Natural Alternatives to

Conventional Wastewater
Treatment

By: Heather Stovall

June 2007
 Abstract

Since water is such an important resource and there is a strong likelihood that the
world will face a fresh water shortage in the near future, we must find ways to more
efficiently manage our limited sources of water. One of these ways is to reuse and recycle
water by purifying wastewater. To treat wastewater, many wastewater treatment facilities
currently use large amounts of energy and chemicals which are harmful to the
environment. This project will research various ways of treating wastewater in order to
find out if there are more natural and sustainable alternatives to conventional wastewater
treatment. Several examples of alternative wastewater treatment are Living Machine
technology, Ecoparqué in Mexico and engineered or constructed wetlands.

Natural wetlands already function to filter water and trap sediment before it enters
a body of water. This document concentrates on engineered wetlands as the main
alternative to conventional wastewater treatment because they use little energy, provide
wildlife habitat and can effectively treat wastewater. A theoretical design of a wetland
serves as an example of how to design a wastewater treatment wetland. The sustainability
of the wetland is then compared to conventional treatment using the Ecological Footprint
model. In rural areas or for small communities, wetlands are cost effective and
sustainable. In urban areas where land is scarce, conventional treatment might still be the
only option.
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all of my committee members for their help with my senior

project. They are: Harold Leverenz from the Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering; Loren Oki, a UC Davis faculty member of the Landscape Architecture

Department specializing in water quality; Steve Greco, a UC Davis faculty member of the

Landscape Architecture Department specializing in ecology, and Randy Dahlgren, a UC

Davis faculty member of the Land, Air and Water Resources Department specializing in

soil science. They either directed me to or lent me the sources I used for the major part of

this project. They took time out of their busy schedules to meet with and give me advice.

With their expert guidance, I was able to complete my senior project. I would also like to

thank my family for their support and editing help.

ii
 Table of Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgements ii

Table of Contents iii

List of Figures iv

Chapter 1: Introduction: The Future of Water Use 1

Chapter 2: Conventional Wastewater Treatment 4

Chapter 3: Natural Wastewater Treatment 7

Aquatic Floating Plant Systems
Ecoparqué
Treatment Wetlands

Chapter 4: Design of Treatment Wetland in Alamo, California 21

Chapter 5: Research Conclusions 32

Bibliography 36

iii
 List of Figures and Tables

List of Figures

3.1 Living Machine 8

3.2 Restorer 9
3.3 Ecoparqué 9
3.4 Surface flow and subsurface flow wetland diagram 16
3.5 Bird watching in the Arcata Marsh 17
3.6 Map of the Arcata Marsh 18
4.1 Grading Plan 24
4.2 Master Plan 25
4.3 Section 26

List of Tables

2.1 Principal constituents of concern in wastewater treatment 5

2.2 NPDES permit requirements 6
3.1 Minimum HRTs 15
3.2 Plants in the Arcata Marsh 19
4.1 Ecological Footprint model land categories 27
4.2 Wastewater treatment energy use 29
5.2 Maximum effluent concentrations 33

iv
CHAPTER 1
The Future of
Water Use

1
 Water scarcity world wide is and will continue to be caused by the growing

human population and also an increase in the amount of water used per capita. In the 20th

century, the world population tripled and the uses of water resources increased by a factor

of 6. The most important uses of water are for drinking and for food production.

Currently over a billion people have insufficient access to safe drinking water and half

the world has inadequate sanitation (HRH 2002). Groundwater levels are falling and all

types of water bodies including rivers, lakes and oceans are becoming increasingly

polluted.

Global warming, sometimes called global climate change, is another factor that

will most likely affect water scarcity in the future. It is caused by greenhouse gas build-

up, mostly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere which traps heat. Global warming is

predicted to cause weather patterns to change such as creating drought in areas that

normally get adequate amounts of rain (Natural Resources Defense Council 2006).

Many issues that cause water scarcity could be avoided with better water

management. One of the reasons that water is not used efficiently in the United States is

that the federal government subsidizes the cost of water, so water is inexpensive. If

people had to pay the actual cost of water, they would use it more efficiently (Landry

1999). For example, the water for farms in the Central Valley is heavily subsidized; if it

were not, farmers might keep water on site instead of letting it flow off site through tail

ditches to a nearby body of water. Also, farmers might be inclined to purchase purified

wastewater, which would be a good way to reuse water. The industrialized, developed

countries are the most inefficient with their water use and could reduce water problems

for themselves in the future by conserving water now.

2
 In the United States, when water begins to become scarce, one of the first sources

of water people will turn to on a large scale will be graywater. Graywater is defined as

water from a household excluding water from kitchens and toilets. In California it is legal

to use graywater from bathroom sinks, showers and washing machines to irrigate

landscape (California Gray Water Law, 1997). All that is needed to use graywater is a

simple filter and additional piping to divert the water from the sewers. Graywater makes

up 50% of the wastewater generated by households (Phelps 2007) and so will be an

important source of water for reusable purposes. The other 50% of household wastewater

comes from toilets and kitchen sinks and will also be important to reuse. Purifying

wastewater so that it can be reused or even deposited back in the environment is a

complicated process. The rest of this document focuses on the sustainable treatment and

reuse of wastewater.

There are several ways to make wastewater treatment a more sustainable process.

For a process to be sustainable, it should maintain and promote biodiversity,

renewability, and resource productivity over time (Office of Biorenewables Programs

2007). “If we are to live sustainably, we must ensure that we use the essential products

and processes of nature no more quickly than they can be renewed and that we discharge

wastes no more quickly than they can be absorbed.” (Wackernagel 1996) Another aspect

of sustainability is maintaining the health of humans, the environment, the economy and

the community. The wastewater treatment options that are compared in this document are

conventional wastewater treatment, Living Machines, and treatment wetlands. On site

wastewater systems such as leach fields were not looked at because they are typically for

individual residences in rural areas.

3
CHAPTER 2
Conventional
Wastewater
Treatment

4
 There are many types of wastewater including domestic, commercial, industrial

and agricultural. (Crites, 1998) Each type of wastewater has a different chemical makeup,

so for simplicity’s sake this document will focus on domestic wastewater treatment.

Although wastewater technology has improved recently, cities usually wait until their

current wastewater treatment plants, which can be 70 years old, begin to fail before

updating their technology.

The constituents in untreated wastewater can be divided into three types: physical,

chemical and biological. Physical constituents are the particles or solids in the effluent.

Effluent is defined as liquid waste that is untreated, partially treated or completely

treated. Chemical constituents include nutrients and heavy metals. Biological constituents

include coliform organisms and other microorganisms such as bacteria, protozoa,

helminthes and viruses (Crites 1998). These constituents need to be removed for various

reasons (Table 1).

Table 2.1 Principal constituents of concern in wastewater treatment (Crites 1998)

5
 Conventional wastewater treatment goes through 3 stages. In the first stage, which

is primary treatment, solids settle out of the wastewater. The solids are called sludge and

are usually taken to the landfill. The next stage is called secondary treatment, where

dissolved or suspended materials are converted to a microbial biomass so that they can be

separated from the water. The third step called tertiary treatment is where particles and

nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen are removed (Water Environment Federation

2007). Finally, the water is disinfected, usually with chlorine and sometimes ozone or

ultraviolet (UV) radiation. In order to discharge treated wastewater to surface water a

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required (Reed

1990).

Table 2.2 NPDES permit requirements for Central Contra Costa Wastewater Treatment Facility
(Discharge Prohibitions 2007)
Constituent Units Monthly Weekly Daily Max Instantaneous Instantaneous
Max Max Min Max
BOD mg/L 25 40 50 - -
TSS mg/L 30 45 60 - -
pH s.u. - - - 6 9
Oil and grease mg/L 10 - 20 - -
Copper μg/L 14 - 20 - -
Lead μg/L 3.5 - 8.2 - -
Mercury μg/L 0.018 - 0.046 - -
Cyanide μg/L 2.8 - 6.4 - -
Acrylonitrile μg/L 6.3 - 13 - -
Dioxin μg/L 0.014x10-6 - 0.028x10-6 - -
Enterococci 35 colonies - - - -
Bacteria /100 ml

6
CHAPTER 3

Natural Wastewater
Treatment

7
Aquatic Floating Plant Systems:

Living Machines were created by John

Todd, an ecological designer and founder of the

nonprofit organization Ocean Arks International.

Living Machines are a series of tanks with plants

and other organisms contained in them. Wastewater

is then pumped through these tanks to naturally treat

the water. They mimic wetland ecology to treat

Figure 3.1 Living machine
wastewater, but require less space and do it more (www.livingroutes.org)

efficiently than a wetland because the conditions can be controlled so they are more ideal.

For example, the organisms have more oxygen than in a wetland because air is bubbled

through the tanks. Some Living Machines also produce beneficial by-products such as

methane gas, edible and ornamental plants and fish (Todd 1994).

The United States Congress had the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) do a

study of four different Living Machines and found that they are not any less expensive

than conventional wastewater treatment. Because the tanks are aerated about the same

amount as in conventional wastewater treatment, the same amount of energy is used. In

colder areas, Living Machines must be located inside greenhouses which also use energy

to heat and cool them. If a renewable source of energy is used, then Living Machines

would be more sustainable and cost effective. However the EPA found that the plants do

not significantly contribute to the treatment but just make the wastewater treatment more

aesthetic (US EPA 1997). Living Machines are still being built. One advantage is that

8
they provide educational value. The Living Classroom, an environmental education

center that is being built in San Francisco, will be completed in fall of 2007 and will have

a Living Machine among its other sustainable features (Brun 2007).

Ocean Arks International, the same organization

that created Living Machines, developed Restorers,

which are floating rafts of plants and other organisms

that clean the water. Restorers can be used to clean

polluted lakes or to treat wastewater by building

artificial ponds (Ocean Arks International). This company

Figure 3.2 Restorer (Ocean
Arks International)
also designs treatment wetlands, although they are not the

pioneers for treatment wetlands.

Ecoparqué

Ecoparqué, a combination of a park and a wastewater treatment plant (Figure 3.3),

is located in Tijuana, Mexico, and was created in response to poor sanitary conditions and

a need to treat wastewater

from the city. The wastewater

used to go straight into the

Tijuana River, which runs

along the US Mexico border.

Oscar Romo, the Coastal

Training Program
Figure 3.3 Ecoparque
Coordinator of the Tijuana (www.nmsu.edu/~frontera/may01/feat3.html)

9
River National Estuarine Research Reserve, came up with an environmentally friendly

solution in the creation of Ecoparqué (Bedar 2000).

Ecoparqué treats the wastewater generated from a neighborhood of 1,200 home

and uses no chemicals. The wastewater flows by gravity to Ecoparqué. A microcriba

filters out larger organic matter, which is then composted with tiger worms and used in

Ecoparqué. Two biofilters, which are large tanks filled with bacteria colonies, treat the

water. A clarifier settles the solids out of the water. The operators test the water and if it

does not meet their standards, they re-circulate it through the biofilters. The water, which

still has nutrients in it, is then used to irrigate the plants that make up Ecoparqué (Bedar

2000).

There was once a problem in Ecoparqué because there was a high level of

industrial solvents and heavy metals in the water. This was caused by small industrial

facilities within some homes. The problem was solved by explaining the dilemma to the

residents and once they understood that it was a problem, the water became cleaner

(Bedar 2000).

An important feature of Ecoparqué is that smaller decentralized wastewater

treatment systems can be used to successfully serve small communities within a city and

that the water can be reused to irrigate parks. People there are willing to use a park even

though it is irrigated with treated wastewater. Also, in some circumstances, the nutrients

can be left in the water if it is going to be used to irrigate plants which could make use the

nutrients.

10
Treatment Wetlands:

A wetland is defined as “an area that is regularly saturated by surface water or

groundwater and is characterized by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted to life in

saturated soil conditions" (US EPA, 1994). Wetlands can be divided into two categories;

marshes and swamps (Reed 1990). Marshes are characterized by the presence of

emergent, non-woody species of plants, and swamps are characterized by the presence of

woody plants. Wetlands are most often found near bodies of water and are the transitional

area between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. They filter the water by trapping

sediment and organic matter and are sometimes referred to as the “kidneys of the

landscape.” Wetlands can be sinks (more of a substance goes into them than comes out)

of some materials and sources (more of a substance goes out of them than comes in) for

other materials. Wetlands lessen both flooding and droughts (Mitsch 2000). They

ameliorate flooding because they give the water a place to flood into, and they lessen

droughts because they store water organisms to survive during dry periods. They also

provide valuable habitat for fish and other wildlife, such as various bird species.

In the past, the United States federal government policies encouraged and

subsidized the conversion of wetlands to other uses such as agriculture and by the mid

1980s half of the wetlands in the United States equaling 117 million acres had been

destroyed. Wetlands today are protected; they are the only habitat type that is completely

regulated on both private and public land in the United States. They are also protected in

other parts of the world (Committee on Characterization of Wetlands 1995).

11
 The importance of wetlands became widely recognized in the 1970’s. Due to

public concern about water pollution, the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 and

amended in 1977. It set regulations controlling the quality of water or any substances

entering into surface water. The passing of this law is one of the main reasons that

constructed wetlands were considered as a way to purify wastewater (Reed 1990).

The first use of wetlands to treat wastewater was simply discharging the effluent

into existing natural wetlands. This practice raised concerns about possible negative

effects wastewater could have on the wetland ecosystem, so constructed wetlands became

a new way to treat wastewater (Mitsch 2000).

Many wetland plants can be successfully propagated and the hydrological

conditions can be simulated, so it is fairly simple to design and build wetlands (Reed

1990). The exact species of plants are not important, because most of the wastewater

treatment is done by other organisms that live within the wetland, such as bacteria.

Treatment wetlands are more effective at higher temperatures, but still work at low

temperatures. They can function when winter temperatures are well below freezing

(Gearheart 1993). Sometimes in very cold climates, the wastewater is stored during the

winter (US EPA 1993). Wastewater is fairly warm (55 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit in warm

climates) and so treatment wetlands have a warmer temperature than a natural wetland

would. A warm temperature could have a negative effect on some species of fish that

might be living in the wetland. However, the warmer temperature could be beneficial to

wastewater treatment because the optimal temperature for the bacteria which perform the

treatment is 77 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit (Crites 1998).

12
 Treatment wetlands differ from natural wetlands in that they are more

continuously flooded, whereas in natural wetlands the water level fluctuates seasonally

(Crites, 1990). Engineered wetlands can be used to treat anything from raw sewage to

secondarily treated water, in which case they are called polishing or tertiary wetlands

(Reed 1990).

Engineered wetlands are best planted with plugs, which are small young plants,

but can also be planted with rhizomes or clumps of emergent plants with the tops cut off.

Clumps of emergent plants have the best survival rate, but take more time. Rhizomes are

pieces of stem that grow horizontally below the soil and easily develop new roots and

shoots. Rhizomes have a lower success rate, but take less time to plant and cost less

money. Plugs are the best because they have a fairly good success rate although not as

good as clumps of emergent plants and are fairly fast and inexpensive to install. The

wetland should ideally be planted in fall so that they are kept moist during the winter, but

can be planted in any season as long as they are kept moist (Gearheart 1993). If seeds are

used, they should be planted in spring to take full advantage of the growing season

(France 2003). Plant propagation materials should be collected from a local source,

because they are already adapted to the local environment (Gearheart 1993).

In wastewater treatment, odors are caused by hydrogen sulfide which is created

by anaerobic conditions. Using certain plants can affect the odor of a wetland. For

example, cattails should not be used widely because they create anaerobic conditions.

Odor can be reduced by “pretreatment to reduce the total organic loading on the aquatic

system, effective effluent distribution, step feeding of influent waste stream and

supplemental aeration.” (Gearheart 1993)

13
 The ideal soil type on which to construct a wetland is clay. The bottom of the

wetland must be sealed so contaminants do not leak into the ground water. A liner, like

the type used to create ponds, can be used. Also, sometimes a layer of clay or bentonite

can be laid down, compacted and topped with gravel (France 2003).

Wetlands are very effective at removing organic matter, both particulate and

dissolved. The roots of the plants provide air and habitat for organisms such as bacteria,

fungi, and aquatic invertebrates that break down the organic matter. Organic matter is

measured in biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) (Reed

1990). Biological oxygen demand measures the amount of oxygen that organisms in the

water are using (Gearheart 1993), and a high BOD would mean that the water requires

further treatment. Wetlands can handle an organic loading of up to 200 lbs/acre/day

without the BOD rate becoming too high and an even greater amount of organic matter

before the TSS becomes too high (Reed 1990).

There are several reasons that organic matter needs to be removed. The first

reason is that a high amount of suspended solids decreases the clarity of the water making

it difficult for aquatic organisms to catch prey. Another reason is that it can clog the gills

of fish and kill them. Also suspended particles block light needed by photosynthetic

organisms (Menesini 2006).

Nitrogen is removed by microbes which change ammonia to nitrate and nitrate

into nitrogen gas. Nitrogen is also fixed from the air by plants, and so removal of nitrogen

is most effective at higher levels of nitrogen input. Phosphorus has no atmospheric source

or sink, but is bound to the substrate of the wetland. Both of these nutrients are also taken

up by the plants, but unless the plants are harvested, they return to the water or soil on an

14
annual basis (Reed 1990). It is important that nitrogen and phosphorus are removed

because when the water is discharged into a natural water body with high amounts of

nutrients, eutrophication occurs. Eutrophication occurs when there is an excessive growth

of organisms, such as algae, causing a depletion of oxygen, which causes the death of

other organisms such as fish that need a certain amount of oxygen in the water to live. If

high amounts of nitrogen get into the drinking water, it is dangerous for humans because

nitrogen can bind to oxyhemoglobin in the blood preventing it from being able to carry

oxygen. This is called Blue Baby Syndrome because babies are affected more severely

than adults. Blue Baby Syndrome can cause the baby to have a blue tint because tissues

are deprived of oxygen (Park 2005).

Metals are primarily removed by sedimentation after chemical reactions cause

them to precipitate out. Some removal is also achieved by plant uptake. Metals should be

removed because they can be toxic to organisms (Menesini 2006).

Fecal coliform organisms such as E coli need to be removed from the wastewater.

Their presence indicates that other pathogens are likely to be present which could cause

diseases such as dysentery, typhoid fever and hepatitis A (US EPA 2006). The removal

mechanism for fecal coliform organisms is not exactly known but is thought to be one or

more of the following: sedimentation, adsorption, temperature ingestion or denaturing.

Wetlands remove 99% of fecal coliform organisms after about 6 days and 99.9% after 10

days (Gearheart 1993); therefore wetlands can effectively remove pathogens that are

hazardous to human health.

15
 Each substance has a minimum hydraulic retention time or the time a particle of

water takes to travel through the wetland for the substance to be removed to acceptable

levels (Table3.1).

Table 3.1 Minimum HRTs (Crites 1990)

Substance removed Minimum Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) to remove
BOD 5-7 days
TSS 5 days
Nitrogen 3-5 days
Phosphorus 21 days

There are two types of man-made treatment wetlands: subsurface flow and

surface flow. Both types of wetlands have two main similarities: having low energy

requirements because they use solar energy, and providing habitat for wildlife. As

mentioned previously, over half the wetlands in the United States have been destroyed.

Since wetlands are the

primary resting grounds

for migrating birds,

they have fewer and

fewer places to stop,

rest and eat. Wetlands

also provide habitat for

fish, mammals, reptiles

and amphibians.

Subsurface flow Figure 3.4 Surface flow and subsurface flow wetland diagram
(Mitsch 2000)
wetlands are made by

16
placing a layer of aggregate or gravel at a depth of 1.5 to 3.3 feet (Leverenz 2002). The

wastewater flows through the aggregate and the plants are rooted to it (Figure 3.1).

Surface flow wetlands consist of wastewater flowing across the soil and much of the

microbial activity happens on and around the stems of the plants (Gearheart 1993). A

surface flow wetland has the potential for problem with mosquitoes, but the subsurface

flow wetland’s water is underneath the aggregate, so it does not have a problem with

mosquitoes. However, the advantage of surface flow wetlands is that they are cheaper to

build than subsurface flow wetlands (Leverenz 2002).

Built Examples:

The Arcata Marsh is the

most well known wastewater

treatment wetland in

California. It provides tertiary

treatment for the entire city of

Arcata. Not only does it treat

wastewater, it also provides

wildlife habitat and its paths

Figure 3.5 Bird watching in the Arcata Marsh
are used extensively for public (http://www.birdandhike.com/jlboone/Me/DCP_4793a.jpg)

recreation such as walking and bird watching (Figure 3.2). Arcata first built a small

experimental marsh in 1979 to test if a marsh could effectively treat their wastewater.

This experiment was successful and became the nursery for planting the Arcata Marsh

which was completed in 1986 (Couch 2007).

17
 Much of the wastewater treatment in Arcata is the same as conventional

wastewater treatment with the wetland providing tertiary treatment. First a bar screen

filters out items such as plastic or rags which cannot be composted. Then the solids settle

out in a clarifier. The solids go into an anaerobic digester which produces methane that is

used to heat the digester. During the summer, the excess methane is burned off in a flare.

If the marsh had more funds, they would get the equipment to use the excess methane to

generate electricity. The sludge is then placed in drying beds and composted with

hydrocotyle, a plant that is harvested from the wetlands. The compost is used as a soil

amendment in city parks (Couch 2007).

The wastewater goes into oxidation ponds where more solids settle out of the

water and organic matter within the water is broken down. Then the water is piped into

the marsh. It is treated with chlorine both before entering the marsh and after leaving it. It

is probably not necessary to disinfect the water twice, but must be done because it is a

city imposed standard. The main purpose of the marsh is to remove the algae from the

water. The marsh tries to maintain close to 100 % vegetation cover, so that little to no

sunlight reaches the water and no algae can grow. After the water flows through the

marsh, it is discharged into Humboldt Bay (Couch 2007). See Figure 3.3 for a map of the

Arcata Marsh and where the water flows.

18
Figure 3.6 Map of the Arcata Marsh (http://www.gamlyn.com/creative/c_3_arcatamarshmap.php)

The main differences between conventional wastewater treatment and the Arcata

Marsh are that the solids are used for compost instead of taken to the dump. Also, in the

final treatment step, instead of bubbling oxygen through the water in concrete tanks as in

conventional treatment, a wetland is used. The roots of the plants provide the oxygen and

the sun is the source of energy. The Arcata Marsh has two ponds where final effluent is

mixed with sea water and fish such as steelhead and cut throat trout are raised and

released into the wild (Couch 2007).

Table 3.2 Plants in the Arcata Marsh (Friends of the Arcata Marsh)

Common Name Scientific Name

Brass buttons Cotula coronopifolia
Bulrush Scirpus acutus
Broadleaf Cattail Typha latifolia
Common mare’s-tails Hippuris vulgaris
Common rush Juncus effusus
Cordgrass Spartina densiflora
19
Duckweed Lemna miniscula
Jaumea Jaumea carnosa
Marsh pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides
Marsh rosemary Limonium californicum
Pickleweed Salicornia virginica
Saltbush Atriplex patula
Sea arrow-grass Triglochin maritimum
Umbrella sedge Cyperus eragrostis
Water parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa
Water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica

There are three plants that dominate the marsh; two of which are useful (Figure

3.2). The marsh pennywort is an important plant because it provides food for the ducks

and the bulrush oxygenates the water. The cattail which has taken over much of the

marsh is unwanted in large quantities because it creates anaerobic conditions. Some

common birds that are found in the marsh are mallards, marsh wrens, northern harriers,

ospreys, peregrine falcons, song sparrows, snowy egrets, white-tailed kites and wood

ducks (Friends of the Arcata Marsh).

In Petaluma, California, a wastewater treatment wetland is currently being built

and should be finished in 2008. It used the Arcata Marsh as a model, but there are a few

differences. The Petaluma Wetlands disinfect their water with UV radiation instead of

chlorine (Petaluma Wetland Alliance (PWA) 2005). In addition, instead of discharging

the treated water into a bay, Petaluma plans on using it to irrigate city parks and golf

courses (Martin 2006).

20
CHAPTER 4

Design of
Treatment Wetland
in Alamo,
California

21
 Alamo, California was chosen as the location for the theoretical design of a

wastewater treatment wetland. Alamo is a town located about one hour east of San

Francisco and has a population of 16,000 (City-Data.com 2007). The average temperature

ranges from 38 to 84 degrees Fahrenheit and the average precipitation during the year is

23.6 inches (Hoare 2007). The majority of the rainfall occurs during the winter, which

causes an additional amount of water to flow into the wetland during this time. Reuse of

the water for irrigation is difficult because there is more water available at a time when

plants do not need to be irrigated.

The site chosen for the Alamo Wetland is a 4.7 acre parcel of land in a residential

neighborhood. It was an empty lot which was recently turned into a neighborhood park.

The wetland is theoretically designed as if the city decided to build a treatment wetland in

the empty lot instead. The slope of the site is about 3.5% with the north end being higher.

According to a soil survey, the soil type on the site is Clear Lake Clay, a poorly drained

soil and Lodo Clay Loam, a well drained soil with sandstone and shale underneath (US

Dept. of Agriculture 1977).

The wetland will treat the wastewater from about 2,020 houses which is over 12%

of the town’s population. The wetland design is a subsurface flow wetland mainly

because subsurface wetlands have less odor than surface flow wetlands which would be

an advantage because it is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. Also, the

proposed design will not have a problem with mosquitoes as there are no pools of water

exposed to the surface. (Leverenz 2002). The size of the aggregate is between 0.12 and

1.25 inches with the aggregate around the inlets is a little bigger with a maximum size of

22
2 inches. The larger size will prevent clogging (Crites 1998). The aggregate will consist

mostly of recycled concrete which has been broken up. One advantage of using recycled

concrete is that it would avoid having to take up landfill space for old concrete. Another

advantage is the cost factor because natural rock has become more expensive and scarce.

Quite often recycled concrete is available closer to the construction site, thus reducing

transportation energy and cost.

The site was re-graded (Figure 4.1) so that the wetland cells have a slope of less

than 0.75%. The cells could have been tiered, but are not so that the trail that runs

through the wetland is ADA accessible. ADA stands for the American Disabilities Act

and ensures that public places are accessible to people with disabilities. As can be seen on

the master plan, (Figure 4.2) and the section (Figure 4.3) the main trail is 6 feet wide and

winds from the parking lot through the cells and then loops back. There are also three

foot wide dirt paths around each cell for maintenance access. The site can also be

accessed from the north side via a ramp and the site can be walked through on the way

somewhere else. The slopes on the north and south sides of the site are planted with

vegetation both to prevent erosion and to make the site aesthetically pleasing.

23
FROM SEWER INFLUENT PIPE

GRADING PLAN
TO GOLF COURSE

FIGURE 4.1
EFFLUENT PIPE
Figure 4.2
MASTER PLAN
 Path Wetland Cell Path Path Wetland Cell

Figure 4.3 Section

To determine the size of the wetland several equations were used.

To determine the surface are for a subsurface wetland the following equation was used:

A = (Q)(t)(3.07)/[(n)(d)]

A = Surface area in acres

Q = Average daily flow through wetland in Mgal/day
t = Detention time in days
d = depth of water in wetland in ft
n = plant based void ratio, 0.65 to 0.75 typically

Since the site chosen for the wetland is a specific area, Q, the average daily flow was

solved for:

Q = (A)(n)(d)/[(t)3.07]

A = 2.66 acres (combined area of cells)

n = .7
d = 3 ft
t = 5 days

Q = .364 Mgal/day (or 364,272 gal/day)

(Crites 1998)

In subsurface wetlands storms will probably not affect the performance of the wetland,

unless it is an extremely wet climate. In surface flow wetlands it would (EPA 1999).

To determine the how many residences the wetland could serve this equation was used:
26
Household flow = 40 gal/home/day + (35 gal/person/day)(number of persons/home)
= 40 + (35)(4)
= 180 gal/home/day

Q/180 = 2023 residences

(Crites 1998)

The experimental wetlands in Arcata took two years to become completely

vegetated (Gearheart 1993). Another source states that it takes 2-3 years for plants to

become established and 4-6 years for an adequate amount of litter and sediment to

develop (Mitsch 2000). The Alamo Wetland would be planted in late fall right before the

rainy season. This way the plants will have a chance to establish themselves before

wastewater is applied. In the spring, half of the houses will have their wastewater directed

through the wetland. The next spring the wetland vegetation will be more mature and the

other half of the houses will have their water piped to the wetland. If wastewater flows

are increased gradually, then plants will be better able to adapt to continuous flooding

(Crites 1990). The primary plant species used in the wetland is bulrush Scirpus acutus.

Also present are pickleweed, common rush and sedge, all of which are native to

California.

The proposed Alamo wetland is split into cells. If some cells need to be

maintained or drained, then the rest of the wetland can continue functioning. During the

winter when there is an increase in the amount of water, all of the cells will be used.

During the summer about half the cells will be used. Which ones are used will alternate,

creating dry periods. Season fluctuation in a wetland creates greater biodiversity. It also

will make the wetland more effective at treating the wastewater, because allowing it to

dry out will oxygenate the sediment that normally has no oxygen. The wetland is an

27
average of 3 feet deep, with interspersed deep and shallow areas to slow the water down

(Mitsch 2000).

The bank of the wetland has a slope of 5:1. Plants that are adapted to grow in

shallow water will thrive farther up the slope and different species of plants will grow in

the deeper water, creating greater biodiversity than one depth of water would. The slope

of the substrate should be less than 1% so that the water flows slowly through the

wetland. The ratio of the length to the width, also known as the aspect ratio should be a

minimum of 2:1 with longer being better (Mitsch 2000). The cells of the proposed Alamo

wetland have an aspect ratio of 6:1. Longer wetland cells are more expensive to build

because more berms have to be built, so the cells usually don’t get longer than 10:1.

There are multiple influent points where the wastewater enters the wetland so that the

wastewater is distributed throughout the wetland and multiple collection points. If there

were only one outlet for the water, then the velocity of the water would be too high

because water which was spread over a large surface area would be channeled to one

point.

No disinfection of the water is planned since the wetland should be able to

remove at least 99% of the fecal coliform organisms. The water that has passed through

the wetland will be monitored for fecal coliform organisms as well as BOD, TTS, heavy

metals and toxins. If a disinfection system is needed or if the residents demand it, then a

UV disinfection system can be installed.

The treated water from the wetland would then be used to irrigate the 88 acre

Round Hill Golf Course locate 0.7 miles away. Subsurface irrigation will be used so that

there will be very little human exposure to the water. In the winter when little to no

28
irrigation is needed, the water will percolate through the soil until it reaches the

groundwater. The golf course grass is Perennial Rye grass (Golf Link 2007) which is

moderately tolerant to salts and so is suitable for irrigation with recycled water (Asano

2007).

To determine the sustainability of this wetland, the Ecological Footprint model

was used. The Ecological Footprint is a concept developed by William Rees which

measures the land area needed to sustain a person or population of people based on their

resource consumption and waste produced. It looks at sustainability on a broader level

rather than just looking at one aspect such as loss of rainforest habitat or the extinction of

the tiger salamander (Wackernagel 1996).

The Ecological Footprint model divides land use into 4 categories (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Ecological Footprint model land categories (Wackernagel 1996)

Energy land is calculated to compare the sustainability of wetlands to conventional

treatment.

29
 Table 4.2 Wastewater treatment energy use (Leverenz 2004)
Treatment process
Conventional Subsurface
activated flow constructed
Parameters Units sludge wetland
Total energy kWh/1000 gal 4 < 0.4
consumption
Fraction of % 56 0
energy used for
aeration
Fraction of % 20 100
energy used for
pumping
Fraction of % 24 0
energy used for
other processes

The local power company gets 13% of its electricity from renewable sources

(Pacific Gas and Electric 2007). Renewable energy has an average ecological footprint of

0.1 hectares for 100 gigajoules(GJ) per year and fossil fuel has a footprint of 1.0 hectares

for 100 gigajoules per year (Wackernagel 1996). The wetland uses 0.4 kWh/1000 or a

total of 145.6kWh (.524 GJ) (Table 3.3). Conventional wastewater treatment uses

4kWh/1000gal which would mean 364kWh (1.31 GJ) to treat the same amount of water

as the wetland treats.

Wetland footprint calculation:

0.524 GJ(13%)(0.1/100) + 0.524GJ(87%)(1/100) = 0.004627 hectares or 0.0114 acres

Conventional footprint calculation:

1.31 GJ(13%)(0.1/100) + 1.31 GJ(87%)(1/100) = 0.01157 hectares or 0.0286 acres

Conventional wastewater treatment’s ecological footprint is 40% larger than the

ecological footprint of the wetland. The area calculation is an underestimate because the

30
Ecological Footprint model cannot take every variable into consideration. For example,

the only pollutant in the model is carbon dioxide (Wackernagel 1996).

31
CHAPTER 5

Research
Conclusions

32
 Conventional wastewater treatment takes up the least land area, and so it would

better for urban areas and areas where land is more expensive. Using standard treatment,

the cost for a small community to achieve the same level of treatment as large

communities is much higher (Gearheart 1993). The biggest obstacle to overcome for this

non-conventional type of wastewater treatment is the residents’ aversion to having waste

near their home, or out in the open and not contained. They would rather not think about

where their waste goes and what happens to it. Natural systems are thought to be inferior

to conventional systems, but the naturally treated water quality is equal to or better than

that of conventional systems (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Maximum effluent concentrations ( Leverenz 2004)

Treatment process
Typical Conventional Subsurface
domestic activated flow constructed
Parameters Units wastewater sludge wetland
BOD mg/L 190 10 10
COD mg/L 430 70 70
TSS mg/L 210 6 10
Ammonia-N mg/L 25 25 10
Total N mg/L 40 35 10
Total P mg/L 10 10 5
Turbidity NTU N/A 5 5
Fecal coliform CFU/100 mL 105 23 23

Different components of the various processes of wastewater treatment have

advantages and disadvantages. Some features can be more sustainable, such as finding

alternatives to using dangerous chemicals to disinfect the water. Disinfecting with

chlorine or ozone can have a negative affect on human health, because they form

carcinogenic compounds. UV light does not use any chemicals, but for it to be used to

33
kill pathogens in water, the water must be relatively clear and might have to be filtered.

Disinfecting wastewater with UV light uses more energy than conventional disinfection

techniques, but if a renewable form of energy is used, then it would be more sustainable.

One advantage that chlorine and ozone have over UV disinfection is that they stay in the

water and prevent pathogens for a period of time after disinfection occurs whereas UV

disinfection does not.

Using purified wastewater for irrigation provides an alternative to using potable

or drinkable water for irrigation. When treated wastewater is used for irrigation, the water

standards are more relaxed because it does not have to comply with aquatic toxicity

requirements. However, reclaimed water has a higher salinity and will eventually

increase the salinity of the ground water or not be appropriate for irrigation in some

situations (City of Davis 2003).

Each of the two types of engineered wetlands has advantages and disadvantages.

Subsurface flow wetlands have less odor, and prevent mosquito problems. Surface flow

wetlands create a better habitat for wildlife and are cheaper to build. Using wetlands to

treat wastewater takes up more land than conventional treatment, but uses less energy.

Conventional treatment is the best option in some urban situations where land is scarce.

Wetland treatment should definitely be considered for wastewater treatment in more rural

areas and for small satellite communities which are far away from a wastewater treatment

plant where it would be expensive to build a long pipeline. However, wetlands can also

treat the wastewater from an entire city as at the Arcata Marsh. The advantages of

wetlands also include attractive landscape, wildlife habitat creation, minimal sludge

34
generation, low operation and maintenance cost and educational uses (Ocean Arcs

International).

35
BIBLIOGRAPHY

36
Asano, T. (2007). Water Reuse. United States of America. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.

Brun, B. (2007). Heron’s Head Park gets Living Classroom. Sustainable Industries
Journal.

Committee on Characterization of Wetlands. (1995). Wetlands Characteristics and

Boundaries. Washington, D. C. National Academic Press.

Crites, R. W., Tchobanoglous, G. (1998). Small and Decentralized Wastewater

Management Systems. United States of America. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

France, R. L. (2003). Wetland Design. New York, NY. W. W. Norton & Company,
Inc.

Gearheart, R. A. (1993). Use of Constructed Wetlands to Treat Domestic Wastewater,

City of Arcata, California p. 142-162. In US EPA. Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Technology Recent Developments. Noys Data Corporation.

Leverenz, H. (2002). Review of Technologies for the Onsite Treatment of

Wastewater in California. Davis, CA. Center for Environmental and Water
Resources Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
University of California, Davis.

Martin, G. (2006). Green Technology to make Sewage a Less Dirty Word. San
Francisco Chronicle.

Menesini, M. M. (2006). More than 35,000 Tons of Pollutants Kept Out of the
Environment Last Year. Pipeline Vol. 10 No. 2. Contra Costa County Sanitary
District.

Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G. (2000). Wetlands. Columbus, Ohio. John Wiley and
Sons.

Petaluma Wetlands Alliance (PWA). (2005). “Moving the Wastewater Treatment Plant to
Construction.” Petaluma, CA. PWA

Reed, S. C. (1990). Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment. Alexandria, VA. Water
Environment Federation.

Todd, N. J. and Todd, J. (1994). From Eco-Cities to Living Machines: Principles of

Ecological Design. Berkeley, CA. North Atlantic Books.

United States Department of Agriculture. (1977). Soil Survey of Contra Costa Count,
California. United States. National Cooperative Soil Survey.

37
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1999). Constructed Wetland
Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. United States. EPA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1994). Great Lakes Report
to Congress. United States. EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/rptcong/1994/glossary.htm

Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint. Canada. New Society
Publishers.

Other Sources:

Bedar, M. A. and Sharp, T. W. (Producers), and Bedar M. A. (Director).

(2000). Ecoparqué. [DVD] Environ Mental Productions.

California Gray Water Law. (1997).

http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/Revised_Graywater_Standards.pdf

City of Davis. (2003). Status Report on Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities.

Davis, CA. City of Davis Department of Public Works.
http://www.cityofdavis.org/pw/water/pdfs/wastewater-status.pdf

City-Data.com. (2007). Alamo, California. http://www.city-data.com/city/Alamo-

California.html

Couch, D. (2007). Interview with senior wastewater technician. Arcata, CA

Discharge Prohibitions. (2007). Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Collection

System and WWTP

Friends of the Arcata Marsh. Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~ere_dept/marsh/

Golf Link. (2007). Round Hill Golf Course. Alamo, CA. Hillclimb Media.
http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/golf-course.asp?course=1008

HRH, Prince of Orange. (2002). No Water No Future. World Summit on Sustainable

Development. Johannesburg. http://www.nowaternofuture.org/

Landry, C. (1999). Water, water everywhere, waiting for a market. Orange County
Register. http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=162

Leverenz, H. (2004). Comparison of Natural, Conventional, and Technological

Wastewater Management Alternatives for Water Reuse.

38
Natural Resources Defense Council. (2006). Consequences of Global Warming. Natural
Resource Defense Council. http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp

Ocean Arks International. http://www.oceanarks.org/

Office of Biorenewables Programs. (2007). Glossary of Biorenewables Terms. Iowa State

University of Science and Technology.
http://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/resources/glossary-of-biorenewables-terms.html

Park, Julian, Finn, John and Cook, Richard. (2005). “Environmental Challenges in Farm
Management.” United Kingdom. The University of Reading.
http://www.ecifm.rdg.ac.uk/#Intro

Pacific Gas and Electric Company adds More Geothermal Energy to Renewable Energy
Mix. (2007). California. PG&E.
http://www.pge.com/news/news_releases/q2_2007/070510a.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2006). Monitoring and
Assessing Water Quality. United States. EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/stream/vms50.html

Water Environment Federation. (2007). Alexandria, VA

www.wef.org/publicinfo/newsroom/wastewater_glossary.jhtml

Hoare, R. (2007). World Climate. Butte and Tuttle Ltd.

http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N37W122+2200+040064C

39