*St. Johns River Water Management District
Source: State of Florida Conservation Program, 1995 data
Table created by Dr. Richard Einer Peterson June 7, 1999
Web Page: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rpeterso
Email: rpeterso@hawaii.edu

ABBREVIATIONS:

IR=Indirect Reuse
WWTF=WasteWater Treatment Facility
TPC=Treatment Permitted Capacity (MGD)
RPC=Reuse Permitted Capacity (MGD)
AgIr=Agricultural Irrigation
GoIr-Golf course Irrigation
OtIr=Other Irrigation
C/I=Commerical/Industrial
GWR=Ground Water Recovery
E/P=Evaporation/Percolation Ponds
SpF=Spray Fields
GWI=Ground Water Injection
Sur=Surface Water Discharge
Wet=Wetlands

				REUSE						CONCENTRATE DISPOSAL
				Direct Reuse				IR
	WWTF	TPC	RPC	AgIr	GoIr	OtIr	C/I	GWR	TOTAL	E/P	GWI	SpF	Sur	Wet	TOTAL
1	Orange County South	30.50	27.60	14.5	1.00	.50	.10	4.70	20.80
2	Orlando Water Conserv II	25.00	21.00	10.50	2.00	.20			12.70
3	Orlando Iron Bridge	40.00	20.00						0.00				14.76	17.47	32.23
4	Reedy Creek Improve Dist 1	15.00	15.00		1.20	.50		6.65	8.35
5	Orange County Eastern	19.00	13.40			.09	3.12	.66	3.87	.66				4.46	5.12
6	Port Orange R.D. Huffman	12.00	12.00		.50		.01		.51
7	Gainesville STP#5 2	10.00	10.00		.40	.15			.55		6.70				6.70
8	Altamonte Springs	12.50	10.00			1.32	1.24		2.56
9	Orlando Water Conserv I	7.50	7.50		.61	.60	.34		1.55	2.26					2.26
10	Ocala #2	6.50	6.50	3.53					3.53			3.15			3.15
11	Sanford	7.30	6.30	3.74	1.00	.95	.02		5.71			2.00	1.00		3.00
12	Cocoa Beach	6.00	6.00		1.00	3.20			4.20				1.05		1.05
13	Vero Beach	4.50	4.95			1.91			1.91
14	Cocoa Jerry Sellers	4.50	4.50			1.05	.01		1.06				1.67		1.67
15	Brevard Sykes Creek	6.00	4.50	.41	.26	.15			.82		3.31				3.31
16	Ormond Beach	6.00	4.30		.29				.29				3.35		3.35
17	St. Johns Anastasia	4.00	4.00		.60				.60				.40		.40
18	Deland Regional	4.00	4.00	.30	.27				.57
19	Apopka	4.00	4.00		.64	.15			.79
20	Jacksonville Buckman	52.50	3.70				3.70		3.70				38.81		38.81
21	Seminole Greenwood	3.50	3.50			.61			.61	1.37					1.37
22	Orange County Northwest	3.50	3.50					2.00	2.00
23	Leesburg	3.50	3.50	2.75					2.75
24	Univ. Fla. Lake Alice	3.00	3.00		.10		.25		.35		1.32				1.32
25	Ormond Beach Breakaway	.30	3.00			.11			.11
26	Brevard South Central	3.00	3.00	.27		.34			.61	.55					.55
27	Sanlando Wekiva Hunt	2.90	2.90		.43				.43				2.25		2.25
28	Titusville North	2.75	2.75			2.98			2.98
29	Seminole Northwest	2.50	2.50			.40			.40
30	Edgewater	2.25	2.25			.48			.48				.87		.87
31	Palm Coast Subdivision	1.60	2.22	.71				1.00	1.71
32	Daytona Beach Regional	10.00	2.22		3.50	1.50			5.00				1.50		1.50
33	St. Cloud Lakeshore	2.20	2.20						0.00			1.20			1.20
34	Alafaya Utilities	2.40	2.05		.45				.45
35	Winter Springs East	2.01	2.01		.37	.09		.43	.89	.26		.17			.43
36	West Melbourne	1.93	1.93		.11				.11		.95	.03			.98
37	Eustis	1.80	1.80	1.25				.45	1.70			1.25			1.25
38	Cape Canaveral	1.80	1.80					1.16	1.16				1.16		1.16
39	Winter Springs West	1.55	1.61		.09	.10		.79	.98	.59		.19			.78
40	Brevard South Beaches	9.00	1.56		.49	.18			.67		5.54				5.54
41	Ocala #1	1.50	1.50	.52	.69				1.21	.22					.22
42	Mount Dora	1.50	1.50			.59			.59
43	Palm Bay Utilities	5.20	1.20		.50	.44			.94		2.61				2.61
44	Marion Silver Springs	1.20	1.20	.59					.59			.59			.59
45	Holly Hill	1.20	1.20		.30	.20			.50				1.00		1.00
46	Sunbelt Utilities	1.00	1.12		.62				.62
47	Village Ctr. Lake Sumter	1.00	1.00		.51				.51	.17					.17
48	Taveres Woodlea	1.00	1.00					.38	.38
49	Intercoastal Utilities	.75	1.00		.61				.61
50	Indian River Central	1.00	1.00		.43				.43
51	Indian River North	1.00	1.00		.34				.34
52	Indian River West	1.00	1.00		.34				.34					.34	.34
53	Brevard J.D. Wright	1.00	1.00						0.00	.24					.24
TOTALS		356.64	253.27	39.07	19.65	18.79	8.79	18.22	104.52	6.32	20.43	8.58	67.82	22.27	125.42

NOTES:

The original table consisted of 217 wastewater treatment plants; the present table represents the 53 plants with 1.0MGD or more of Reuse Permitted Capacity. The category Groundwater Recharge (GWR) consists of ponds/drains and two instances of Rapid Infiltration Basins: 4.70MGD (Orlando Water Conserv II) and 6.65MGD (Reedy Creek Improvement District). The category Other Irrigation (OtIr) includes parks, playgrounds, pools, fountains, cemeteries, landscape, and reuse systems.

1 The Walt Disney World, a few miles west of Orlando, Florida, is operated and managed by the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Click here to learn more about their many and varied water reuse projects which include the Orlando Easterly Wetlands Relamation Project ( Orlando Iron Bridge Plant) and a 60MGD seawater treatment plant for their 5-million-gallon saltwater aquarium at the Walt Disney Epcot Center.

2 The following excerpt from "Aquifer Storage Recovery: An Alternative for Water Supply and Reclaimed Water" (August 1998, Penn Well Publishing, URL:
http://www.wwinternational.com/cgi-bin/Articles.cfm?ArticleID=56) explains the difference between the two types of reclaimed water injection well systems - aquifer recharge vs. concentrate disposal - and describes the benefits of Aquifer Storage Recovery Recovery (ASR):

"There are three long-term operational reclaimed-water injection well systems in the USA: Water Factory 21 in southern California; El Paso, Texas; and Gainesville, Florida. In the first two systems, the goal is aquifer recharge; in Gainesville, the goal is effluent disposal.

Hillsborough County, Florida, recently received permits for testing a new ASR system that will store high-quality reclaimed water in a brackish aquifer and recover this water to meet peak irrigation demands. In addition, the cities of Scottsdale and Sun Lakes, Arizona, have recently started recharging highly treated reclaimed water through wells into relatively shallow sand aquifers containing freshwater.

It is anticipated that many similar systems will follow this precedent as it substantially reduces the high cost of seasonal storage requirements for effluent reuse systems. This makes it possible for utilities to sign contracts to sell, or to otherwise fully use all of their effluent, instead of just the limited amount available during peak irrigation times. Increasingly, this is perceived as an excellent water conservation practice, making more efficient use of water sources before developing new sources. Long-term operating systems have gained public acceptance and support based upon proven reliability and protection of public health and the environment.

In Canada, the use of ASR for reclaimed water storage may have some significant additional economic and environmental advantages. Effluent discharge criteria are based on the assimilative capacity of the receiving river under low flow (7Q20 flow) conditions, which typically occur during the drier summer months. With continuous population growth, the cumulative impact of wastewater disposal to rivers within a watershed could potentially exceed the assimilative capacity of the watershed ecosystem. If this occurs, communities could be faced with either potential development freezes or escalating costs to meet stringent effluent discharge criteria.

Reclaimed water ASR would involve injection, underground storage, and recovery of highly treated wastewater through one or more ASR wells. A portion of the reclaimed water could be injected into a deep, confined, hydraulically isolated brackish aquifer during the summer months when the assimilative capacity of the receiving river is typically at its lowest point due to lower streamflow and elevated biological activity.

The stored water could then be recovered and discharged directly to the river during the autumn, winter, and spring months when the river's assimilative capacity is typically higher due to higher streamflow and lower biological activity."