (a process called “nitrification”) and

ultimately, into nitrogen gas (“denitrification”). Finally, pathogens, trace metals, organics

and total dissolved solids are removed or reduced in advanced or tertiary treatment.

Tertiary treatment and disinfection are not always exercised in conventional wastewater

treatment, but are commonly used for potable and non-potable reuse applications (NRC,

2012).

Advanced wastewater treatment (AWWT) is applied for potable water recycling,

with four key steps to produce high quality, purified water. The first three steps are

primary, secondary and tertiary treatment, noted above. The fourth step, advanced

treatment targets additional removal of nutrients and organic components, further reduces

total dissolved solids and salts and provides additional removal of pathogens (NRC,

2012). In some cases, the water is stabilized through restoration of alkalinity, hardness

and pH, and corrosive properties are reduced so as not to impair the piping and

distribution system. Appendix A shows a table of the various treatment methods used for

AWWT (ATSE, 2013).

6

Currently, enforceable regulations for reclaimed water do not exist at the federal

level in the United States. Due to the myriad of water reuse applications and various

requirements for water quality and technology, individual states have authority to

implement operational, water quality and reclaimed water application regulations. The

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has provided Guidelines for Water

Reuse that municipalities can reference which includes recommendations for water

treatment, water quality, monitoring and other considerations to protect public health.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has also developed a set of Guidelines for the

Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta, and Greywater that are intended to provide a

framework from which nations can base decisions and regulations for water reuse (NRC,

2012).

Monetary costs for water reuse projects vary substantially because they are

contingent upon site specifics and intended application. For example, NPR systems

require dual distribution lines, storage units, treatment plants and pumping stations

whereas DPR systems use the existing municipal delivery infrastructure. The average

cost for a parallel distribution system for a non-potable system is $1.15 to $6.44 per 1,000

gallons of water, whereas a direct potable operation is $2.27 to $3.80 per 1,000 gallons of

water1 (Leverenz et al., 2011). However, DPR incurs higher water treatment costs due to

energy requirements to purify the water to drinking water standards. West Basin,

California operates non-potable and potable reclaimed water systems, with capital

1 Cubic meters converted to thousand gallons for consistency.

7

reclaimed water treatment costs at $9.62/1,000 gallons/year and $28.98/1,000 gallons/

year, respectively (NRC, 2012).

Location is another factor that produces variable costs. A reclaimed water

treatment plant located at a lower elevation than its customers will incur higher pumping

and energy costs. State regulated wastewater quality affects reclaimed water treatment

costs and depends on wastewater constituents, concentration of those constituents and

pretreatment practices. Furthermore, disposal of concentrate or brine, leftover solid

material from reclaimed water treatment varies in cost depending on location and surface

water quality requirements. Coastal areas can blend concentrate with water and dispose

of it in the ocean. However, inland reclaimed water projects may not have adequate

surface waters or aquifer storage for disposal, and may require the concentrate to be

transported elsewhere, which increases costs (NRC, 2012).

The Water Reuse Foundation (WRF) has published An Economic Framework for

Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of Water Reuse to assist water agencies and

professionals with an in depth benefit-cost analysis for water reuse or desalination. This

document helps to identify, estimate and effectively communicate the internal benefits (to

the water agency) and the external or social benefits (to households, businesses,

recreationists, special interest groups, etc.), and weigh those benefits against costs

(capital, operational, environmental, social etc.) It is recommended that community and

stakeholder groups be involved in the analysis. In addition to the report, a Microsoft

Excel Workbook can be utilized to enable agencies to analyze specific information about

their water reuse project including monetary and social costs and benefits (WateReuse

Foundation, 2006).

8

Non-Potable Reuse

Establishing a non-potable reclaimed water supply system is at least as complex

as developing a drinking water system. All of the requirements for a drinking water

supply system are also required in a non-potable reclaimed system. Separate,

underground distribution and piping, along with distinct pumping stations, storage

facilities and treatment plants must be constructed alongside the drinking water supply

system. In the United States, all piping and visual equipment delivering and operating

non-potable recycled water is the color purple, and is referred to as “purple pipe”. This

distinguishes between the potable and non-potable recycled supply systems. If potable

water serves as a backup supply for recycled water, contamination between the potable

and reclaimed water systems must be prevented. Planning for a non-potable reclaimed

water system must incorporate demand and supply metrics, which then affect the size of

storage facilities, underground distribution design, pumping requirements and treatment

capacity. Installing a non-potable distribution system during new construction typically

costs less than breaking ground in established, developed areas (AWWA, 1994).

A common application for non-potable reclaimed water is irrigation of edible and

non-edible crops. Agricultural irrigation accounts for approximately 40 percent of the

freshwater supply withdrawals in the United States (which can be much higher in arid

regions) (Houston, et al., 2004) and accounts for 70 percent around the world.

Substituting freshwater with reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation saves freshwater

supplies for potable purposes (Asano et al., 2007). Another benefit of agricultural

irrigation with reclaimed water is that less fertilizer may be required because non-potable

reclaimed water often contains residual nitrogen and phosphorous which are beneficial

9

nutrients for increasing crop yield and productivity (Carr et al., 2010; Jang et al., 2010).

A drawback from irrigation with non-potable reclaimed water is that salts in the water

can build up in soils and become detrimental to plant health. Soils where crops are

irrigated with reclaimed water over time show a lower salt concentration when

periodically flushed with potable water (Carr et al., 2010).

Landscape irrigation can account for anywhere from 30 to more than 70 percent

of a community’s potable water use, making reclaimed water for this purpose a viable

alternative. Irrigation of public parks, golf courses, cemeteries, schools, traffic medians

and other landscaped areas can be supplied with reclaimed water with little or no risk to

public health. Tertiary treated reclaimed water removes most of the total dissolved and

suspended solids from the water, inhibiting damage to irrigation emitters. Demand

planning forecasts for reclaimed water use must consider the seasonality of crop and

landscape irrigation in most regions, which is why non-potable reclaimed water systems

should also allocate water to year round applications in addition to irrigation purposes

(Asano et al., 2007).

Non-potable reclaimed water may be used year round in industrial applications.

Common applications include cooling towers, boiler water, rinsing, equipment cooling as

well as in manufacturing such as textile production, pulp and paper, oil refineries and

mining (Asano et al., 2004). While more stringent wastewater effluent regulations have

led to a reduction in industrial water use over the past 30 years (through conservation

technology and efficiency improvements), industrial use still makes up a significant

amount of freshwater withdrawals in the United States and around the world (Houston et

al., 2004). Water quality considerations for industrial uses focus on prevention of

10

corrosion, scaling and biofilm build up on equipment (Bell and Aranda, 2005). Tertiary

treated reclaimed water is typically appropriate for industrial purposes (Asano et al.,

2007).

Additional applications of year round reclaimed water demand year round in

urban areas include toilet and urinal flushing, fire protection, air conditioning, laundry

and car washing and public water features. Variability in all of the water quality

standards for the above mentioned uses poses the economic question as to whether it is

more cost effective to produce multiple grades of water quality to meet the needs of each

specific use, or to produce a single grade of reclaimed water that is suited for all

projected applications (Asano et al., 2007).

Indirect Potable Reuse

Indirect potable reuse involves treating wastewater and distributing it into an

environmental buffer where it filtrates and/or blends with raw water for a specific amount

of time before entering the conventional drinking water treatment plant. Environmental

buffers include lakes and reservoirs, streams and groundwater (groundwater recharge).

As mentioned previously, a multiple barrier approach is incorporated into wastewater

treatment and monitoring to remove pathogens and trace constituents to protect public

health. It is important to note that often, IPR reclaimed water quality degrades when

blended with raw surface water supplies from exposure to environmental contaminants

(Asano et al., 2007).

Groundwater injection is an IPR environmental buffer that serves multiple

beneficial purposes. When aquifers that are being depleted at a faster rate than

replenishment are injected with reclaimed water, it reduces, stops and/or reverses the

11

decline in groundwater levels. This practice also mitigates risks of land subsidence from

depleting aquifers. In coastal areas, where saltwater intrusion occurs when groundwater

levels are low, injecting reclaimed water into the underground aquifer prevents salt water

from seeping into the freshwater aquifer. Aquifers recharged with reclaimed water may

serve as water storage units during floods, and for storage of surplus reclaimed water.

Soil and substrate filter contaminants in reclaimed water, which can improve water

quality (Asano, 1985; Bouwer, 1978; Todd, 1980). Reclaimed water injected into

aquifers can be used for potable and non-potable purposes. Currently, IPR is the

prevalent potable water reuse method currently utilized in the United States and the

world. The public is often more comfortable with placing the treated wastewater into a

“natural” water body prior to entering the drinking water treatment plant and consuming

it (Asano et al., 2007).

Direct Potable Reuse

DPR is the process of treating wastewater to drinking water standards and

pumping it directly into the distribution system (pipe to pipe) and immediately served to

the public, or the purified wastewater is blended with conventionally treated freshwater in

an above ground storage basin prior to serving to the public. The major distinction

between indirect and direct potable reuse is that with direct potable reuse reclaimed water

is not placed into an environmental buffer prior to being used for potable purposes. DPR

systems meet significant potable water demand year round. As with all water reuse,

demand on freshwater supplies is reduced when replaced with high quality reclaimed

water. A substantial benefit of DPR when compared to NPR is that the reclaimed water

12

can be supplied through the existing potable water distribution infrastructure (Leverenz et

al., 2011; WateReuse Foundation, 2011).

DPR systems have some advantages over IPR. DPR does not require pumping to

an environmental buffer. Therefore, costs for delivering reclaimed water though a pipe to

the environmental buffer, and energy requirements to do so are eliminated. In IPR

scenarios, prior to adding reclaimed water to an environmental buffer, assessments on

impacts to aquatic species and habitats, public health impacts in recreational waters and

impacts on public health for consumptive users is generally required which is an added

expenditure. A comprehensive study may also be required to determine if the

environmental buffer will affect reclaimed water quality when added (ATSE, 2013).

Public acceptance is a critical component to applying reclaimed water for

drinking purposes. An account of DPR projects, public acceptance research and factors

affecting acceptance of potable reuse is assessed in Chapter 2.

13

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW OF DIRECT POTABLE REUSE AND PUBLIC

ACCEPTANCE

There are currently few direct potable reuse systems, though popularity is

growing. Multiple organizations are conducting research and development regarding

DPR indicating that awareness of DPR as an acceptable water supply option is

increasing. The WateReuse Foundation is embarking on a $6 million research project to

explore DPR (WateReuse Foundation, 2015a). A utility survey performed by the Water

Research Foundation indicates that seven percent of utilities surveyed are considering

DPR (Water Research Foundation, 2015). The Water Environment Research Foundation

recently published a report on the challenges facing implementing DPR in the state of

Colorado with recommendations (WERF, 2015). Extreme droughts or prohibitive costs of

alternative supplies are the primary motivators for DPR. Water treatment technology,

public safety and public acceptance are the most critical issues associated to DPR, with

public acceptance being one of the most important factors for reuse project

implementation (Bruvold, Olson & Rigby, 1981).

Public acceptance and understanding public opinion of water reuse is important

for successful DPR implementation for several reasons. Reuse projects may not be

properly understood and considered by the public if information about the role the project

plays in water reliability, how the project is financed, how the project fits in with the

larger regional water supply, the impacts to water quality and the environment and health

risks are not known. Without an understanding of public concerns in the initial phase,

14

delays and costs could rise as the public’s anxieties grow and interfere with

implementation. Lastly, honesty and trust between the water agency and the public

should remain high with regards to the agency’s role and credibility to provide safe,

reliable drinking water and this cannot be accomplished without effective interaction and

communication with the public (WateReuse Foundation, 2009).

DPR Facilities in Existence

Windhoek, Nambia in Southern Africa has been treating wastewater for DPR

since 1968 (du Pisani, 2005). This region receives, on average, about 14 inches of rainfall

per year and most of the stored surface water is lost to evaporation. Windhoek’s arid

climate and population growth are what motivated the construction of the Goreangab

Water Reclamation Plant. In 2002, the plant was reconstructed and currently supplies 30

to 50 percent of the city’s drinking water (du Pisani, 2005; Lahnsteiner and Lempert,

2005). A multiple barrier treatment train including ozonation, granular and biological

activated carbon, ultrafiltration, and disinfection ensures the reclaimed water meets safe

drinking water standards (refer to Appendix A for treatment methods). Water quality

monitored through online instrumentation and samples, at each stage of treatment and

prior to delivery is constantly analyzed and held to specific standards. When any one of

these standards is not met, the plant does not deliver the reclaimed water through the

drinking water supply system, and the water is recycled back through the treatment train

until it meets the water quality criteria. Windhoek gained public acceptance for DPR

through educating the public about the state of the art treatment facility and through a

campaign regarding the grave need of consistent water supply. Windhoek has received no

15

complaints about the use or quality of reclaimed water for potable purposes (du Pisani,

2005; Lahnsteiner and Lempert, 2005).

Another DPR facility that is located in South Africa called the Beaufort West

Water Reclamation Plant has been supplying reliable, high quality reclaimed drinking

water to roughly 40,000 people since January 2011. Severe drought in 2010, reliance on

imported water and expected population growth were the main drivers for this project. In

this system, treated raw water (80%) is blended with treated reclaimed water (20%) in a

holding reservoir with both product waters complying with potable water standards. The

blended water is then distributed to the town of Beaufort West (ATSE, 2013).

In the United States, two communities in Texas have recently constructed DPR

facilities due to the prolonged and severe drought in the state. Wichita Falls, Texas fell

approximately 70 percent below its expected water supply in 2012 and 2013 due to the

drought (EBSCO Publishing, 2014). Wichita Falls already had a drinking water treatment

plant that utilized microfiltration and reverse osmosis to treat saline lake water. In order

to implement DPR, all that was needed was a $13 million 12-mile pipeline connecting the

wastewater treatment plant to the drinking water treatment facility. DPR operations began

on July 9, 2014 and the treated effluent is purified and blended with freshwater in a

holding tank at a 50/50 ratio and then treated in the conventional drinking water plant

(Dahl, 2014). A 45-day testing period was required prior to serving the water to the

public by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to ensure the water was safe

to drink. According to University of Texas Engineering Professor, Desmond Lawler, “If

you want to drink very clean water, direct potable reuse will likely provide higher quality

water than many drinking water plants currently produce now.” There have not been any

16

reported illnesses or diseases attributed to drinking the reclaimed water since the onset of

the DPR facility (City of Wichita Falls, 2014). Wichita Falls created a video about the

DPR project that featured utility representatives, doctors and experts from local

universities discussing the advanced water treatment process and the safety of its use for

potable purposes. The City also involved the media every step of the way to ensure the

public was informed. Daniel Nix, utilities operations manager of Wichita Falls stated

that, “Since we brought this treatment plant online, the feedback has been that the water

tastes better than the lake water we were working with before” (Martin, 2014).

A second DPR facility operating in Texas is located in the City of Big Spring.

This project began supplying drinking water to the community in May of 2013. The

system cost $14 million to construct and can supply approximately two million gallons of

highly treated reclaimed water per day (White, 2013). Public acceptance was minimal at

first, but the community is becoming more supportive2. Mayor Glenn Barham stated,

“There was probably a lot of reservations about reuse water projects when we first

discussed it in the late ’90s.” Now, with the drought, he said people have “realized we’ve

got to take steps to make our water supply stable” (White, 2013). John Grant, general

manager for the Colorado River Municipal Water District (CRMWD) claimed that there

were some concerned citizens, but once they were educated about the merits of the

project, most people were okay with it. It was the dire drought conditions that convinced

people that DPR was necessary, said Grant. Public meetings here held along with news

2 Personal phone conversation with Jennifer Posey at the Colorado River Municipal Water District, August 29, 2014.

17

releases, television coverage and radio ads. Representatives from CRMWD also attended

civic club meetings and gave presentations about the project (Martin, 2014).

The only other DPR scheme in the United States is being planned for

implementation in Cloudcroft, New Mexico. This small city of 850 residents attracts

visitors on the weekends, making the weekend population approximately 2,000 people.

Traditionally, water demands were met through groundwater aquifers and springs, but

with recent drought conditions, the city decided to implement DPR as a long-term supply

option. The treatment plant will use a multiple barrier treatment configuration, blend the

purified wastewater with spring or well water in a blending tank with a two week

detention time and send the blended water through the conventional drinking water

treatment facility before providing it to the city for potable purposes. According to the

WateReuse Foundation, public enthusiasm and backing for the project had remained high

during the onset of planning (WateReuse Foundation, 2011). A telephone conversation

with a representative from the New Mexico Environment Department on August 27,

2015 revealed that a lack of funding has prolonged implementation of the project.

Currently, regulations and operational procedures are being developed and a public

information campaign has not yet begun.

Review of Public Acceptance of Water Reuse

Success and Failure of Potable Water Reuse Implementation

Before reviewing public acceptance factors that are related to water reuse, it is

worthwhile to note other issues that impact the success of implementation of reclaimed

water projects. Aside from the motivations of drought and water shortages, recycling

wastewater reduces effluent discharges into surface or seawater, thereby helping

18

municipalities to meet water quality discharge requirements. High expenditures required

to develop water reuse infrastructure can hinder the decision to proceed with construction

and implementation (Bischel et al., 2012). Recycled water rate structures pose challenges

for decision makers, especially with non-potable reuse. Non-potable recycled water rates

tend to be less than potable drinking water rates to incentivize customers to use it, yet the

costs to construct and operate the non-potable recycled water system are similar or

greater than the costs of operating the potable system (Denver Water, 2014). Regulatory

agencies are reluctant to allow for DPR due to the lack of definitive information related

to public health protection (Dahl, 2014). High level government standardization of water

quality requirements and operating procedures for recycled water is believed to help

facilitate water reuse projects to move forward, however funding to meet those

requirements is a hindrance (Bischel et al., 2012).

Amid the financial and institutional challenges that contribute to or hinder water

recycling, public acceptance and opinion has been shown to impact water reuse project

implementation both negatively and positively (Asano et al., 2007; Burstein, 2003,

CSIRO, 2003). For example, implementation of an IPR project in Toowoomba, Australia

failed due to negative public perception of reusing wastewater for potable purposes,

despite the serious need for alternative water supplies and drought conditions. ‘Citizens

Against Drinking Sewage’, a local interest group opposed to potable water reuse,

conducted an extensive and powerful campaign that reached the public prior to the

Toowoomba Council’s campaign in favor of the reuse project. As a result, the public

voted against the project (Hurlimann & Dolnicar, 2010).

19

A similar IPR oppositional campaign resulted in failure of a groundwater recharge

IPR project in San Gabriel Valley, California. Public tours of treatment facilities,

meetings, alliance groups and education about the safety of the project were executed in

the community. However, Citizens for Clean Water, a local interest group against the

project conducted a media campaign just before the environmental review hearing for the

project. They made claims that the project was unnecessary, potentially harmful to the

public and used “Toilet to Tap” as a persuasive expression to interfere with public

support of the project. Furthermore, Miller Brewing Company was in opposition to the

project claiming it would pose environmental problems and pollute their water supply.

The project was not implemented at the time as a result of the citizen group and a lawsuit

from Miller Brewing Company (CSIRO, 2003).

Characteristics of unsuccessful potable reuse projects regarding the public have

been identified. Lack of communication about salient factors such as water quality and

health have led to failure (Burstein, 2003). Some members of the public have been

concerned that if water reuse projects are implemented, it could stimulate growth and

development by adding to the overall water supply, leading to additional effluent for

wastewater disposal. Environmental justice concerns (notably that one part of the

community will receive reclaimed water and others will not) have foundered

implementation. Insufficient public outreach and involvement and lack of consistent

public participation from beginning to end of water reuse projects have resulted in failure

to implement potable reuse (WateReuse California, 2010).

In contrast, public information campaigns executed by task forces and technical

experts for other water reuse projects in Australia, Singapore and the United States have

20

succeeded in gaining public acceptance (CSIRO, 2003; Lauer, 1993; ATSE, 2013). For

example, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) proposed an IPR supply option in 2007

called the Water2WATER project. A thorough communication campaign was performed

by the local water utility, ACTEW Corporation (Australian Capital Territory Electricity

and Water Corporation). The goal of the consultation was to take into account as many

public views as possible while understanding the need to find a solution for the water

shortages in the community. ACTEW reached members of the community through media

advertising, public displays, community briefings and forums, mailers, surveys and a

website dedicated to the cause. The campaign was successful in gathering information

about public concern and gaining acceptance for the project (ACTEW, 2007).

In Singapore, the NEWater IPR project gained public acceptance through an

extensive public information campaign involving education, a documentary film, media,

information briefings at community centers and schools and a demonstration visitor

center. Singapore’s Public Utilities Board assured citizens that the reclaimed water

quality met WHO and U.S. EPA drinking water standards. This project is unique in that

the government distributed 1.5 million bottles of NEWater to citizens, and the media

displayed prominent government officials drinking the water. The project has been

successfully operating and supplying reclaimed water through an IPR process since 2003

(CSIRO, 2003).

Though not a potable reuse success story, the Monterey County Water Recycling

Project is worth noting. In Monterey County, California over 14 billion gallons of

recycled water is used to irrigate artichokes, lettuce, cauliflower, celery and strawberries.

This water reuse project was implemented to minimize saltwater intrusion into the

21

groundwater aquifers that have been the traditional source of irrigation water in the

region. Success is attributed to involving local growers in a five-year health study,

assuring that buyers, shippers, and other stakeholders were accepting, and that regulatory

agencies endorsed the application. The local community was in support as well, due to

educational campaigns at schools, community events, pamphlets, treatment facility tours

and exhibitions (CSIRO, 2003).

Factors Influencing Success of Potable Water Reuse Implementation

Hartley (2006) identified five major themes that aid in successful implementation

of water reuse projects by examining three case studies that aimed to contrive potable and

non-potable water recycling initiatives. Through investigation of the success and failure

of project implementation in these communities, the five major themes in gaining

acceptance and public support are as follows: (1) Managing information about science

and technology, local knowledge and site-specific characteristics (i.e. water shortage or

drought conditions) is critical to building public acceptance. Complete and transparent

facts should be delivered in a fashion that does not omit any information relevant to the

project. (2) Individual motivation and water provider organizational commitment are key

elements to public support. (3) Listening to and addressing people’s concerns has proven

to be successful in maintaining support. Developing a mutual understanding about the

needs and safety for water reuse, and continuous public dialog are essential to procure

public approval. (4) A fair and logical decision making process that involves the public

and demonstrates how the benefits and burdens are distributed evenly is vital for success.

(5) Lastly, the above-mentioned strategies help to build public trust in the entity that will

implement water reuse, which is paramount to successful water reuse projects.

22

According to Dishman et al. (1989) the first step in gaining public acceptance for

water reuse and accomplishing behavioral changes is to conduct an analysis of the

public’s wants, needs, perceptions, attitudes and habits. This information can be used to

distinguish a target audience with which additional research and/or education can be

applied to improve acceptance of water reuse. There are several critical moments in water

reuse implementation where gauging public opinion and providing information about

water reuse projects can take place. Public involvement in the initial phases of planning

helps to identify and address concerns early to avoid resistance closer to the time of

implementation. Providing educational information that is easy for the public to

understand prior to inquiring about concerns is recommended (Asano et al., 2007; CSIRO

2003). Involving the public after technical experts have weighed the options and

communicated their preferred solution allows for all vital information about the posed

solution to be presented. However, because one option is presented to the public, this

level of engagement can be viewed as technocratic. Providing multiple options for the

public to decide upon in a straightforward manner is more transparent and allows for

input on multiple options prior to final implementation (Recycled Water Taskforce,

2003).

The best strategy for successfully implementing water reuse is to involve the

community prior to the conception of the project. This is the most essential building

block for obtaining long-term public acceptance. The public should understand the

various supply options (i.e. new reservoir vs. water reuse project), including the

advantages, disadvantages and triple bottom line costs of each solution. Information

should not be designed to persuade the public, but rather to clarify perceived risks by

23

explaining wastewater treatment technology through examples of successful potable

reuse projects (CSIRO, 2003).

Survey Findings on Public Perception of Water Reuse

Multiple public opinion surveys have been conducted over the past several

decades that reveal specific public concerns regarding water reuse. Until the early 1970’s,

public opinion had not been systematically assessed with regards to acceptance levels and

reclaimed water. General attributes regarding acceptance are that individuals with a

higher level of education and who have some knowledge about water reuse are more

accepting. Males are slightly more accepting than females, and individuals under the age

of 50 are more accepting. When people perceive the current water supply as inadequate

to meet future demand, acceptance for potable reuse increases. Trust in water treatment

technology correlates with higher levels of acceptance. Individuals are more comfortable

with recycled water uses that do not involve physical contact with their bodies. For

example, recycled water for landscape irrigation is generally more acceptable than

bathing or cooking with recycled water (Bruvold, 1971 & 1998; Baumann, 1983). These

correlations have not deviated much over time, however more recent surveys have found

additional influences that lead to support and opposition to potable water reuse.

Studies reveal that public opposition to potable water reuse is due to the “yuck

factor”; that citizens are inimical to drinking treated sewage water. A survey conducted in

Australia concluded that the perception of potable reuse as “filthy and unclean” was the

main reason for rejecting the reuse system. Recycled water, in an individual’s mind, may

be associated with disgust through the law of contagion, which suggests that a neutral

object may acquire disgusting properties from another object through brief contact. Thus,

24

recycled water having been in previous contact with human wastes is what contributes to

the “yuck factor” and thus the desire not to drink or support potable reuse (CSIRO,

2003).

Perceived risk with respect to drinking reclaimed water is another deterrent for

public acceptance. Concerns about the potential adverse health effects of drinking or

using recycled water are commonly attributed to lack of water reuse support. Uncertainty,

fear, catastrophic potential, controllability and equity encompass perceived risk for the

public (CSIRO, 2003). The WateReuse Foundation recommends that multi-barrier

treatment, treatment that provides more than the minimum requirements for public health

protection, and demonstration of process reliability (consistent delivery of safe water)

help to alleviate risk perception (WateReuse Foundation, 2014b).

Recent studies have authenticated that direct human contact with reclaimed water

is inversely associated with acceptance. For example, irrigation of golf courses, parks,

and crop irrigation with reclaimed water show less opposition when compared to

residential toilet flushing, bathing, cooking or drinking (CSIRO, 2003; Asano et al.,

2007; Hartley, 2006; Friedler, et al., 2006).

The source of reclaimed water affects public acceptance. Some studies found that

reuse of individual household or neighborhood greywater is preferred due to perceptions

of control, and distrust in the consistency of reclaimed water quality delivered by the

water provider. Furthermore, individuals were more comfortable with reusing their own

wastes rather than citywide wastewater (CSIRO, 2003; Hartley, 2006). Other studies

suggest the opposite: individuals do not trust themselves to control water quality, and

having more greywater systems in operation could increase the probability of water

25

treatment failure. Thus, citywide wastewater reuse was preferred by survey participants

(CSIRO, 2003).

It is evident that an understanding of the upstream-downstream context of urban

water recycling positively influences acceptance of drinking reclaimed water. Visual

representations of unplanned potable reuse coupled with positive terminology (i.e.

‘purified water’ vs. ‘reclaimed wastewater’) leads to a general understanding that much

of the water we currently drink has been used upstream prior to treatment, and

technology is available to treat water to a safe and high quality for potable use

(WateReuse Foundation, 2013).

There is strong evidence demonstrating that public trust in the institutions

responsible for water project design and operation affects acceptance levels for potable

reuse. Focus group participants in a study with the Water Corporation of Western

Australia listed trust in the Water Corporation as the main reason they would be willing

to use recycled water. Long term dependability and the perception that the Corporation is

not politically or monetarily driven are main reasons participants feel they can trust the

Corporation to provide safe recycled water (CSIRO, 2003). Additionally, a survey

conducted in Tucson, Arizona indicated that the public trusted academic researchers and

the water utility most with respect to providing accurate information about reclaimed

water, and distrusted local elected officials and the media (Ormerod and Scott, 2012).

Environmental and environmental justice concerns affect public acceptance of

water reuse. Individuals that are generally concerned about natural resources and

conservation are more apt to support water reuse (Rock et al., 2012). Furthermore,

perceived unfairness and inequality regarding the safety of water being delivered to high

26

and less affluent communities can lead to public opposition. It is important that the public

understand that recycled water is not targeted towards less affluent communities (CSIRO,

2003). A public information campaign for IPR in San Diego, California was gaining

positive momentum and public support until concerns were raised about racial and

economic bias associated with the project design (Hartley, 2006).

Experience with water shortages and watering restrictions is associated with

acceptance. Messages that emphasize the reality of water scarcity, specifically to the

geographic region in which reuse is an alternative have been shown to increase the

likelihood of favoring a potable reuse option (Dolnicar et al., 2011). Furthermore, many

people view that recycling water is an environmentally responsible thing to do (Water

Reuse California, 2010).

Chemicals of emerging concern (CECs) pose additional challenges to public

acceptance of potable water recycling. These chemicals are added to surface water,

wastewater, and groundwater from pharmaceuticals, health care products, and other

constituents from household, commercial, and industrial water use. There is still

significant need to understand the health and environmental effects of these chemicals in

waterways. Due to the uncertainty about these effects, a sound public communication

strategy regarding CECs needs to be researched and addressed. Based on research in

other industries facing public opposition and communication challenges, the Water

Environment Research Foundation suggests communicating risk in the face of

uncertainty, building trust with the public, conducting public surveys to determine

concerns prior to a public information campaign, emphasizing benefits of water reuse,

involving the public in decision-making processes, and recognizing the role and

27

implications of stigma as tools to effectively communicate about CECs (Water Reuse

California, 2010). It is important to note that CECs have been reported in United States

drinking water from unplanned indirect potable reuse. Conventional water and

wastewater treatment technology often do not remove all of these constituents and they

remain in the water after drinking water treatment and wastewater treatment (ATSE,

2013).

One of the most recent public acceptance surveys was conducted on residents of

San Diego and Santa Clary County, California in June of 2014. The study had five focal

points: 1) context for attitudes on water issues, 2) perceptions of recycled water, 3) initial

attitudes toward potable reuse, 4) identifying persuadable information, and 5) impact of

messaging (WateReuse Foundation, 2015b). This research was motivated by the current

drought in California whereby the Governor of California declared a drought State of

Emergency in January of 2014 (State of California, 2014). The study found that most

residents are concerned about the drought, consider it a severe crisis and have a positive

attitude towards their water provider (WateReuse Foundation, 2014c).

Results from the study regarding perception of recycled water were consistent

with previous acceptance research. Familiarity of recycled water increased with

education and knowledge of water reuse, and these variables increased level of

acceptance. Men were generally more accepting of potable reuse than women, and

support for DPR declined with increasing age. Potable water reuse applications were

viewed less favorably than non-potable use. While most residents were confident that it is

possible to treat reclaimed water to drinking water standards, those residents were still

not receptive to the idea of potable reuse (WateReuse Foundation, 2014c).

28

Definitions of IPR and DPR were provided to participants. The majority of

participants supported IPR, but were less supportive of DPR. Republicans were less

supportive than democrats or independents. White Americans were more supportive than

other ethnic groups. People who stated that they drink unfiltered tap water were more

accepting of DPR. Desire for the need to expand water supply was the primary

motivation for DPR supporters. Fear of the efficacy of the treatment system and safety

concerns were large impediments to acceptance of DPR. Information about safety of

DPR swayed some of the initial opponents to support DPR after messaging (WateReuse

Foundation, 2014c).

This study and others demonstrated that the use of a term other than ‘recycled

water’ or ‘reclaimed water’ was preferred by survey participants. The use of the terms

‘purified water’ or ‘advanced purified water’ were most popular. When a general

description of the treatment process of DPR was provided, favorability increased.

Overall, the more information that was provided about DPR, the more confidence it

instilled in participants. Posing water recycling as a positive impact for the environment

resonated strongly (Rock et al., 2012; WateReuse Foundation, 2014c).

Results from public perception research on water reuse reveal key points for water

providers seeking to improve public acceptance of DPR. While some of the associations

to acceptance remain unchanged from previous research, it is important to remain up to

date on factors that contribute to support and opposition, especially as water supply

conditions and DPR treatment technology change. In a consultation with industry

professionals at the forefront of planning potable reuse, the most agreed upon

recommendation is to maintain a current understanding of public opinion to determine if

29

there has been a change in acceptance of recycled water for drinking, and the measures

that would build confidence in the DPR process for the public (WaterReuse California,

2010).

Context of Research

Colorado is the seventh fastest growing state in the U.S. (Brennan, 2012) where

water is a contentious issue due to the distribution of water relative to the population.

Approximately 80 percent of the water in Colorado is located on the West Slope (the

west side of the continental divide) while about 80 percent of the population resides on

the East Slope (the east side of the continental divide). Denver Water, the public water

utility responsible for supplying treated water to approximately 1.3 million metropolitan

customers diverts water from the West Slope and the East Slope to meet municipal water

demand (Denver Water, 2014). According to the Denver Regional Council for

Governments, the population that Denver Water will be serving by the year 2050 is

approximately 1.9 million customers (Denver Water, 2002).

Denver Water’s ability to provide long-term, reliable supplies for its customers

rests on three strategies for augmenting existing supplies: conservation, developing new

supplies, and water reuse. Denver Water’s Conservation Section provides multiple

programs for all customer types that include rebates and installations of high efficiency

water fixtures, landscape change incentives (to plant types that require less irrigation

water) and conservation programs for industrial and commercial customers. These

programs build rapport between the West Slope and East Slope as metropolitan residents

work toward using the state’s water resources as efficiently as possible. Developing new

supplies entails reservoir expansion, more freshwater diversions, capital investments in

30

dams, environmental impact reviews and acquiring water rights. Currently, Denver Water

is working to expand one of its largest reservoirs (Gross Reservoir) on the East Slope to

meet additional demands for build out of its service area in 2045. According to Denver

Water’s 2002 Integrated Resource Plan, at build out, demand for water will increase by

100,000 acre-feet compared to year 2002 demand, and the Gross Reservoir expansion is

necessary to help meet this projected demand (Denver Water, 2002).

The Denver Water Board of Commissioners recognizes that water reuse is a

beneficial and viable augmentation solution. Denver Water’s non-potable recycled water

treatment plant has the capacity to supply five billion gallons annually at build out. This

water irrigates golf courses and parks, is used as cooling water for Xcel Energy’s

Cherokee electric facility and other non-potable purposes (Denver Water, 2014). Denver

Water is authorized to reuse water that is diverted from the Colorado River basin through

court rulings from the early 1900’s and subsequent rulings in the 1970’s (NRC, 2012).

The logic behind these rulings is that water from the West Slope that is transferred and

used on the East Slope remains on the eastern side of the continental divide once used,

and therefore can be reused to extinction.

Potable water reuse is not a foreign concept for Denver Water. During the 1980’s

and 90’s, the Denver Potable Water Reuse Demonstration Project took place at the

direction from the Board of Denver Water Commissioners. The Project remains

unprecedented in its scope. Extensive water quality data were collected over a ten-year

period for four treatment configurations of wastewater effluent from the Denver

Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation District. Treatment trains were analyzed for not

only water quality, but also cost effectiveness and reliability. Upon reaching consensus

31

on the treatment process that met all above-mentioned criteria (which also met EPA

drinking water standards), a two-year health effects study was completed on rats and

mice. No toxicological, carcinogenic or reproductive adverse health effects were

observed. Furthermore, inflation adjusted operation and maintenance costs, full-scale

plant development and treatment costs of a DPR project were discovered to be

comparable to conventional water supply development strategies at the time (Lauer,

1993; Condie, 1994).

A public information campaign coincided with the evolution of the demonstration

project. Multiple types of information about the project and DPR were provided: water

bill stuffers, newsletters, media outlets and a documentary reached over 50,000 Denver

area residents. Escorted audio-visual tours of the demonstration plant were offered, which

attracted over 7,000 visitors, representing local residents and international visitors from

more than 40 countries across six continents. Technical presentations were given at

conferences and meetings around the world in an effort to gain credibility and regulatory

agency acceptance (Lauer, 1993).

Concurrently, the Denver Research Institute conducted a series of public opinion

surveys regarding acceptance of water reuse, specifically for drinking purposes. In 1982,

Denver resident survey participants were equally divided with regards to acceptance of

drinking highly treated wastewater: 33.1% minded a lot, 31.3% minded a little, and

33.1% did not mind (4.5% did not know). In 1985, the same survey was conducted on a

different representative sample of Denver residents and results had changed (though not

statistically significantly): 23.8% minded a lot, 45% minded a little, and 27% did not

mind (4.2% did not know). This shows that the level of uncertainty around drinking

32

reclaimed water had grown in three years. As a result, 71 members of the 1982 and 1985

respondent groups were asked to participate in further research to discover how various

modes of education affect acceptance of drinking reclaimed water. A guided tour of the

Denver demonstration treatment facility increased acceptance more than information

from a brochure. Participants who participated in the tour and whose position changed to

favor acceptance initially had the most negative views of drinking reclaimed water in

1982 (Lohman, 1989).

The survey results, at the time, coincided with other studies taking place in the

United States. People opposed to water reuse had received fewer years of education, had

lower occupation and income levels, were typically older, more likely to be female, and

had little knowledge or awareness about water reuse. Results of the Denver study were

presented at the 1987 Water Reuse Symposium to a broad range of water professionals

including system managers, consulting engineers, hydrologists, government water

program managers, planners, policy makers, biologists, chemists, geologists, economists

and lawyers. During the symposium, professionals were asked about their acceptance

levels for various types of water reuse and in every type, they were less accepting than

the general public. In 1988, approximately 170 water professionals took the same survey

that Denver residents responded to in 1982 and 1985, and 58% of the professionals

opposed drinking reclaimed water compared to 27% of Denver residents (Lohman,

1987).

The most recent detailed public opinion survey regarding DPR in the Denver area

was completed and published nearly 30 years ago (Lohman, 1987). The Colorado Water

Conservation Board states in Colorado’s Water Plan (in draft) that tracking public

33

attitudes through baseline and ongoing surveys with regards to water reuse is a potential

action that should be carried out to meet the minimum water demands of the future

(CWCB, 2014). Due to the pervasive recommendation from water reuse experts to update

public opinion surveys, determine if there have been any significant changes in opinion

and/or correlate determinants of acceptance, and the fact that this information is

necessary to understand the essential concerns that need to be addressed to implement

DPR, a public opinion survey was conducted in the summer of 2015 in the Denver metro

area.

The public survey served multiple purposes. First, it conveyed associations

between acceptance of potable water reuse and other factors, including knowledge of and

agreement with local water supply issues. Experience with drought, demographics and

length of residency in the Denver metro area were assessed for associations to reuse

applications. Secondly, six statements about DPR were provided to determine if the

statements were convincing reasons to support DPR. Third, results of the survey were

compared to the Denver Research Institute’s survey from 1985 to determine if any

changes in acceptance have occurred over the past 30 years. Lastly, Denver Water

employees were asked a series of questions from the residential survey to compare results

of acceptance between water industry professionals and the general public.

It was expected that the results of the survey would reflect those found in the

literature. Men would be more supportive of potable reuse than women and

white/Caucasians would be more supportive than other ethnic groups. A negative

correlation between age and potable reuse support was expected. The following attributes

were expected to correlate positively to support for potable reuse: higher education

34

attainment and income, longer duration of residency in the Denver metro area, belief that

drought and climate change will impact future water supplies and familiarity with water

recycling. Also, it was expected that individuals would be more comfortable with water

reuse applications that do not involve as much human contact (i.e. landscape irrigation vs.

cooking). Support for IPR was anticipated to be stronger than support for DPR.

Exploratory results were also reported, specifically with regards to the six DPR

statements and whether or not the Denver public found the statements to be a convincing

reason to support DPR.

35

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

An online platform was used to collect responses to the questionnaire through

SurveyMonkey, Inc., a leading provider of web-based survey solutions. SurveyMonkey

provides tools for companies and researchers to develop questionnaires and organize and

analyze responses. SurveyMonkey offers non-cash incentives to respondents in an effort

to encourage participants to provide honest and thoughtful opinions. After responding to

a survey, respondents are provided the option to donate a nominal amount of money to

the charity of their choice, and they are entered for a chance to win a sweepstakes prize.

Subjects

Denver Metro Area Public

Individuals residing in the Denver metro area completed the questionnaire.

Denver Water provided a list of zip codes to the researcher and the list was provided to

SurveyMonkey to assess the number of completed responses that could be expected.

SurveyMonkey determined with confidence that they could acquire 300 completed

responses from individuals residing in the regions of the zip codes provided.

SurveyMonkey ensures that the panel of survey participants is representative of

the general population by executing periodic benchmarks on information entered by

participants in their online profiles. Participants agree to take surveys with

SurveyMonkey are required to enter information about their income, employment,

demographic information and other target criteria, which enables SurveyMonkey to

36

deliver surveys to specific audiences for various purposes. While SurveyMonkey can

administer surveys to specific audiences, they ensure that the sample frame is not biased

based this information. Individuals who reside in the zip codes to which Denver Water

supplies water were notified via email that a survey pertaining to their profile criteria was

available to complete. Additionally, an alert was placed on the individual’s online

SurveyMonkey account page that notified them of the available survey.

Denver Water Employees

Several of the questions from the survey were sent to water utility professionals at

Denver Water including employees that work in finance, information technology, water

quality, water supply planning, public affairs, legal, customer care, underground

distribution and engineering. A link to the questions was posted in the online newsletter

that is received by all Denver Water employees with a brief description of the purpose of

the research. The public and Denver Water research protocols were approved by the

Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) and the Certificate of

Exemption is located in Appendix B.

Instrumentation

An online survey platform powered by SurveyMonkey was used to generate the

questionnaire and collect results. The researcher developed and created the questions

delivered by the web-based platform. Multiple questions utilized in the survey were

extrapolated from research was conducted in Santa Clara and San Diego in June of 2014

published by the WateReuse Research Foundation (WateReuse Foundation, 2015). The

Denver survey contained approximately 20 questions, and there was an open ended

37

optional comment section at the end of the questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire is

provided in Appendix C.

The survey instrument was provided to the researcher’s friends, family, professors

and colleagues to test the questions prior to administering it to the public. Those who

tested the survey were asked to comment on confusing or misleading content and format

in the questionnaire. Fifteen pretests were completed and appropriate edits were made to

the questionnaire.

Content

The administered survey instrument contained seven sections. Section one

assessed the respondents region of origin and whether the respondent had lived in a

region where drought conditions caused their local water utility to mandate or expect

water use reductions. The second section collected data on level of knowledge regarding

recycled water, and asked whether Denver Water supplies recycled water in the

community. Section three assessed the respondents’ comfort level, using a Semantic

Differential Scale3, with potable and non-potable uses of recycled water. Section four

3 A semantic differential scale is a questionnaire format in which the respondent is asked

to rate something in terms of two opposite adjectives (e.g., rate comfort level with water

reuse applications), using qualifiers such as “uncomfortable”, “somewhat uncomfortable”

to “somewhat comfortable, and “comfortable” to bridge the distance between the two

opposites (Babbie, 2013).

38

provided definitions of IPR and DPR and utilized a Likert scale4 to determine the level of

support for each potable reuse application. This section also asked respondents to rank, in

order of preference, water supply options for the Denver metro area including

construction or expansion of dams and reservoirs, IPR and DPR. Section five used a

Likert scale to assess the level of agreement with three statements about water

management in the Denver area about climate change, drought and recycled water being

a form of mitigation to water supply shortages. Section six provided six statements about

DPR and asked the respondents to indicate whether or not the statement was considered a

convincing reason to support DPR. Lastly, demographic information was collected on

gender, age, race, income and education. An optional commentary section was provided

at the end of the survey.

Design

Online surveys reduce data collection time, allow for flexible questionnaire

format, facilitate data export and can be lower in cost compared to mail and telephone

surveys. However, online surveys also have limitations. Individuals who do not have

access to a computer and the Internet, or those who simply do not use these technologies

often are not able or willing to respond to the survey. This can compromise the

generalizability of the survey results (Granello and Wheaton, 2004). In order to avoid this

type of bias, a mixed method of mail, web-based and telephone surveys can be utilized;

4 A Likert scale uses response categories such as “strongly support”, “support”, “oppose”

and “strongly oppose” to assess respondents’ level of intensity in agreement or support of

a given survey item (Babbie, 2013).

39

however this was not economically feasible for this research. Telephone surveys require

trained individuals to make multiple phone calls which incurs costs, and mailed surveys

require postage payment and often yield low return rates (Babbie, 2013). Given the

challenges of these other forms of survey research, the online format was chosen to

administer these surveys.

Questionnaires must be constructed in a manner that ensures optimal participation

and there are multiple techniques that can be utilized in developing the questionnaire that

encourage successful survey research. The first several questions posed in a survey

should be simple; if the first set of questions delve into technical inquiries with long

winded statements to read, the participant may lose interest. Furthermore, demographic

information should not be collected until the end of the survey. Respondents are reluctant

to offer personal information before understanding more about the research (Babbie,

2013). The questionnaire in this research was developed to flow from simple to more

technical questions with demographic questions at the end.

Survey question format and wording are other important factors that can impact

participation. Questions must be articulated clearly for the reader and must be easy to

understand. Definitions may need to be provided in the cover letter and within the

questionnaire itself to ensure respondents understand questions and can answer them to

the best of their ability. Furthermore, the format should easily lead the reader from one

question to the next and not cause confusion (Babbie, 2013). One advantage of utilizing

an online survey platform is that researchers may put each question on a new page to

avoid confusion. Also, researchers may choose to not allow respondents to hit the “back”

button to change answers to preceding questions.

40

Lastly, survey questions must be constructed in a manner that does not convey

bias in the mind of the reader. In other words, the questions must not reflect the opinion

of the researcher and should not offer information within questions that would influence

the reader to choose one response over another. However in this research, the section that

provided six statements about DPR and asked whether the information would be a

convincing reason to support DPR is an exception to this rule. The goal of this section of

the survey was to determine if the information provided would influence opinions.

Data Analysis

IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Grad Pack Version 23

was utilized to analyze the results of the questionnaire. Questions posed in the survey

reflect public opinion and therefore, SPSS is an appropriate tool for assessing the

information collected. SurveyMonkey enables researchers to export survey results in

multiple formats, including the .sav format that works well with the SPSS software.

While SurveyMonkey account holders have the ability to compute a detailed level of

analysis on survey results, the researcher utilized SPSS to enable more complex statistical

analyses.

41

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Demographic Attributes

Three hundred and thirteen individuals residing in the Denver metro area

responded to the questionnaire (n=313) within one week of notifying potential

participants. The majority of respondents were White/Caucasian (White/Caucasian:

80.5%, Hispanic/Latino: 9.3%, African American: 4.5%, Asian/Pacific Islander: 3.2%,

Native American: 1%, other: 1.6%). Additionally, most of the respondents were female

(Female: 63.6%, Male: 36.4%). Percentage of the public respondents’ age, income,

education and length of residency in Denver are presented in Tables 4.1a through 4.1d.

One hundred and thirty-nine Denver Water employees (approximately 13% of

total employees) responded to four of the questions that were presented in the survey

administered to the Denver metro area public. The questions that were provided to

Denver Water employees addressed 1) various comfort levels with water recycling

applications, 2) support for IPR, 3) support for DPR and 4) agreement with three

statements about climate change, drought and water supply issues.

Table 4.1a: Percentage of respondents’ age

Age

Under 18 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65-75

76 or above

Percent 0 22 26 14 23 12 3

42

Table 4.1b: Percentage of respondents’ income

Income $25,000 or less

$25,001-$50,000

$50,001-$75,000

$75,001-$100,000

$100,001 or more

Percent 14 27 20 15 24

Table 4.1c: Percentage of respondents’ education attainment

Education

General Education

Development

High School

Diploma

Bachelor's Degree

Master's Degree

Doctoral Degree

Technical or

Vocational Degree

Other

Percent 2 24 36 19 3 10 6

Table 4.1d: Percentage of respondents’ length of residency in

Denver metro area

Length of residency

Less than 3 years

3-9 years 10-14 years

15-24 years

25 years or more

Percent 13 15 7 20 45

Other Respondent Characteristics

Respondents were asked multiple questions regarding drought, climate change

and familiarity with recycled water and recycled water use. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 display

agreement with various statements related to water topics for the public and Denver

Water employees, respectively. Table 4.4 compares public response to Denver Water

employee responses to comfort levels with various water recycling applications,

including results from the previous survey conducted on the Denver public in 1985.

Table 4.2: Percent of respondents’ opinions and knowledge of water-related topics

in the Denver metro area

Survey Item Percent

Have experienced drought 72

Believe they are familiar or very familiar with the concept of recycled water 79

43

Table 4.2: cont.

Survey Item Percent

Believe that Denver Water supplies recycled water in the community 27 Agree or strongly agree that climate change will impact water supplies for the Denver metro area 81 Agree or strongly agree that the Denver metro area could experience a severe drought in the foreseeable future 79 Agree or strongly agree that the use of recycled water for drinking water could alleviate water supply pressures in the Denver metro area 74

Table 4.3: Percent of Denver Water employees that agree with water-related

topics

Survey Item Percent

Agree or strongly agree that climate change will impact water supplies for the Denver metro area 83 Agree or strongly agree that the Denver metro area could experience a severe drought in the foreseeable future 93 Agree or strongly agree that the use of recycled water for drinking water could alleviate water supply pressures in the Denver metro area 80

Table 4.4: Percent of public respondents and Denver Water employee respondents

who feel comfortable or somewhat comfortable with various water recycling

applications

Reuse Application Public 2015 Public

1985* DW Employees

Landscape Irrigation 89 98 97

Industrial Use 87 NA 99

Toilet Flushing 84 95 92

Edible Crop Irrigation 75 90 81

Bathing 43 60 49

Laundry 60 68 65

Cooking 34 39 42

Drinking 30 72 38

*Lohman & Milliken, 1985

44

Water Supply Ranks

Respondents were asked to rank four water supply options for the Denver metro

area, which included 1) build a new dam/reservoir, 2) expand an existing dam/reservoir,

3) IPR and 4) DPR. A rank of 1 indicated the least preferred supply option and a rank of

4 indicated the most preferred supply option. The average response value was calculated

on the ratings and shows that the sample of respondents were fairly equally divided with

regards to preferred supply options. Table 4.5 lists the averages for each water supply

option.

Table 4.5: Average response values for preferred water supply options for the

Denver metro area

Water Supply Option Average

New Dam/Reservoir 2.60

Expand Existing Dam/Reservoir 2.62

IPR 2.25

DPR 2.53

Support for IPR, DPR and Statements Regarding DPR

Overall, 48% of the respondents somewhat or strongly support DPR while 72% of

the respondents somewhat or strongly support IPR. Table 4.6 shows the percent of

respondents who found the six statements about DPR to be somewhat or very convincing

as a reason to support DPR.

45

Table 4.6: Percent who consider information about DPR to be somewhat or very

convincing to support DPR

Statement

Very or

somewhat

convincing

Very

convincing

1. The water purification process for direct potable reuse uses state-of-the-art multi-stage technology and monitoring. It cleans water to a very high standard and ensures that drinking water produced is safe and free of harmful chemicals and toxins. Water quality monitoring occurs at each stage of treatment and prior to delivery to the public. 87 32 2. The following communities have implemented direct potable reuse to supply drinking water to homes and businesses: Big Spring, Texas (2 years) and Wichita Falls, Texas (1 year) and Windhoek, Nambia in Africa (35 years). To date, there have been no reports of negative health impacts from direct use of recycled water in these communities. 81 32 3. Denver Water completed a ten-year pilot project that experimented various water treatment technologies for direct use of recycled water in the 1980’s. During the project, scientists and engineers determined that it is possible to treat wastewater to drinking water quality and provide it to the public with little to no risk to public health. The water was tested on laboratory rats and mice (rats and mice have similar physiological, neurological, and genetic traits as humans) for two years and no negative health impacts were reported in the laboratory animals. The recycled water was of the same water quality as Denver Water’s drinking water at the time. 82 29 4. The amount of fresh water on the planet does not change. Through nature, all water has been used and reused since the beginning of time across every river system in the world. Using advanced technology to purify recycled water merely speeds up a natural process—and in fact, the water produced through advanced purification meets a much higher standard of quality than what occurs naturally. 85 39 5. Using recycled water is good for our environment. The more recycled water we use, the less we have to take out of rivers, streams and reservoirs. That’s good for rivers, streams, and the fish, plants and wildlife that rely on them. 88 50 6. Recycling water is a highly drought-resistant way to help ensure a reliable supply of water to meet local needs, independent of climate change or weather. 90 40

46

Analyses

Associations between Beliefs and Experiences

Person product moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) was calculated for

variables expected to have a positive or negative association. Statistical significance is

defined as p ≤ 0.05 for all tests, and a weak correlation corresponds to a value close to

zero while a strong correlation corresponds to a value of one. There was no statistically

significant association between IPR or DPR and level of education, length of residence in

Denver or age. However, many of the hypothesized associations proved to be statistically

significant. Respondents with (1) experience living with drought, (2) who believed in

reality of climate change, (3) who were familiar with recycled water and (4) who

understood that recycled water could alleviate supply issues were more likely to support

IPR or DPR. The Pearson’s r coefficients are listed in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Associations between beliefs and experience and support for IPR and

DPR

Belief or Experience Support for IPR Support for DPR

The Denver metro area could experience a severe drought in the foreseeable future.

0.23 (p = 0.01) 0.21 (p = 0.01)

Climate change will impact water supplies for the Denver Metro Area.

0.15 (p = 0.01) 0.19 (p = 0.01)

How familiar do you consider yourself with the concept of recycled or reclaimed water?

0.30 (p = 0.01) 0.31 (p = 0.01)

The use of recycled water for drinking water could alleviate water supply pressures in the Denver metro area.

0.42 (p = 0.01) 0.44 (p = 0.01)

47

Demographic Comparisons

Independent t-tests were calculated for demographic variables to determine

differences of opinions regarding potable reuse topics. Statistical significance is defined

as p ≤ 0.05, meaning there is a five percent chance that the difference between the two

groups is from chance alone. Tables 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 show results of t-tests performed

for demographic variables. Table 4.11 shows the difference between support for IPR and

DPR. The mean is the average response, the standard deviation is the extent to which the

groups tested vary in response. Standard deviation values that are closer to zero indicate

that the data points are closer to the mean and are not spread out amongst a normal

distribution curve. The Confidence Interval indicates that with 95% confidence, the

values for responses will vary between the two data points listed.

Table 4.8: Opinions and comfort levels amongst males and females

Differences between male (n = 114) and female (n = 199)

Gender Mean SD p

Confidence

Interval

Support for DPR Male 2.61 0.91 0.01 0.05 to 0.5 Female 2.34 0.93

Comfort with edible crop irrigation Male 4.17 1.14 < 0.01 0.09 to 0.66

Female 3.80 1.29 Comfort with cooking Male 2.76 1.59 0.04 0.01 to 0.72

Female 2.39 1.51 Comfort with drinking Male 2.65 1.57 0.01 0.09 to 0.80

Female 2.20 1.45 DPR De Facto water reuse statement Male 2.35 0.69 0.02 0.01 to 0.34

Female 2.17 0.69

48

Table 4.9: Opinions and comfort levels amongst white/Caucasians and non-white

ethnicities

Differences between white/Caucasian (n = 252) and non-white (n = 56)

Race Mean SD p

Confidence

Interval

Comfort with cooking White/Caucasian 2.45 1.5 0.05 -0.97 to 0.01

Non-White/Caucasian 2.93 1.7

Comfort with industrial use

White/Caucasian 2.58 1.22 0.01 -0.86 to -0.03

Non-White/Caucasian 3.03 1.43

Comfort with toilet flushing

White/Caucasian 4.46 1.05 0.01 0.11 to 0.94

Non-White/Caucasian 3.92 1.48

DPR purification statement

White/Caucasian 2.23 0.63 0.02 0.02 to 0.40

Non-White/Caucasian 2.01 0.67

DPR De Facto water reuse statement

White/Caucasian 2.28 0.69 < 0.01 0.07 to 0.47

Non-White/Caucasian 2.01 0.67

Table 4.10: Support for IPR and DPR amongst Denver Water employees and

Denver public (Somewhat and strongly support combined)

Differences between Denver Water employees (n = 139) and Denver

public (n = 313)

Respondent Mean SD p

Confidence

Interval

Support for IPR DW Employees 1.85 0.45 < 0.01 -0.21 to -0.05

Public 1.72 0.93

Support for DPR DW Employees 1.65 0.47 <0.01 -0.26 to -0.07

Public 1.48 0.50

Table 4.11: Comparison of public support for IPR and DPR (Somewhat and

strongly support combined) Public support for IPR compared to Support for

DPR

Mean SD p Confidence Interval

Support for IPR 1.72 0.44 < 0.01 0.16 to 0.31 Support for DPR 1.45 0.50

These tables show the difference between means for various comfort levels and

support for water reuse applications. The response scale for tables 4.8 and 4.9 was 1 to 5,

49

with 5 being “comfortable” and 1 being “uncomfortable”. The scale for response to

support for IPR and DPR in Tables 4.10 and 4.11 was 1 through 4, with 4 representing

strong support and 1 representing strong opposition. Table 4.8 shows that men were more

supportive than women for each of the water reuse applications and statements listed.

Table 4.9 shows that non-white/Caucasians were more comfortable with cooking and

industrial reuse applications, white/Caucasians were more comfortable with toilet

flushing and white/Caucasians found the DPR statements regarding the water purification

process and de facto water reuse more convincing than non-white/Caucasians. Table 4.10

indicates that Denver Water employees are more supportive of IPR and DPR than the

public. Lastly, Table 4.11 shows that the public is more supportive of IPR than DPR.

50

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Water supply management is one of the largest challenges facing the world today.

Climate change could impact precipitation patterns and evaporation of surface water

supplies while droughts could become more severe and/or more frequent (IPCC, 2007).

The ever growing population and relocation of people into arid regions adds additional

stress to water supplies. Alternative water management practices and water augmentation

plans will be necessary to sustain water supplies into the future. Water reuse is a viable

option to maximize efficiency and use of water supplies, especially at the local level.

However utilities that wish to implement water reuse, specifically potable water reuse

have more success when they engage with the public in advance to understand and

address public health, environmental, economic and social concerns (ACTEW, 2007;

CSIRO, 2003; Lohman, 1987; WateReuse California, 2010).

Professionals in the water reuse field recommend maintaining a current

understanding of opinions of public sentiment with water reuse applications (Dishman et

al., 1989; WateReuse California, 2010). This is beneficial for two reasons. First, if a

region is struck with the onset of a major drought and water reuse becomes an absolute

necessity, information about the publics’ main concerns is readily available and utilities

may utilize this data to engage and educate the community. Secondly, various attributes

of individuals in specific communities vary and change over time. In order to engage the

public effectively, it is beneficial to know the specific concerns and sentiments of

51

individuals and demographics so targeted, appropriate educational campaigns may be

administered in that community.

The most recent detailed public opinion survey regarding water reuse in Denver,

Colorado was published nearly 30 years ago (Lohman & Milliken, 1985). Findings of this

research aim to update the knowledge base of public opinion of water reuse applications

and support in the Denver metro area.

Major Findings

Environmental Benefits are the Most Compelling Reason to Support DPR

Environmental implications of utilizing DPR resonated as the most convincing

reason to support DPR in the Denver metro area. Table 4.6 shows that half of the

respondents considered the following statement to be a very convincing reason to support

DPR, and nearly all of the respondents considered it to be at least somewhat or very

convincing.

“Using recycled water is good for our environment. The more

recycled water we use, the less we have to take out of rivers,

streams and reservoirs. That’s good for rivers, streams, and the

fish, plants and wildlife that rely on them.”

Statements regarding purification, Denver Water’s pilot study and examples of other

communities that utilize DPR yielded lower percentages of agreement in terms of being a

very convincing reason to support DPR (32%, 32% and 29%, respectively). These results

suggest that the environmental benefits of practicing DPR in the Denver metro area

should be a focal point when engaging the Denver public about implementing DPR.

Several characteristics of the Denver community indicate why environmental

benefits appeal most. Colorado’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

52

reports that 90% of Coloradans participate in some sort of outdoor recreation.

Furthermore, outdoor recreation contributes $34.5 billion dollars to the local economy

and creates 313,000 jobs (Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 2014). Furthermore, multiple

public comments submitted to the Colorado Water Conservation Board regarding the

state Water Plan include statements advocating for healthy rivers, streams and recreation

considerations (CWCB, 2015). With respect to water supply options impacting the

environment and water reuse, one respondent commented:

“I love this idea! We live nearby to Chatfield reservoir and they

are planning to flood most of the park surrounding it to provide

more drinking water for the area. This will result in a loss of so

much land that we enjoy, and I'm sure will negatively impact many

species of animals and plants living there. It would be great if

there was a different option.”

Another respondent wrote:

“We have to think more about how we can save the planet.”

The environment in Colorado plays an important economic role for the state and is

possibly considered intrinsically valuable to the public. Honing in on this sentiment

would be worthwhile for Denver Water when engaging the public about DPR.

Another explanation for why environmental benefits appeal to survey respondents

is that the area served by Denver Water is chiefly populated with voters who consider

themselves to be democrats (The Coloradoan, 2014). Democrats are typically more

concerned about environmental issues than conservative voters (Gallup, Inc., 2015). Had

the survey been conducted in other counties in Colorado with a higher percentage of

conservative voters, environmental benefits may not have been as convincing. This

emphasizes the importance of determining regional sentiments. A state wide survey of

53

Colorado public opinion on potable water reuse would likely yield variations in opinion

across borders, and the other statements about DPR could be more appealing to

populations in other counties.

Drought and Support for DPR

While experience with drought did not yield a statistically significant difference

on support for IPR or DPR, nearly all respondents found the following statement to be

somewhat or very convincing to support DPR:

“Recycling water is a highly drought-resistant way to help ensure

a reliable supply of water to meet local needs, independent of

climate change or weather.”

This suggests the Denver metro area public has some level of concern about water supply

reliability and would prefer drought resistant options to sustain an ample amount of water

for the future. Furthermore, belief that the Denver metro area could experience a severe

drought in the foreseeable future correlated positively to support for both IRP and DPR

(Table 4.7). One respondent noted:

“I would definitely not be opposed to the reuse of water by any

means, especially in drought situations.”

The evidence suggests that utilizing DPR as a means to provide a more reliable, drought-

resistant water supply would appeal to the Denver metro area public.

De Facto Water Reuse and Support for DPR

Eighty five percent of the respondents found the statement regarding de facto

water reuse to be a somewhat or very convincing reason to support DPR:

“The amount of fresh water on the planet does not change.

Through nature, all water has been used and reused since the

beginning of time across every river system in the world. Using

54

advanced technology to purify recycled water merely speeds up a

natural process—and in fact, the water produced through

advanced purification meets a much higher standard of quality

than what occurs naturally.”

A study conducted by the WateReuse Foundation utilized the concept of de facto

water reuse to determine if acceptance of potable water reuse increased after learning

about the urban water cycle. Visual aids were utilized and most of the participants in the

project felt more comfortable after learning that all water is recycled and used again on

our planet, and that downstream users are often treating diluted effluent for drinking

purposes (WateReuse Foundation, 2013). One of the respondents from the Denver survey

made the following comment regarding de facto water reuse:

“As I was reading through the 6 statements about water purification, I

literally thought to myself ‘I do not care what you say...there is simply no

way I am willing to concede that a strong case was made for drinking

wastewater’. Then I got to the part about this is a natural process which

has happened to every ounce of water I have ever drank. And I stopped

and thought...best way to present this case, bar none.”

The fact that the WateReuse Foundation determined that de facto water reuse increases

acceptance and that 85% of the respondents to this questionnaire found de facto reuse a

very convincing reason to support DPR, educational outreach regarding de facto reuse

and the urban water cycle should be tailored in the Denver community when

implementing DPR.

Climate Change and Support for IPR and DPR

Climate change is another factor that is associated to support for both IPR and

DPR (Table 4.7). Eighty-one percent of the public agrees that climate change could

impact water supplies in the future (Table 4.2). This suggests two sentiments among the

Denver metro area public. First, most of the respondents believe that climate change is a

55

reality. Second, the public has an understanding of how climate change could impact

supply, whether it be through lack of precipitation, increased evaporation from surface

waters or changing patterns in snow melt and runoff. Further investigation is needed to

clarify how the public believes climate change would impact water supply; however,

climate change could be used as a means to communicate the benefits of potable reuse in

the Denver metro area. One respondent commented with regards to water reuse:

“It's [water reuse] a smart idea considering climate change and

the politicians who refuse to believe it is a real concern.”

Familiarity and Knowledge of Recycled Water and Support for Potable Reuse

Familiarity with recycled water and belief that recycled water could alleviate

water supply pressures were significantly associated with public support for both IRP and

DPR (Table 4.7). Interestingly, 79% of the respondents consider themselves to be very or

somewhat familiar with recycled water yet only 27% of the respondents are aware that

Denver Water supplies recycled water in the community. Furthermore, 74% of the

respondents believe that the use of recycled water for potable purposes could alleviate

water supply pressures for the Denver metro area. Combined, these findings suggest that

the Denver public believes they are educated on water reuse and are supportive of it as a

means to alleviate water supply shortages.

“I believe you are headed in the right direction because I see

potable water in use in a lot of parks.”

Several parks in the Denver Water service area are currently irrigated with non-potable

recycled water. Another respondent commented:

“I'm sure that I am not the only person who is a little reluctant to

reuse wastewater for drinking water. I think we're heading in the

right direction. We need baby steps here! Let's start using treated

56

wastewater for irrigation and other indirect processes so the

public can get used to the idea of reusing water. Information

regarding the process and communities using this needs to be front

and center in the news so the public can be more accepting.”

It may be worthwhile for Denver Water to educate the public more on the current

applications of recycled water in the community to increase the level of knowledge about

recycled water uses in Denver, and to prepare the public for a future involving potable

water reuse. Furthermore, it would instill confidence in the public that Denver Water is

capable of supplying safe, recycled water. This could in turn increase the level of trust in

the community for Denver Water, which has been associated to more successful potable

water recycling implementation in other regions (CSIRO, 2003).

Importance of Localized Data Collection

Most of the surveys that have investigated public opinion on potable reuse have

reported associations among demographic variables and opinion. Tables 4.8 and 4.9 show

differences between gender and race with regards to various reuse applications and DPR

statements. In the literature, higher income and education levels correspond to greater

support for IPR and DPR, and age has been inversely associated to support for potable

water reuse. However, neither of these associations was found to be statistically

significant in this research. Additionally, other surveys report that white/Caucasian

individuals are more supportive of potable reuse and more comfortable with water reuse

applications than other ethnicities. In this research, non-white ethnicities were more

comfortable with industrial reuse and cooking with recycled water, and there was not a

statistically significant difference among races and support for IPR and DPR. This

emphasizes the importance of conducting surveys at the local level and not relying upon

57

data about public sentiments in other regions. There are characteristics within given

communities that are distinct and that will dictate opinion and support levels for potable

water reuse.

Furthermore, the fact that some of the demographic attributes of individuals (e.g.

age, income, and education) did not affect opinion of water reuse applications indicates

that there could be other factors to consider when investigating this topic. Perhaps

information about social, economic and environmental costs of non-potable and potable

water reuse applications in the Denver metro area would have had a greater impact on

opinion and support.

Public and Denver Water Employee Comparisons

An opinion comparison of Denver Water employees and the public was

conducted and the employees that responded to the survey may not have necessarily been

individuals that are proficient in water treatment methods and water quality standards.

Table 4.4 shows that Denver Water employees are only slightly more comfortable with

the reuse applications listed than the public. It seems intuitive that individuals who work

for the largest treated water provider in Colorado would be more knowledgeable and

significantly more accepting of recycled water applications. However, individuals in the

finance department who could have responded to the survey may seldom speculate about

water treatment technologies.

In contrast, Table 4.10 shows with statistical significance that Denver Water

employees are more supportive of IPR and DPR than the public. It is interesting to note

that while Denver Water support for IPR and DPR are 85% and 65% respectively,

comfort level with drinking recycled water for Denver Water employees is 38%. The fact

58

that support for potable water reuse is higher than comfort with drinking recycled water

could indicate that Denver Water employees are cognizant that potable water reuse is

necessary for a sustainable water future, but are not quite convinced of the safety of

treating wastewater to potable standards and ingesting the water.

The majority of the public and Denver Water employees are in agreement that

climate change will impact water supplies, drought is in the foreseeable future and the

use of recycled water for drinking purposes could alleviate water supply pressures for the

Denver metro area (Tables 4.2 and 4.3). The fact that the community at large and the

water utility employees are in agreement on these issues is positive. If the public and

utility employees differed on these beliefs, water supply decisions would be more

difficult to manage from a public relations perspective. Denver Water can leverage these

beliefs when implementing water supply projects that do or do not involve potable water

reuse.

Hypotheses and Results

This work did not yield results that called for rejection of the hypotheses that men

would be more supportive than women of DPR or that the general public would be more

supportive of IPR than DPR. This project also demonstrated that comfort levels with

applications of recycled water decreases when human contact with recycled water

increases. The results indicate that as familiarity with recycled water increases, support

for potable water reuse increases. Lastly, belief that (1) climate change will impact water

supplies, (2) drought is in the foreseeable future, and (3) that potable water reuse will

alleviate water supply pressures are associated to support for IPR and DPR.

59

Other findings do not impact these results as much as anticipated. Education, age

and income do not significantly impact support for IPR and DPR for this sample.

Additionally, white/Caucasians and non-white ethnicities show variation in opinions that

are difficult to explain. While white/Caucasian respondents show more comfort with

toilet flushing, and non-white respondents are more comfortable with industrial use and

cooking with recycled water. Also, white/Caucasians found the statements about DPR

water purification and de facto water reuse to be more convincing reasons to support

DPR than non-white respondents. These findings can be leveraged to inform education

and outreach within demographic characteristics to promote support for DPR and target

educational campaigns about water reuse.

1985 and 2015 Survey Results

The study that was completed and published by the Denver Research Institute in

1985 (Lohman and Milliken, 1985) assessed the Denver public’s opinion of water reuse.

When compared to this research, public acceptance of all of the reuse applications has

decreased with respect to percentages of acceptability (Table 4.4). Additionally, 37% of

the respondents that participated in the 1985 research considered themselves to be

familiar with recycled water and of those respondents, approximately 72% “did not mind

or minded a little” with regards to drinking recycled water. These 1985 findings differ

from the 2015 survey as 79% of the 2015 sample considered themselves to be familiar

with recycled water and support for DPR and IPR were 48% and 72%, respectively. The

fact that there is still considerable variation and some change amongst the publics’

opinion and acceptance for water reuse applications in the past 30 years, despite greater

60

overall awareness of water reuse justifies the need for public education on recycled water

use for the Denver metro area.

Limitations and Delimitations to the Research

In this research, by utilizing an online survey provider, the respondent

characteristics were not known. Random sampling was utilized, however it was not

known whether or not the individuals that agreed to take surveys through SurveyMonkey

would be representative of the Denver metro area population. Furthermore, Denver Water

supplies water to suburbs surrounding the city and county of Denver and it is not known

whether an equal representation of the entire metro area responded to the questionnaire.

Delimitations are limitations to the research that are known before conducting an

analysis. Due to limited funding and time, it was only possible to obtain 313 responses

for this study. Additional funds might have yielded more responses to the questionnaire,

and utilizing multiple survey techniques (i.e. telephone, mail and web based) would have

reached a larger sample. Additionally, only individuals with Internet access were able to

take the survey, and this could have eliminated sectors of the population that may not be

able to afford internet access or do not use the internet regularly. Third, individuals that

completed the survey hold accounts with SurveyMonkey and are highly likely to

participate in surveys regularly. This may have impacted the results. Fourth, the

questionnaire only contained 20 questions so the data collected were somewhat limited.

A more in-depth study conducted on a larger sample size could reveal more detailed

characteristics of the Denver metro area population’s view of water recycling and water

related topics. Additionally, the survey was administered in the English language and

those individuals that cannot read and understand English were not able to participate in

61

the survey. This may be the reason that very few non-white ethnic individuals completed

the questionnaire. Lastly, support for IPR and DPR could have changed after having read

the six statements about DPR. Assessing support for IPR and DPR after respondents read

the six statements could have indicated that the information provided impacted opinion of

these potable reuse options.

62

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

The main goal of this research was to explore the opinion of the Denver metro

area public on water reuse with a specific emphasis on potable water reuse and DPR.

Comfort levels with water reuse applications and support for IPR and DPR were

assessed. Concepts regarding water supply challenges from climate change, drought and

water recycling were compared to support for IPR and DPR. Water supply options were

presented and rated by respondents. Six educational statements about DPR were listed

and analyzed for their affect in convincing respondents to support DPR as a water supply

option for Denver. Lastly, results from the Denver public survey were compared to

results from a similar survey conducted in Denver in 1985, and public and Denver Water

employee opinions were compared. Important findings are listed below.

• Environmental benefits are the most compelling reason to support DPR in the Denver metro area.

• The fact that DPR is a drought and climate change resilient water supply option appeals to the Denver metro area public and is associated to support for potable water reuse.

• Information about de facto water reuse and the urban water cycle is a convincing concept to support DPR in the Denver metro area.

• Familiarity with recycled water is associated to higher levels of support for IPR and DPR.

• Localized data collection is necessary to understand regional public concerns and values with regards to water reuse.

63

• Support for and comfort with water reuse applications has decreased in the Denver metro area since 1985.

• Denver Water employees and the Denver public are similar with regards to their comfort levels with various water reuse applications, including drinking.

These findings suggest three major themes that can contribute to actionable

policy. First, awareness and support for potable and non-potable reuse applications has

decreased in the Denver metro area when comparing results from Lohman and Milliken

(1985) to the results of this research. Second, environmental benefits, and drought and

climate change resistance from potable water reuse are effective concepts to leverage

when promoting support for potable reuse in the Denver metro area. Finally, if Denver

Water employees are to be ambassadors of information about water related issues and

water reuse, they could be more knowledgeable, comfortable and supportive with regards

to water reuse applications.

Decades of Silence and the Impact on Water Reuse Acceptance in the Denver metro

area

Decrease in Water Reuse Acceptance

Awareness and acceptance of water reuse has decreased in the Denver metro area

over the past thirty years and comfort with drinking recycled water has decreased

substantially (Table 4.4). This is problematic because recycled water use is likely to

increase in the Denver metro area as water supplies become scarce, and public acceptance

of water reuse applications is necessary to implementation, especially with regards to

potable water reuse. Lohman and Milliken’s public opinion survey on water reuse was

conducted during the period when the Denver Potable Water Reuse Demonstration

64

Project was underway; and when survey participants received additional information

about water recycling and toured the Demonstration plant, their aversion to drinking

recycled water and other reuse applications decreased. Furthermore, while non-potable

reuse is currently applied in Denver, many individuals are not aware, and educational

campaigns about recycled water have been lagging during the past few decades. Because

educational information and Demonstration plant tours resulted in greater acceptance of

water reuse applications during the 1985 research (Lohman, 1989), Denver Water should

revamp water reuse awareness in the Denver metro area public through education by

leveraging local values and beliefs.

Leverage Environmental Benefits, Drought and Climate Change Resiliency in the Denver

Metro Area

It was revealed in this research that the environmental benefits of direct water

recycling was considered the most convincing reason to support DPR. Drought and

climate change resilience were also associated to greater support for potable water reuse.

These findings are beneficial because Denver Water can hone in on these sentiments

when educating and promoting water reuse to the public. Had this survey been

administered in a region where individuals do not recreate outdoors or value the

environment, other sentiments may have yielded more support for potable water reuse.

Therefore, effective education and outreach used to promote potable and non-potable

reuse in Denver should incorporate how recycling water positively impacts the

environment and watershed vitality.

Examples of successful educational campaigns that result in greater acceptance of

potable water reuse could be applied to potable water reuse implementation while

65

leveraging environmental health and water resource resilience. As evidenced in the

literature, treatment facility tours guided by water utility professionals have been

affective in increasing acceptance (ACTEW, 2007; CSIRO, 2003; Lohman, 1989).

Perhaps in addition to providing information about treatment methods during tours, the

amount of fresh water savings that can be attributed to water recycling could be

illuminated. Tour coordinators could go even further by describing or showing images of

the current health conditions of plant and animal species that rely on freshwater in the

environment. This type of information could also be included in brochures, bill stuffers,

informational videos, on websites and signage in locations where recycled water is being

used.

Another method of promoting environmental benefits from water recycling could

be by partnering with environmental organizations such as Environment Colorado or the

Sierra Club. These groups could coordinate with water utilities to provide environmental

indicators regarding positive environmental impacts from water recycling. This

information could be provided through their own educational materials (brochures,

signage, websites, etc.) in addition to the water utility’s media outlets and materials.

While guided tours, information and partnerships may be effective ways to

promote water reuse and the environmental benefits therein, individuals may not be

willing or able to dedicate time to read informational packets or tour treatment facilities.

Therefore, quick and simple snapshots conceptualizing environmental benefits of water

reuse could be utilized. Denver Water’s website could show a graphical indicator of the

amount of water recycled compared to the amount of water diverted out of mountain

streams and reservoirs on a daily or monthly basis. Additionally, Denver Water has

66

traditionally utilized billboards throughout the city to promote the water conservation

campaign, “Use Only What You Need”. This traditional campaign approach could just as

easily be used to educate the public about the benefits of water reuse on the environment

and resilient watersheds. Lastly, the local media could provide coverage on these topics.

However, since the public trusts water utility professionals more than media

representatives in delivering information about water recycling (see Ormerod and Scott,

2012), live interviews with water utility employees would be the most effective way to

communicate these environmental and resource resilient implications of water reuse in

the media.

Empower Denver Water Employees with Knowledge

Denver Water employees may be the most trusted ambassadors of information

about water reuse in the Denver metro area, (Ormerod and Scott, 2012) and this research

revealed that Denver Water employees do not differ considerably from the public in

comfort with potable and non-potable water reuse applications. Denver Water employees

were more supportive of IPR and DPR as water supply options for the future, but were

nearly as uncomfortable with drinking recycled water as the Denver public. Denver

Water employees should be significantly more knowledgeable, comfortable with and

supportive of water reuse if they are to effectively communicate accurate information to

educate the public and promote water reuse applications. Therefore, targeted education is

needed towards Denver Water employees to increase knowledge and acceptance of

recycled water. Similar methods that can be used to educate the public can be applied to

Denver Water employees: guided tours of the recycled water treatment facility,

information provided in the internal Denver Water newsletter and presentations by

67

knowledgeable staff could be offered during lunch hours. To the latter point,

environmental benefits and watershed resiliency impacts from recycled water should also

be included in the employee education so employees may leverage this information when

communicating with the public.

Applicability

Results and lessons learned from this research can be applied to future research on

this topic on an international scale. First, online surveys yield timely responses. However,

the ability to set more detailed criteria on respondent characteristics could increase

representation amongst populations. If funding exists, multiple survey methods could be

utilized (i.e. mail, telephone, in person and online surveys) which would greatly improve

generalization of the sample to the population of interest. Secondly, assessing a local

region’s political views and values prior to developing the survey questions could be

beneficial. While research should not be constructed based on bias towards specific

political or value orientations, understanding these characteristics of a given population

could aid in development of more deep-rooted survey questions. For example, the sample

tested in the Denver metro area found environmental benefits to be a convincing reason

to support DPR. It may have been worthwhile to delve into detailed environmental

consequences of water supply options (e.g. Expand/build reservoirs and dams, IPR and

DPR) to better understand which water supply option appealed to the public most, based

on the information provided. Lastly, the verbiage and layout of the questionnaire was

generally acceptable for respondents to read and understand (refer to comments 2, 14, 52,

63 & 77 in Appendix D), and therefore the questionnaire, or a version of it, could be

administered in other communities.

68

Future Research in the Denver metro area

Denver Water should utilize the information revealed through this research to

inform future studies. First, a survey administered to a larger sample size that is

representative of the population should be completed to make more concrete

generalizations about the opinion of the Denver metro area public on water reuse. In

administering a future survey, Denver Water should focus on climate change, drought

and environmental topics as they relate to potable water reuse. Understanding how these

sentiments resonate within the Denver metro area should be explored at a greater depth in

an effort to understand specific concerns to enable addressing them. Additionally, it

would be worthwhile to investigate why gender and race affect opinion on water reuse.

Perhaps sociological circumstances impact acceptability of water reuse applications.

Secondly, an assessment should be administered to additional stakeholders that

would be impacted by additional reuse of Denver’s municipal wastewater. For example,

in San Gabriel Valley, California, Miller Brewing Company raised concerns about how

potable reuse would affect their water quality which contributed to failure of a potable

water reuse project (CSIRO, 2003). Industries and commercial entities should be

analyzed to determine their concerns to allow Denver Water to address issues that would

lead to opposition to potable reuse projects. Additionally, upstream and downstream

stakeholders should be involved in the initial discussions regarding potable water reuse to

address their concerns since these stakeholders would also be impacted by additional

reuse of Denver’s municipal wastewater.

Lastly, this survey did not include statements or questions that address some of

the open questions raised in previous research. It would be worthwhile to administer a

69

survey in Denver metro area that addresses public trust in Denver Water. Previous

research has shown that trust in the water providing entity correlates to more support for

water reuse (Ormerod and Scott, 2013). Additionally, the questionnaire did not address

concerns about CECs. It would be beneficial to understand the Denver area public’s

concern regarding trace metals, pharmaceuticals and personal care products in recycled

water. Voter orientation was not assessed in this research and it would be advantageous

to understand how political views associate to opinion on water reuse. Finally, it would

be interesting to determine if there is a difference between individuals that have children

versus those that do not with regards to acceptance of potable reuse.

Theoretical and Additional Policy Implications

Theoretical

This study reiterates the importance of conducting localized surveys with regards

to potable water reuse. If the questionnaire were administered in a different region of the

United States or world, environmental benefits, drought and climate change may not have

resonated in the same manner as a convincing reason to support DPR. For example,

drought is on the forefront of concern in regions in the arid American West and

individuals who reside in areas that do not anticipate drought in near future could likely

be less convinced of implementing DPR as a means to augment water supplies based on

the threat of a drought. Secondly, many of the demographic characteristics regarding

public opinion of water reuse in other regions did not prove to be significant in the

Denver metro area. This may be due to the research limitations, however it could also be

attributed to variations amongst public traits across regions. For these reasons,

70

communities that intend to implement potable water reuse should understand the

characteristics of the public prior to implementation.

Policy

Major findings and lessons learned from this research can be utilized to influence

water policy. Seventy-two percent of the respondents strongly or somewhat support IPR,

and nearly half of the respondents support DPR as a water supply option. Denver Water

should consider these reuse applications for the future. The fact that the respondents

value the environmental benefits of DPR (which would also result from utilizing IPR)

informs policy makers that water supply options that have less negative impacts on the

environment would be preferred. This should be considered when determining how to fill

water supply gaps in the Denver metro area.

Additionally, Colorado policy makers should consider allowing for more water

reuse applications in the state such as toilet flushing and edible crop irrigation. Results

from the survey indicate that 84% of the respondents are comfortable or somewhat

comfortable with toilet flushing, and 75% of the respondents are comfortable or

somewhat comfortable with irrigating edible crops with recycled water. Increasing the

amount of recycled water applications will yield additional year round uses, could lead to

lower demand of freshwater, and the environmental benefits to local watersheds would be

appreciated by the Denver metro area public.

71

REFERENCES

1. ACTEW Corporation (2007) Community Consultation Report.Report on the

community consultation undertaken on theWater2WATER proposal. July 2007. Available: http://www.actew.com.au/publications/CommunityConsulatationReport.pdf

2. Asano, T. (ed.) (1985) Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Butterworth Publishers. Boston, MA.

3. Asano T, Burton F. L., Leverenz HL, Tsuchihashi R., & Tchobanoglous G. Water Reuse - Issues, Technologies, and Applications. 1st ed. New York: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.; 2007:1-1528.

4. Australia Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. (2013). Drinking Water Through Recycling; The Benefits and Costs of Supplying

Direct to the Distribution System. Melbourne, Australia: Khan, S. Dr.

5. AWWA. (1994) Dual Distribution Systems. AWWA Mannual M24, 2nd ed. American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.

6. Babbie, E. (2013) The Practice of Social Research. 13th ed. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

7. Baumann, D. D. (1983) Social acceptance of water reuse. Applied Geography. 3, (79-84).

8. Bell, G.E.C. and J. Aranda. (2005) Corrosion Engineering Training. Hawaii Water Environment Association. Corrosion Workshop, Feb. 16, 2005. Honolulu, HI.

9. Bischel, H. N., Simon, G. L., Frisby, T. M. & Luthy, R.G. (2012) Management Experiences and Trends for Water Reuse Implementation in

Northern California. Environmental Science and Technology. 46, 180-188.

72

10. Brennan, M. (2012, December). America’s 20 Fastest Growing States. Forbes

Magazine. Available at www.forbes.com/pictures/mhj45mhlf/16-denver-co/

11. Bouwer, H. (1978) Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York.

12. Burvold, W.H. (1972). Public attitudes toward reclaimed water. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento Office Library.

13. Bruvold, W.H., Olson, B.H, & Rigby, M. (1981) Public Policy for the use of

Reclaimed Water. Environmental Management. 5 (2): 95-107.

14. Bruvold, W.H. (1998) Public opinion on water reuse options. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation. 60(1), 45-50.

15. Burstein, P. (2003) The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review

and an Agenda. Political Research Quarterly 2003, 56: 29 DOI: 10.1177/106591290305600103.

16. Carr, S., Nortcliff, S., & Potter, R.B. (2010) Water reuse for irrigated

agriculture in Jordan: challenges of soil sustainability and the role of

management strategies. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society. 368. DOI 10.1098/rsta.2010.0181.

17. City of Wichita Falls, TX. (2006-2014). Direct Potable Reuse Project. Retrieved from http://www.wichitafallstx.gov/index.aspx?nid=1595.

18. Coloradoan, The. (2014). Map: Colorado Voter Party Affiliation by County. Retrieved from http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/10/16/map-colorado-voters-party-affiliation-by-county/17379853/ on October 8, 2015.

19. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. (2014) Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor

Recreation Plan. Retrieved on October 3, 2015 from http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/SCORPOnlineReport.pdf

20. Colorado Water Conservation Board-CWCB. 2015. Colorado’s Water Plan. Available at www.coloradowaterplan.com. Retrieved on January 2, 2015.

73

21. Condie, L.W., Lauer. W.C., Wolfe. G.W., Czeh. E. T. & Burns. J.M. (1994). Denver Potable Water Reuse Demonstration Project: Comprehensive Chronic

Rat Study. Food and Chemical Toxicology. Vol. 32. No. 11. pp. 1021-1030.

22. CSIRO. (2003). CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 54/03, Literature

Review of Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse. Australia: Po, M., Kaercher, J.D. & Nancarrow, B.E.

23. Dahl, R. (2014) Potable Reuse Strategies Gain Traction. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 122, No. 12. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-A332/

24. Denver Water. (2014) Retrieved from: www.denverwater.org on October 22, 2014.

25. Denver Water. (2002). Water for Tomorrow: An Integrated Water Resource Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.denverwater.org/SupplyPlanning/Planning/IntegratedResourcePlan/ on October 22, 2014.

26. Dishman, M.C., Sherrard, J.H., & Rebhun, M. (1989) Gaining support for

direct potable water reuse. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering. Vol. 115, NO. 2, 154-160.

27. Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A., & Grun, B. (2011) What affects public

acceptance of recycled and desalinated water? Water Research. 45, 933-943.

28. Du Pisani, P.L. (2005) Direct Reclamation of Potable Water at Windhoek’s Goreangab Reclamation Plant. 193-202 in S.J. Khan, A.I. Schafer, M.H. Muston (eds.) Integrated Concepts in Water Recycling. University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.

29. EBSCO Publishing. (2014) RELYING ON REUSE. American City and

County, 129(4), 13.

74

30. Friedler, E., Lahav, O., Jizhaki, H., & Lahav, T. (2006) Study of urban

population attitudes towards various wastewater reuse options: Israel as a

case study. Journal of Environmental Management 81, 360-370. Elsevier Ltd.

31. Gallup, Inc. (2015) In U.S., Concern About Environmental Threats Eases. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/182105/concern-environmental-threats-eases.aspx?g_source=ENVIRONMENT&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles on October 9, 2015.

32. Granello, D.H. & Wheaton, J. E. (2004) Online Data Collection: Strategies

for Research. Journal of Counseling and Development. (82) 387-393.

33. Hartley, T.W. (2006) Public Perception and participation in water reuse. Desalination 187: 115-126.

34. Houston, S. S., N.L. Barber, J.F. Kenny, D.S. Lumia, and M.A. Maupin. (2004) Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1268. Reston, Virginia.

35. Hurlimann, A. & Dolnicar, S. (2010) When Public Opposition Defeats

Alternative Water Projects-the Case of Toowoomba Australia. Water Research, 44(1), 287-297.

36. IPCC. (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Section 3.4.3 Floods and droughts. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch3s3-4-3.html on November 6, 2015.

37. Jang, T., Lee, S., Sung, C., Lee, H., & Park, S. (2010) Safe application of

reclaimed water reuse for agriculture in Korea. Paddy Water Environment. 8:227-233. DOI 10.1007/s10333-010-0203-9.

38. Lahnsteiner, J. and G. Lempert. (2005) Water Management in Windhoek/Namibia. Proceedings of the IWA Specialty Conference,

Wastewater Reclamation & Reuse for Sustainability. November 8—1, Jeju, Korea.

75

39. Lauer, W. (1993) Denver’s direct potable water reuse demonstration project:

Final report. Denver Water Department. 1600 W. 12th Ave. Denver CO, 80204. Retrieved from Records and Documentation Department on September 3rd, 2014.

40. Leverenz, H.L., Tchobanoglous, G., & Asano, T. (2011) Direct potable reuse:

a future imperative. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination. 01.1, 2-9.

41. Lohman, L. & Milliken, G. (1985) Informational/Educational Approaches to

Public Attitudes on Potable Reuse of Wastewater. Denver Research Institute, University of Colorado, Denver.

42. Lohman, L.C. (1987). Potable Wastewater Reuse Can Win Public Support. In: Proceedings of Water Reuse Symposium IV, Denver Colorado, August 2-7, 1987, Published by the AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado.

43. Lohman, L. (1989). How Water Professionals Look at Conservation, A

Preliminary Report. Published in Proceedings of Colorado Water Engineering and Management Conference, Fort Collins, February 28, 1989.

44. Martin, L. (2014, September 16) Texas Leads The Way With First Direct Potable Reuse Facilities In U.S. Water Online. http://www.wateronline.com/doc/texas-leads-the-way-with-first-direct-potable-reuse-facilities-in-u-s-0001

45. Meeker, M. (August 12, 2014) WateReuse Past, Present, and Future. Retrieved from https://www.watereuse.org/sections/colorado on August 30, 2014.

46. National Research Council. (2012) Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the

Nation’s Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. The National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-25749-7.

47. Ormerod, K. J. & Scott, C. A. (2012). Drinking Wastewater: Public Trust in

Potable Reuse. Science, Technology, and Human Values. 38: 35.

76

48. Reisner, M. (1986) Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing

Water. New York, NY. 1st Ed. Viking Penguin Inc.

49. Rock, C., Dolop, F.I., & Gerrity, D. (2012) Survey of statewide public

perceptions regarding water reuse in Arizona. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-AQUA. 61.8, 506-517.

50. Sloan, D.W., Wingert, C. and Cadena, I. (2010) “Potable Reuse in the Permian Basin.” Presented at the 25th WateReuse Symposium, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.watereuse.org/sites/default/files/u3/David%20Sloan.pdf on September 20, 2014.

51. State of California. (2014). California Drought. Retrieved from http://ca.gov/drought/ on October 18, 2014.

52. Todd, D.K. (1980) Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

53. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2005). Water 2025: Preventing Crises and

Conflict in the West. Retrieved from: http://biodiversity.ca.gov/Meetings/archive/water03/water2025.pdf. on September 20, 2014.

54. US EPA. (1998) Water Pollution Control—Twenty-five Years of Progress and

Challenges for the New Millennium, 833-F-98-003,Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

55. Water Environment Research Foundation. (2015) Considering the

Implementation of Direct Potqable3 Reuse in Colorado. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2015945842.

56. Water Research Foundation. (2015) Integrated Water Management: Planning

for Future Water Supplies (Project #4550). Water Research Foundation.

77

57. WateReuse California. (2010). Public and Political Acceptance of Direct

Potable Reuse. Sacramento, CA: Millan, M. and Nellor, M.H.

58. WateReuse Foundation. (2006). An Economic Framework for Evaluating the

Benefits and Costs of Water Reuse. WateReuse Foundation. ISBN: 0-9747586-9-8.

59. WateReuse Foundation. (2009) The Psychology of Water Reclamation and

Reuse. WateReuse Foundation. ISBN: 978-1-934183-21-2.

60. WateReuse Foundation. (2011). Direct Potable Reuse – A Path Forward. WateReuse Research Foundation Report. Alexandria, VA: Tchobanoglous, G., Leverenz H., Nellor, M. and Crook, J.

61. WateReuse Foundation. (2013). Downstream: Context, Understanding,

Acceptance: Effect of Prior Knowledge of Unplanned Potable Reuse on the

Acceptance of Planned Potable Reuse. Retrieved from https://www.watereuse.org/catalog/research-reports/potable-reuse August 20, 2014.

62. WateReuse Foundation. (2014b) Risk reduction for direct potable reuse. Salveson. A, Mackey. E, Salveson, M. & Flynn. M. Retrieved from https://www.watereuse.org/catalog/research-reports/potable-reuse on September 20, 2014.

63. WateReuse Foundation. (2015a) California Direct Potable Reuse Initiative:

Reporting on Significant Progress. Retrieved from https://www.watereuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Direct-Potable-Reuse-Progress-Report-2015-Fall-Winter.pdf on November 6, 2015

64. WateReuse Foundation. (2015b). Model Communication Plans for Increasing

Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse. Millan, M., Tennyson, P. & Snyder, S. ISBN: 978-1-941242-18-6.

65. White, A. (February 7, 2013) Water-Reuse Ideas Go Forward, Despite ‘Toilet to Tap’ Concerns. New York Times. Retrieved from

78

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/potable-water-reuse-ideas-go-forward-in-texas-despite-concerns.html?_r=0 on September 20, 2014.

79

APPENDIX A

ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS

80

Treatment Objective Applied Methods Function

Removal of Suspended Solids Clarification Removes nutrients, heavy metals, and reduce NH4+ to NH3

Sand and media filtration Porous beds of granular media that filter particles through sieving and/or adsorption

Microfiltration and ultrafiltration Thin, porous membranes that collect solid material by sieving

Removal of Dissolved Chemicals Reversed Osmosis

Reduces concentration of dissolved organic compounds by reducing total organic carbon

Adsorptive treatement Total dissolved solids adsorb to granular or powdered activated carbon

Advanced oxidation

Hydroxyl radicals convert organic chemicals to CO2 and non-organic species through UV light or addition of O3 to H2O2

Disinfection Chlorination

Chlorine reacts with water to produce disinfectant hypochlorous acid and hypochlorie ion, kills harmful pathogens

Ozonation O3 kills bacteria and cysts, reduces Fe and Mn, removes taste, odor, and color

Ultraviolet light

Light wavelenghts penetrate cell walls of microorganisms killing cells or preventing replication

Stabilization pH, alkalinity, lime

Restores mineral content to improve taste, minimize soil damage, and reduce corrosiveness on distribution system

81

APPENDIX B

COMIRB CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION

82

Colorado Multiple Institutional

Review Board, CB F490

University of Colorado,

Anschutz Medical Campus

13001 E. 17th Place, Building

500, Room N3214 Aurora,

Colorado 80045

303.724.1055 [Phone]

303.724.0990 [Fax]

COMIRB Home Page [Web]

comirb@ucdenver.edu [Email]

FWA00005070 [FWA]

University of Colorado Hospital Denver Health Medical Center Veteran's Administration Medical Center Children's Hospital Colorado University of Colorado Denver

Colorado Prevention Center

Certificate of Exemption

18-Aug-2015

Investigator: Brandi Honeycutt Subject: COMIRB Protocol 15-0843 Initial Application Review Date: 8/14/2015 Effective Date: 14-Aug-2015 Anticipated Completion Date: 13-Aug-2018 Sponsor(s): None~ Title: Public Perceptions of Water Reuse in Denver Exempt Category: 2 Submission ID: APP001-1

SUBMISSION DESCRIPTION

Initial Exempt

Submission

Your COMIRB Initial submission APP001-1 has been APPROVED FOR EXEMPTION.

Periodic continuing review is not required. For the duration of your protocol, any change in the

83

experimental design/content/personnel of this study must be approved by COMIRB before

implementation of the changes.

The anticipated completion date of this protocol is 13-Aug-2018. COMIRB will administratively

close this project on this date unless otherwise instructed by e-mail to COMIRB@ucdenver.edu.

If the project is completed prior to this date, please notify the COMIRB office in writing or by e-

mail once the project has been closed.

Study personnel are approved to conduct the research as described in the documents

approved by COMIRB, which are listed below the REVIEW DETAILS section. Please carefully

review the REVIEW DETAILS section because COMIRB may have made red-line changes (i.e.

revisions) to the submitted documents prior to approving them. The investigator can submit an

amendment to revise the documents if the investigator does not agree with the red-line

changes. The REVIEW DETAILS section may also include important information from the

reviewer(s) and COMIRB staff.

COMIRB stamps the approved versions of documents in the top right hand corner. Stamped copies

of documents are available for download through COMIRB’s electronic submission website,

eRA(InfoEd).

Click here for instructions on how to retrieve stamped documents.

Information on how to submit changes (amendments) to your study and reports of unanticipated

problems to COMIRB can be found on the COMIRB website http://www.ucdenver.edu/COMIRB.

Contact COMIRB with questions at 303-724-1055 or COMIRB@ucdenver.edu.

REVIEW DETAILS: APPROVED FOR EXEMPTION (Category 2)

Documents reviewed and stamped APPROVED FOR EXEMPTION or NOTED to make this

determination of exemption include: 1. Application Form; version 08/01/2015

2. Personnel Form; no version date

3. Student Mentor Responsibility Agreement; version 07/17/2015

4. Survey; version 08/01/2015

Affiliated Site(s): UCD Downtown Campus

Sincerely, UCD Panel IS Please provide Feedback on Your Experience with the COMIRB Process

84

APPENDIX C

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

APPENDIX D

RESPONDENT COMMENTS

100

Number Response Text

1 we still have some clean fresh water here

2 interesting and worthwhile best survey yet

3 no comment

4 none

5 NONE

6 It is an interesting project

7 Thank you!

8 The biggest doubt is the need to be 100% accurate in control of the purification process. All of Denver's treated water currently goes down stream for other communities to include in their water supplies. They drink it. Why shouldn't we? Mixing the water provides one further control to assure that if some re-purification step is compromised, any contaminants will be further diluted.

9 I love this idea! We live nearby to Chatfield reservoir and they are planning to flood most of the park surrounding it to provide more drinking water for the area. This will result in a loss of so much land that we enjoy, and I'm sure will negatively impact many species of animals and plants living there. It would be great if there was a different option.

10 Am very comfortable with water reuse.

11 The issue is really to stop use of water for all consumptive purposes (stop growing blue grass and trees).

12 Best of luck with the research=)

13 None

14 Very nicely done.

15 I do not want to drink recycled water, period. The very idea disgusts me, no matter how supposedly "safe" it is. I have no problem with it for toilets or for landscaping, however.

16 good

17 None

18 good to know this stuff

19 like

20 The location of text was often confusing.

21 I Totally Disagree With Recycling Water Because I'm Totally Against Such

22 I had issues with the survey (perhaps because I took it on my phone) My responses to the rating question were 1) indirect 2) direct 3)expanding current reservoirs 4) building new dams.

23 Don't interfere with nature

24 we have to think more about how can we save the planet

25 I think that this is an awesome concept; especially if there is already 20+ years of data supporting it. Good luck!

26 If we want to experiment on reusable sewage, let's do it in California right now!

27 This concept needs to be expanded and introduced to the public. Education of the benefits is obvious and implementation will benefit all.

28 n/a

29 I believe recycled water will definitely be needed in the future. In my case, I think it's

101

a matter of mind over matter that holds me back from drinking recycled water. I do not have a problem with it being used for irrigation of lawns or for farming. Good luck on completing this study.

30 Question asking for rating of choices: did not allow me to choose my choices..just stayed 1,2,3,4

31 I consider this to be very important and timely.

32 we recycle water , because there remains much

33 I would like to see some type of reclaimed water usage in the Denver metro area.

34 I'm game

35 good water is from Colorado and we don’t need to share with anyone

36 The only question I would have is: Does purified to the highest standard include filtering out such pathogens as cryptosporidium parvum? If so, then I would be all for it.

37 None

38 The idea of taking waste water from toilets and somehow recycling that same water back around for my family to drink disgusts me!!!!!

39 give us fresh water that's what everyone need

40 The water in Englewood is terrible and answers are based primarily on that. Every other area in Denver Metro area have been fine.

41 I am happy with water reuse

42 bvgfre

43 Funny. I was actually thinking to myself "I would really like to leave this person a comment..." As I was reading through the 6 statements about water purification, I literally thought to myself " I do not care what you say...there is simply no way I am willing o concede that a strong case was made for drinking wastewater" then I got to the part about this is a natural process which has happened to every ounce of water I have ever drank. And I stopped and thought...best way to present this case, bar none. Well, good luck. I am off to google how long I can live without water.

44 I would definitely not be opposed to the reuse of water by any means, especially in drought situations. There is proof in Texas and Africa, that this is in fact safe. It is hard to get past the fact that you would be drinking water that at one point was sewage, but if need be, what choice do we have?

45 -

46 Besides the normal things that are flushed down toilets like urine and feces and toilet paper, there are other wastes like vomit and the blood of the menstrual cycles of women that are also added to the sewer system. I find it difficult to believe that these biohazardous wastes are able to be so totally filtered out of the contents of the sewer systems. I would rather that we not risk finding out that we missed a microorganism -- oh, we thought this was safe drinking water! -- after someone gets sick and dies.

47 N/A

48 I welcome any efforts Denver/Colorado/the US take to conserve resources and curb climate change.

49 NONE

50 N/A

51 We should be concerned about the planet.

102

52 This is a great survey. I love being from this state. ^^

53 I find very interesting this survey

54 i feel safe drinking the water that flows down from the snow packed mountain

55 I would like to learn more about our water supply and your studies.

56 good

57 My biggest problem is the integrity of those who will be handling the filtering and processing of the water to be reused. There is no trust in those individuals (Unless you hire all Mormons - and I'm Catholic). Integrity falls by the wayside where there is a bottom line involved.

58 No comment

59 no comment .. thanks

60 I believe you are headed in the right direction because I see potable water in use in a lot of parks. I also believe you would not risk the health of the people

61 That is well.

62 clean water plz

63 Good job and good luck!

64 none

65 I AM REALLY EXCITED TO SEE THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD!!

66 none

67 Very interesting facts presented. I hope others will be convinced that direct recycling of water is a great idea!

68 Very interesting survey! I just got back from California where they are in a 7-year drought. We have to do something! Good to know there are options!

69 none

70 Having read about water reuse, I know it is going to be a reality; however, getting past the idea of drinking sewer water is a different reality. Good Luck

71 It's a smart idea considering climate change and the politicians who refuse to believe it is a real concern

72 none

73 Nothing

74 Denver is growing very rapidly and needs to conserve all the water it can

75 Sounds good; but what about the chemicals they use to clean water - how much ill effects on our bodies will that have 20 years down the road

76 Good research

77 somewhat agree with most everything but not sure about drinking - one of better surveys I have taken

78 I'm sure that I am not the only person who is a little reluctant to reuse waste water for drinking water. I think we're heading in the right direction. We need baby steps here! Let's start using treated waste water for irrigation and other indirect processes so the public can get used to the idea of reusing water. Information regarding the process and communities using this needs to be front and center in the news so the public can be more accepting.

79 Very interesting survey!

80 denver is one of the best place in the world for fresh water

81 After reading the statements about studies and previous use of the system, I think recycling water is not as worrisome as I thought. If the claims are true, this seems like a reasonable way to ensure Denver has enough water. I would need to see the research, however.

103

82 Drinking water is a very minor use of municipal water. We should use direct delivery of retreated sewer water for agricultural, industrial and landscape needs not drinking. The risk of a processing mistake sickening a large population are too high for home use.

83 You made me think about it. Thanks ..

84 Very interesting survey and much needed research!

85 At the end of the day, if all we are supplying Denver with is Hydrogen and Oxygen in the proper ratio, free of any pollutants, then who am I to judge where the water originated from? As long as the purification process is appropriately executed, observed for quality control, and equipment inspected and maintained frequently, there is no reason not to pursue the creation and use of recycled water. Recycling waste is not only a good resource for water, dehydrated waste is used as an alternative fuel source. It's a win-win.

86 All avenues, including dams must be used to save Colorado water from flowing out of the state.

87 Many countries are lacking in water, so unnecessary usage of water must be avoided such as water fountains

88 NONE. THANKS

89 Too many drugs, hormones etc. are in the waste water these days that were not present many years ago. To remove them is questionable

90 Good