Using a Regional Assessment of Wastewater Infrastructure:

The Case of the Hudson River Watershed

Sri Vedachalam, Brian G. Rahm and Susan J. Riha

Abstract

Aging/inadequate wastewater treatment infrastructure in NYS

Development of water resources infrastructure, including water and wastewater treatment

facilities, occurs over the span of many decades and is vital to the environmental and

economic well-being of a region. Maintaining infrastructure and addressing the needs of

evolving communities present a huge challenge for local and state government entities. In

2010, New York enacted the Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act which stipulated

that state agencies prioritize funding to public infrastructure projects that are consistent with

smart growth criteria as laid out in the Act. Our focus here is on water resource

infrastructure in New York’s Hudson River valley within the context of environmental water

quality, promoting smart growth, and economic development.

Preliminary investigation reveals multiple areas for improving management of water

resource infrastructure, including: 1) enhancing current state efforts to replace, upgrade

and/or decommission wastewater treatment facilities by developing relationships between

facility characteristics such as design capacity, violations, etc. and environmental and social

indicators such as water quality and population change; and 2) exploring the potential for

replacing small wastewater treatment plants (design flow capacity <0.1 MGD) with

appropriately designed decentralized treatment systems that may offer significant benefits

to communities through groundwater recharge, lower private and public costs, and

reduction of suburban sprawl. Initial results indicate that opportunities exist for more

effectively synthesizing smart growth concepts with current management approaches to

water resource infrastructure in the region, with the goal of providing environmental,

economic and public health services that are appropriate for current and anticipated

demographic conditions.

Ranked 2nd most prevalent cause of water quality impairment.

25% of the 610 facilities in NYS operating past their useful life expectancy.

24% of the decline in 30-year stream water quality due to sub-optimal

treatment facilities.

New York State Water Resources Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

http://wri.eas.cornell.edu/; nyswri@cornell.edu

1. Background

Sources: NYSDEC (2004); NYSDEC (2007)

4. Captive reach

3. Excess capacity 7. Decentralization

8. Conclusions

This work is supported by the Hudson River Estuary Program of the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation

Figure 3

(A) Conceptual representation of the term ‘captive reach.’

(B) Each sub-watershed shaded according to the percent of stream length downstream of

POTWs.

(C) Captive reach length (in miles) in each sub-watershed.

2. Regional inventory

An inventory of publically owned treatment works (POTWs) in the

Hudson River watershed.

5. Funding priorities

Figure 4

(A)

(B)

Figure 3

(A)

(B)

(C)

Figure 6

(A)

Financing

Federal funding through Clean Water Act has reduced from $2.4 billion

(1987) to $687 million (2008) – a 70% drop.

Consequently, municipal governments’ share of funding has gone up from

12.5% (1970).

At the municipal level, wastewater infrastructure is often the most

significant budgetary expense after roads & highways.

$36 billion needed over the next 20 years for replacement and repair.

The New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act of 2010

prioritizes funding of projects that promote smart growth.

Assist planners and policy-makers

at various government levels

Generate insight on the strategic

management of federal and state

funds

Ultimately support the maintenance

and improvement of New York’s

public health and environmental

assets

Goals

POTW capacity and room for

growth

Source water quality: protection vs.

remediation

Funding priorities and need for

assessment

Potential for

consolidation/cooperation and

decentralized treatment

Objectives

NYSPDES database

EPA ECHO compliance database

U.S. Census

NYSDEC Waterbody Inventory and Priority Waterbodies List; TMDL status

NYSDEC Intended Use Plan, Clean Water State Revolving Fund for Water Pollution

Control

Sources

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

Lower Hudson

Hudson-Wappinger

Middle Hudson

Rondout

Hudson-Hoosic

9-10

4-5

<1

Figure 2 (C)

(A)

(B)

POTW #1 POTW #2

Stream Flow Hudson River

“Headwaters” POTW

“Captive Reach”

Figure 2

(A) Number of POTWs in each sub-watershed.

(B) Excess capacity (per person equivalent) by sub-watershed.

(C) Decades until existing POTW capacity is reached, assuming current population growth

rate.

<200

350-400

>500

Figure 4

(A) Funds requested on multi-year CWSRF project list.

(B) Funds requested per capita on multi-year CWSRF project list (‘000,000).

(B)

Figure 6

(A) Soil suitability in the Hudson watershed

counties.

(B) Percentage of total area in a county that is

either classified as ‘not limiting’ or ‘somewhat

limiting’.

(C) A detailed soil suitability map for Rockland

County.

Figure 1. Streams color-coded to represent

the NYSDEC assessment as per the Priority

Waterbodies List. Green dots represent

POTWs.

6. Consolidation potential

Figure 5

(A)

0

0-5

40-45

(B)

Figure 5

(A) Design flow capacity of POTWs .

(B) Percentage of total capacity that could be involved in consolidation. Yellow dots represent

POTWs located within 2 miles of each other.

(C) Potential for consolidation.

Essex

Hamilton

Ulster

Warren

Greene

Dutchess

Albany

Rensselaer

Schenectady

Orange

Saratoga

Columbia

Fulton

Westchester

Putnam

Rockland

<25

25-35

>35

(C)

Washington

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

POTW Design Flow (MGD)

(C)

1

4-5

15

Note: Only sanitary sewer capacity is included

Some regions have excess capacity, while others do

not. POTW capacity is only one of the considerations

for future planning.

CSO plants need to be factored in.

Captive reach can be a useful measure of POTW

effectiveness.

Stream lengths in some regions are impacted more by

POTWs.

Effective use of federal funds depends on the goal.

Consideration by stream length, effluent treated and

population impacted can lead to different results.

All POTWs built after 1981 are small.

Only 2 plants have capacity larger than 2 MGD.

Rest have capacity less than 0.5 MGD.

Potential for consolidation among certain POTWs

exists, although specific cases need further

investigation.

Decentralized wastewater treatment can be an

alternative to small POTWs in certain communities.

Some counties are more suited than others.

Site-specific analyses needed.

Year

Desig

n F

low

(M

GD

)

20

37

37

27

6

Lower Hudson

Hudson-Wappinger

Middle Hudson

Rondout

Hudson-Hoosic