Regulatory environment enabling the move to onsite wastewater reuse (2 of 7)

The regulatory environment in the five Light House cases (See all cases at the end of this article) played a crucial role in making the move to onsite water reuse possible. In complement to the previous part of this series which informed the technologies that made the move possible (Link), this part examines which mandates, policies and rules made this possible in the cities of the different countries. I start with the learnings, then dive deeper into the individual cases, and then give a summary.

These deep-dive articles often take a lot of effort and I would appreciate it if you could share them in your network and let me know if you find them useful in the comments.

Learnings for other countries from these cases presented afterward:

In line with onsite wastewater reuse, other cities and neighborhoods that aspire to implement can and must contextualize the following insights:

Mandates and policies explicitly requiring onsite water reuse, such as those adopted in India and San Francisco, can be effective drivers. This gives a clear signal to developers, suppliers, etc.

Developing risk-based quality standards and guidelines provides clarity on treatment expectations and eases regulatory requirements. San Francisco's framework is a useful model.

Pioneering permitting pathways and processes for onsite systems, as San Francisco did, allows learning by doing. This bottom-up approach can inform wider adoption.

Enabling treated wastewater trading and pricing, as in India's Gurugram, incentivizes reuse and recognizes wastewater as a commodity. There is an opportunity to improve this.

Proactive coordination across government agencies and stakeholders helps enable policies, standards, and programs for onsite reuse.

Monitoring enforcement and compliance, training for operators, oversight of suppliers, and public acceptance require attention.

Innovative approaches may be needed where policies prohibit technologies like Germany's vacuum sewer ban.

Even without targeted policies, municipalities can spearhead onsite reuse aligned with sustainability goals, as Sweden demonstrates.

Now, moving on to the policy pathways of the individual cases...

India's (Bangalore) pathway:

City mandate=>standards for treatment quality & use=>Permiting for reuse systems

In Bengaluru India, mandates since 2004 require on-site treatment plants in large residential buildings and 100% reuse of treated wastewater on-site in large residential buildings. In 2014, a requirement that no treated wastewater was to be discharged into storm drains and local water bodies was made. Later in 2016, the mandate was expanded to require reuse in all large new buildings and public construction. A central pollution control board (Karnataka State Pollution Control Board) sets standards for treatment quality. It also specifies a permitting pathway for onsite wastewater reuse systems. They define large residential buildings as larger than 20 apartments or 2000 square meters and commercial buildings larger than 2000 square meters.

Despite this, progress is derailed by a regulatory environment characterized by four challenges/opportunities. There are widespread non-compliance and enforcement deficits, a lack of clarity on specific governance arrangements and responsibilities, no guidelines for technology selection or system design, and, no mechanisms to ensure supplier quality or accountability. More details here.

San Francisco's pathway:

Bottom-up permitting process =>City mandate/ordinance =>Risk-based water quality framework =>Onsite wastewater reuse quality standards (scale statewide)

The city coordinated among different departments in an experimental, bottom-up process to develop a local program and permitting process for decentralized water reuse systems. This led to the establishment of the Non-Potable Water Ordinance and the Onsite Water Reuse System Program, which outlined a ten-step process to review, permit, and monitor on-site systems in 2012. In 2015, the Use of on-site systems was mandated in very large new developments. Later in 2018, The city developed a Risk-Based Framework, tailored to the needs of on-site systems, which played a pivotal role in easing and clarifying regulatory requirements for on-site systems. This framework has been increasingly used as a template by other jurisdictions in the US to provide clear guidelines for equipment suppliers, developers, and practitioners when designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining these systems. Furthermore, the city has worked towards a regulatory amendment to mainstream water quality standards across the state, to adopt on-site systems quality standards in line with the Risk-Based Framework by late 2023.

However, it was not a completely smooth ride, this progress also faced regulatory challenges. This included the extensive need for coordination while developing initial regulations and permitting processes. In addition, there were no certified training programs and requirements for system operators. Furthermore, the variation in regulations across states hinders the wider adoption of the technologies. More details here

India's (Gurugram) Pathway:

State mandate=>No objection certificates=>Water as a tradeable commodity=>Tarrifs for bulk wastewater in the making

Before 2018, there were no specific regulations or policies on decentralized wastewater reuse at the state level. However, in 2018, Haryana state policy mandated on-site sewage treatment plants (STPs) and a minimum 25% reuse of treated wastewater in new large residential and commercial buildings. In the same year, the Gurugram Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) required all new developments to install on-site STPs. The Haryana policy introduced 'No Objection Certificates' (NOCs) for on-site non-potable water systems. Later in 2020, the Haryana Water Resources Act recognized treated wastewater as a commodity that can be priced and traded. In 2022 an amendment to the Water Resources Act allowed authorities to set tariffs for bulk-treated wastewater. However, there is no set tariff or trading system for treated wastewater yet, so reused water is provided for free currently.

The progress regulatory-wise was faster as compared to other cases but not all smooth. It was/is hampered by insufficient monitoring and enforcement of water quality standards by regulators, a lack of training requirements or certifications for on-site system operators, a lack of standards or oversight for private sector suppliers, and a lack of set tariffs or guidelines yet for treated wastewater sales. More details here

Helsingborg, Sweden's pathway:

No explicit pathway

In Helsingborg before 2010, no policies specifically promoted or prohibited on-site wastewater reuse. However, local sustainability goals aligned with on-site reuse systems since the 1990s. Other examples included the adoption of an Energy Strategy and an Energy Plan 2010 and the Environmental H+ profile. Presently, municipalities are free to implement on-site reuse systems.

Two challenges emerged. There was a lack of incentives or requirements in national policies for on-site reuse. In addition, obtaining fertilizer certifications for wastewater-derived products was difficult and its use in agriculture remains controversial. More details here

Hamburg, Germany's pathway:

Hindering policy for technology=>Exemption permit

Hamburg's policy case is rather short. The law prohibited vacuum sewers before 2010. An exemption had to be made to allow for vacuum sewers and on-site treatment.

Despite these, regulations do not explicitly promote nor prohibit on-site reuse systems leading to uncertainties. More details here

To summarize ...

... the regulatory environment played a role in enabling onsite water reuse in the five Light House cases. India mandated onsite treatment and reuse in buildings. San Francisco pioneered a bottom-up permitting process and risk-based standards enabling reuse. India's Gurugram introduced wastewater trading policies. Sweden and Germany lacked targeted policies but municipalities could implement reuse. Key challenges were compliance and enforcement deficits, lack of incentives and guidelines, fertilizer certification barriers, and technology prohibitions needing exemptions. Overall, proactive policies mandating, permitting, and standardizing onsite reuse coupled with innovation to address challenges were pivotal.

?? Link to all Light House cases covered in this series:

Case 1: On-site Water Reuse Systems in San Francisco, USA - Link

Case 2: Hamburg Water Cycle in the Jenfelder Au, Hamburg, Germany - Link

Case 3: Tre-R?r-Ut in Oceanhamnen (H+), Helsingborg, Sweden - Link

Case 4: Small-Scale Water Reuse Systems in Bengaluru, India - Link

Case 5: Water Reuse in Nirvana Country, Gurugram, India - Link