Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Economics is reasonably given as the principal raison d'être for the contrasting
standards (Crook 1998; WHO 1989). The WHO (1989) endorses low-cost waste-
water treatment technologies for reuse in food crop irrigation and in aquaculture.
Economics is certainly important, but does not explain why the WHO standards for
reuse have been adopted, with modifications, by France and Spain (Bontoux 1998),
which undoubtedly can afford the California-Florida-type standards. Moreover,
why would any country or state in the United States spend fortunes on “no-risk”-
level treatment for reuse if the WHO standards can be attained at far lower cost and
are based on sound science?
Culture better explains these differences than science. The United States provides
a good example of these cultural influences. Consider the differences between the
reuse standards of the states of California and New Mexico.
California produced the first comprehensive set of wastewater reuse regulations in
the United States. These regulations have been influential worldwide (Crook 1998).
The cultural background of the California reuse regulations was that of a wealthy,
populous, technically sophisticated, and litigious society anticipating, but not yet
suffering, substantial water stress.
A litigious society without a universal perception of water scarcity presents
daunting policy challenges to those considering a treatment standard based on epi-
demiological models. These models tacitly admit a certain rate of illness caused by
reuse, however lost in statistical noise. There is therefore an unacceptable level of
government legal exposure to lawsuits seeking damages for illnesses that could be
reasonably attributed to exposure to reused wastewater. The “no-risk” philosophy of
reuse treatment standards is an appropriate response to this cultural reality because
it obviates a great deal of litigation by effectively removing pathogens from reused
wastewater exposed to direct public contact.
Fear of litigation does not fully explain the prevalence of “no-risk” reuse stan-
dards in the Unites States and elsewhere. As stated earlier, both reuse philosophies
stand on firm scientific ground. How well a given engineer or scientist is persuaded
by one philosophy or the other probably has more to do with the culture of the tech-
nical community in a given country than anything else. Reuse regulations reflect
the consensus of the relevant technical community. Nevertheless, litigation over
reuse has been important in California, despite mature and extraordinarily rigorous
reuse standards.
California has been an arena of epic legal and political battles involving large
municipal reuse projects in San Diego and Los Angeles (Lee 2005; Waldie 2002).
“Toilet to tap” has been a rallying slogan of those in California opposed to vital reuse
projects characterized by indirect connection to public water supplies. This vocifer-
ous opposition arises despite treatment of wastewater to drinking water standards,
extreme dilution of discharged wastewater with the receiving waters, and then fur-
ther treatment and disinfection of (receiving) water prior to public use (Hartling and
Nellor 1998; Mills et al. 1998; Olivieri, Eisenberg, and Cooper 1998).
Public perception sometimes has little in common with rationality, as can be seen
in the spectacle of (former) Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn crying, “Lips that
touch reclaimed water must never touch mine” (Waldie 2002). Perhaps the honor-
able mayor is unaware that kissing is commonly, indeed enthusiastically, practiced
Search WWH ::
Custom Search