Access to safe and affordable drinking water remains a persistent global challenge, particularly for underdeveloped and remote regions. Local groundwater is often served as the only primary and reliable source of drinking water for communities in remote or under-resourced regions. However, groundwater supplies may be impaired due to the presence of various naturally occurring contaminants such as nitrates, arsenic, and boron. Groundwater contamination and elevated total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations can also result from anthropogenic activities such as agricultural runoff and septic system leaching or from natural geophysical processes such as saltwater intrusion.
Elevated concentrations of nitrate and salinity in drinking water have been linked to an increased risk of certain cancers, and cardiovascular diseases respectively. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen and a secondary contaminant level (SMCL) of 500 mg/L for TDS as critical thresholds for protecting public health and water quality. Recently, the flexible reverse osmosis (FLERO) system, a configuration of conventional reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment developed and operated by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Water Technology Research (WaTeR) Center, was demonstrated to be effective for water treatment and desalination. However, there remains a need to assess its performance, affordability, and long-term viability for wellhead treatment in small, remote, disadvantaged communities (DACs). Accordingly, a technoeconomic assessment (TEA) was conducted based on operational and financial data from three deployed RO-based distributed wellhead water treatment and desalination (DWTD) systems to evaluate their performance, reliability, and affordability as a viable approach for producing safe drinking water in DACs.
The TEA was structured into three phases: (i) characterization of the study communities and DWTD systems, (ii) evaluation of system performance, and (iii) analysis of site-specific capital and operational costs. First, community demographics, infrastructure upgrades, and DWTD systems was conducted to contextualize system performance and cost. Second, water production, treatment efficiency, and energy consumption for each site was analyzed based on acquired high-resolution operational data. Finally, the capital, operational, and maintenance expenditures were determined to calculate the levelized cost of treated water (LCoW) for each DWTD system. The local water supplies of the three study DACs, located in Salinas Valley, California, were contaminated with nitrate at levels ( 12–87 mg/L as NO_3^--N) above the California MCL of 10 mg/L as NO_3^--N, and had elevated water salinity (~600–1,600 mg/L total dissolved solids(TDS)) above the SMCL of 500 mg/L TDS. Reliable DWTD operation provided treated water quality, with respect to nitrate and salinity, in the range of 0.5–6.3 mg/L mg/L as NO_3^--N and 57–161 mg/L TDS, respectively, which were well below the respective MCL and SMCL. The levelized cost of water treatment was determined to be in the range of ~$2/m3 - $2.9/m3 which aligns with typical residential water costs in California and in the study region, and monthly residential water cost ($39-$74/residential unit/month) was also within the range in California. The study showcased the DWTD approach as a viable and potentially scalable solution for upgrading the impaired local potable water supply of communities lacking centralized water delivery infrastructure. However, streamlined permitting processes and standardized regulatory frameworks are critical to promoting wider adoption and maximizing the socio-economic benefits of the DWTD approach. Moreover, DACs are likely to require government subsidies to cover the capital expenditures of DWTD systems in addition to upgrade of site infrastructure.