Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Corporate Characteristics on Climate Governance Disclosure
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Sustainability in Italian Water Supply Pipes through Life Cycle Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrogen Gas Adsorption of the Triassic Chang 7 Shale Member in the Ordos Basin, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
An In-Depth Analysis of Physical, Chemical, and Microplastic Parameters of Landfill Fine Fraction for Biocover Construction
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/su16051959
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

From Scarcity to Abundance: Nature-Based Strategies for Small Communities Experiencing Water Scarcity in West Texas/USA

by
Luis Carlos Soares da Silva Junior
1,*,
David de Andrade Costa
2,3 and
Clifford B. Fedler
1
1
Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering Department, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
2
Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
3
Doctoral Program in Modeling and Technology for the Environment Applied to Water Resources, Instituto Federal Fluminense, São João da Barra 28200-000, RJ, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(5), 1959; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051959
Submission received: 16 January 2024 / Revised: 22 February 2024 / Accepted: 24 February 2024 / Published: 27 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Environmental Science and Water/Wastewater Treatment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Water scarcity is one of the global challenges that threatens economic development and imposes constraints on societal growth. In the semi-arid expanse of West Texas, small communities are struggling with both growing populations and decreasing water resources in the regional aquifer. This study compares two nature-based methods that could solve this problem. The first approach uses ponds and wetlands to make natural processes work together to treat the wastewater that the community receives. We applied a novel Pond-in-Pond system, which offers advantages compared to conventional pond system configurations. This system unlocks strategic hydrodynamic advantages by introducing a deeper anaerobic pit surrounded by berms, which then outflows into a larger pond. The second approach consists of an alternative strategy which integrates waste stabilization ponds, a storage basin, and the reuse of wastewater for crop irrigation—a feat that not only treats water but also enriches soil fertility. Both approaches were analyzed in terms of economic potential and pollution control. The land application had a better return on investment and emphasized the importance of innovative solutions for sustainable water management in arid regions, offering economic and community benefits. The application conveys a clear message: where water is scarce, innovation can grow; where problems are big, solutions are available; and where nature’s processes are understood, they can be used.

1. Introduction

When considering water scarcity and growing concerns about sustainability, water resource management is crucial for achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6, which targets access to water and sanitation for all by 2030 [1]. Nevertheless, supplying an adequate quantity of water with suitable quality has proven to be a challenging task for many governments. Water scarcity occurs when the demand for water exceeds its availability [2,3]. However, the discussion on water demand remains an open topic, primarily approached in the context of real needs and water efficiency [4]. Beyond its tangible aspects, the social construction of water scarcity significantly influences how societies perceive, discuss, and respond to this challenge [5]. The discourse surrounding water scarcity encapsulates the ways in which societies conceptualize and communicate about the availability, distribution, and management of water resources [6]. This approach is not merely a reflection of objective water availability; it is intertwined with societal values, power dynamics, and cultural narratives [7]. These narratives often surpass scientific assessments, incorporating cultural, political, and economic factors [8].
For example, in India, water scarcity is not solely a result of physical shortages but is also linked to issues of governance, unequal access, and power dynamics [9]. Similarly, in Jordan, the world’s second most water-scarce country, the narrative of water scarcity is shaped by geopolitical tensions, regional conflicts, and historical water use patterns [10]. Addressing disparities in water distribution and equity across societies requires an in-depth analysis of water management practices and current allocations to identify beneficiaries, excluded groups, and marginalized communities [11], extending beyond the singular focus on water insufficiency [12]. These concepts extend to water quality [13], since access to water is limited if the available water does not meet quality standards for societal uses. In some instances, researchers have pointed out how the perception of water can be used to justify the monetization of water services [14,15]. Regardless, addressing water-related challenges should be approached with a sustainable perspective.
The increasing demand for water for human consumption, industrial, agricultural, energy, and ecological activities has been driving innovative and sustainable practices. Among the various water uses, agriculture accounts for a substantial portion of the demand, responsible for approximately 70% of global consumption, reaching 80% in South America and 90% in South Asia [16,17,18].
A forward-looking strategy to address agricultural water use efficiency is imperative for sustainable practices. Future trends underscore precision agriculture technologies [19], smart irrigation systems [20], and data-driven decision making processes in optimizing water application, minimizing waste, and maximizing crop yields [21]. Complementing these technological advancements, strategic research and development investments in water-efficient technologies [22], the promotion of drought-resistant crops [23], and the adoption of advanced irrigation practices [24] are critical components. Especially in arid regions, where rainfall and surface water resources are scarce, underground aquifers emerge as a predominant water supply alternative, particularly important for agricultural activities [25]. However, the overexploitation of these aquifers frequently exceeds their natural replenishment capacity, resulting in water level depletion and subsidence [26,27]. In the United States of America, the Ogallala Aquifer provides water for agriculture in eight states of the country [28], with important effects on the economy [29]; but the aquifer has experienced water depletion over the years, gaining attention from scientists [30,31] and demanding management actions and new solutions [32].
A promising approach to address water scarcity can involve the implementation of sustainable practices in wastewater treatment [33]. Rather than discarding the treated wastewater, the growing practice of agricultural reuse highlights the potential to effectively treat wastewater and promote a sustainable approach to the effluent by irrigating crops [34].
Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSP) are nature-based solutions that treat wastewater and are still largely used, especially in small and rural communities. This technology relies on large residence times to settle particles and to biologically degrade organic material present in the municipal wastewater with microorganisms. Several authors have investigated possible configurations of ponds in terms of area loading, volume, residence time, biokinetics, etc., [35] as well as the hydrodynamic conditions of these systems and the influence of effluent input on recirculation patterns and treatment efficiency [36]. An innovative configuration identified in the literature involves a pond with a deeper sub-basin near the inlet [37], subsequently enhanced through the incorporation of berms [38] and increased depth at the center of the pond, giving rise to the Pond-in-Pond (PIP) concept [39].
The PIP concept offers advantages such as low operational cost and higher long-term effluent quality reliability with significant organic matter reduction. The treated water can be utilized for agricultural irrigation or further treated and discharged into water bodies. Drawbacks of unplanned water reuse for irrigation include potential chemical and biological contaminations [40], and soil salinity increases due to accumulation of the salts present in the recycled water in the soil, which adversely affects plant growth [41]. Thus, it is crucial to develop appropriate engineering systems and management practices. Adequate monitoring and maintenance are also essential to ensure the efficiency of the process and the compliance with environmental standards.
There are three main land application processes [35]: slow rate, overland flow, and rapid infiltration. Slow rate involves applying effluent to vegetated soil for filtration, achieving high removal rates for organic matter, nutrients, and pathogens. However, it requires better pre-treatment, moderate soil permeability, and a large area. Overland flow systems apply effluent over plants, resulting in lower removal efficiencies. This method has a higher loading rate, requiring less area and pre-treatment. Rapid infiltration applies wastewater to a basin for percolation, working well with highly permeable soils and requiring no vegetation.
Besides appropriate engineering design, financial viability in wastewater treatment is crucial to ensure long-term operations. When comparing different solutions, it is essential to consider not only the initial installation costs but also the ongoing operational and maintenance costs over time. Nature-based treatment systems offer long-term economic benefits by reducing operational costs such as energy, personnel and chemical costs. Additionally, reusing treated water for non-potable purposes, such as crop irrigation, can generate income for the municipality [42]. When assessing financial viability, it is also important to consider the environmental and social benefits provided by alternative wastewater treatment solutions.
A gap in the literature has been identified, where few studies comprehensively address both engineering and financial feasibility aspects related to sustainability in wastewater reuse for agricultural irrigation. An interdisciplinary approach is crucial for developing effective and realistic solutions that can be applied in the real world. Integrating technical expertise with economic analyses collaborates in developing sustainable strategies that are technically efficient, environmentally sound, and economically viable, thereby generating social benefits through support for small rural families.
In this context, the aim of this study is to evaluate the engineering and financial feasibility aspects of two nature-based methods for wastewater treatment and reuse. The first method focuses on treating the wastewater in a PIP system, followed by constructed wetlands to polish the effluent for discharge. The second also uses the PIP, to reduce the organic matter, followed by a storage basin, to provide year-round water storage, and an engineered wastewater reuse system for alfalfa irrigation using the treated water that contains nutrients to enhance soil fertility. Economic potential and pollution control were evaluated for both methods.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology involves three key steps for effective project planning: first, define design parameters to establish project specifications; next, estimate costs for a realistic financial overview; finally, perform a financial analysis to evaluate economic viability. The project incorporates sustainability considerations across social, environmental, and economic dimensions to ensure a comprehensive and responsible design.

2.1. Study Area

The northwest part of Texas is a vast region characterized by a flat and elevated landscape that stretches for hundreds of kilometers. Rainfall is generally limited and irregular, making water management an important aspect for agriculture and daily life. The state of Texas, in general, exhibits a significant variation in precipitation, with annual average precipitation (Figure 1) ranging from 61 inches in the coastal region, gradually decreasing to 18 inches in the northwest region, and 9 inches in the extreme west.
Agriculture in the northwest region plays a significant role in the regional economy, with farms dedicated to the production of cotton, livestock, and grains. The population is generally dispersed, with smaller towns and rural communities distributed across the territory. Prominent cities in the region include Lubbock, Amarillo, and Abilene. The area is also known for the Ogallala Aquifer (Figure 2), an underground source of freshwater. However, overexploitation and the growing demand for water pose challenges to the sustainability of the aquifer. Figure 2 highlights water extraction wells in the region, obtained from The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), Drillers Report (SDR) Database, with records of approximately 117,000 wells in the Texas portion of the Ogallala Aquifer.

2.2. Population Estimative

Based on census data from 2020, the West Texas region, limited to counties with a population ranging from 1000 and 100,000 inhabitants, presented an average population of 7791 for the reference year. The region has been experiencing an annual population growth rate of 4.1% [43]. Projecting over 20 years, the average population will reach 17,108 inhabitants.
According to Texas Water Development Board [44], water consumption in Texas averages 86 gallons (325 L) per capita per day. Considering an 80% return rate, the daily production of wastewater for the average population would be 0.53 MGD (23.2 L/s) and would reach 1.18 MGD (51.7 L/s) in year 20.

2.3. Nature-Based Solutions for Wastewater Treatment

The nature-based solutions used for municipal wastewater treatment explored were the Pond-in-Pond systems, free water surface constructed wetlands (FWS-CW) for stream discharge, and land application systems for effluent reuse. Pond systems provide extensive suspended solids and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) removal and are primarily used as the main treatment unit for small municipalities. BOD and total suspended solids are the only effluent limitation parameters for stabilization ponds, according to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) standards [45]. Moreover, BOD is the only recommended parameter, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [46], for land application.
Although ponds are largely used as the main treatment unit, it can be challenging to achieve year-round consistent BOD removal in ponds. Therefore, an additional unit is usually added downstream to improve wastewater treatment. The most suited nature-based solution for a wastewater treatment unit to polish pond’s effluents is constructed wetlands.
Pond and wetland operations are simple and are based on physical processes. In the anaerobic pit of the PIP, solids settling is the predominant process, whereas in the outer pond, the wind-driven aeration promotes oxygen transfer, and, therefore, the oxidation of organic matter. In wetlands, the adsorption of contaminants in macrophytes is the major process.

2.4. Pond and Constructed Wetland Designs

The PIP designed for both solutions has a design similar to the system studied by Adhikari and Fedler [39], also located in Colorado City, a small city in West Texas. The geometrical configuration for the PIP was a squared pit, with a 1:1 Length-to-Width Ratio (LWR) and 6 m depth. The outer pond was designed with a 3:1 LWR and 3 m depth, and the walls had a 3:1 slope factor. The drawings were presented in previous publications [35,38], and a picture of this PIP system was presented by Silva Junior and Fedler [36].
Adhikari and Fedler [39] assumed the incoming influent had 200 mg/L of BOD concentration. The Pond-in-Pond was designed according to Adhikari and Fedler [39] with an anaerobic pit and an outer pond. The anaerobic pit, responsible for settling most of the suspended solids, was designed with a 2-day Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT). Additionally, based on these authors, it was estimated that this pit would remove 45% of the organic matter, in the form of BOD. The outer pond was designed using an iterative model to estimate the necessary time to simulate the biodegradation of BOD to reach below 40 mg/L, using a first-order decay model ( C = C i n × e − k t ) . Based on empirical results, these authors analyzed the PIP’s performance over the years, and accounting for seasonal variations, such as wind conditions, a biokinetic coefficient was estimated. When adjusted for the lowest regional temperature, 5 °C, this coefficient was 0.069 d−1.
Although an effluent with 40 mg/L of BOD is below the recommended BOD concentration of 100 mg/L by EPA [46], it is not yet suitable for discharge, according to TCEQ standards, which recommend 30 mg/L of BOD [45]. Therefore, for stream discharge, an additional treatment unit would be required. The wetland design was designed according to Reed et al.’s (1995) [47] procedure to dimension FWS-CW. This wetland was designed with a 3:1 LWR and 0.67 m depth. The assumptions were an influent BOD of 40 mg/L, as previously calculated for the PIP, a desired effluent of 20 mg/L for discharge, a media porosity of 0.65, an initial influent temperature of 5 °C, and a biokinetic coefficient of 0.68 day−1. Lastly, the design was checked for ice formation, summer condition, and hydraulics.

2.5. Land Application Design

The land application system used the final projection of inflow and was designed for 1.25 MGD (54.8 L/s). It assumed a salts concentration of 500 mg/L, electrical conductivity with a 10% decrease in production of 3.4 mmhos/cm [48], and climatic data for the city of Lubbock; the evapotranspiration calculation was based on the Penman–Monteith model, proposed by the FAO [49] and used in studies [50,51,52] around the world, and the crop evaluated was Alfalfa.
Although the TCEQ [46] requires its standard model for the design of land application, it is very conservative and does not account for storage in the vadose zone. This method promotes larger land areas and storage volumes, which increases the capital costs. On the other hand, the Texas Tech University (TTU) method, introduced by Fedler and Borrelli [39], was presented as an alternative water balance approach. It was later improved by Fedler [35] to include nitrogen and salt.
S M i = S M i − 1 + P i + I i − E T i − L i ± S i
where S M i represents the soil moisture in month i; S M i − 1 is soil moisture in the previous month, i − 1; P i is the precipitation in month i; I i is the irrigation provided to the crop in month i; E T i is the calculated evapotranspiration for month i; L i is the amount of leaching to the groundwater for month i; and S i represents the water going in and out of the storage unit. All units are expressed length of water per time, e.g., m/month.
As described by Fedler [35], this method offers a lesser storage requirement, decreasing the construction costs; yet it requires the largest land area, promoting more land to grow crops. Moreover, this method offers the advantage of considering nitrogen uptake, therefore, reducing groundwater contamination risks, and it accounts for salts balance, which can severely impact the crop yield. This is also a sustainable method because it uses the vadose zone to store water, reducing pond requirements and water losses to evaporation.
The crop selection was based on the regional perspective to achieve a crop that is usually grown in the area and yields a competitive selling price to maximize the revenue income to the land application system. Based on local observations, alfalfa crops are significantly grown in the region, can reach up to 4 cycles per year in the area, and have a high selling price, when compared to other crops.
Nitrogen was also simulated to prevent groundwater contamination by nitrate, which is the soluble fraction of nitrogen. The model assumes effluent nitrogen concentration from the pond system of 30 mg/L of N as total nitrogen, 400 lb/ac (44.8 g/m2) of nitrogen uptake by alfalfa [49], the effluent flowrate applied for irrigation, and the land area for each phase.
Additionally, the salts balance was considered to prevent soil salinity from excessively deteriorating crop efficiency. The salts modeling was carried out by calculating the leaching rate according to FAO [49] standards and assuming 500 mg/L of total salts concentration in the effluent.

2.6. Financial Estimations

From the design calculations, estimating a median land price of USD 1880/acre (USD 4665/ha) [53] in the West Texas region and USD 4250/acre-ft (USD 3.4/m3) for excavation costs [54]. An additional 50% was added for areas in both ponds and wetlands to allow for sloping walls, driveways, and setbacks.
There was a projected yield of 7.2 tons/acre-year (17.8 tons/ha-year) [55], USD 217/ton of alfalfa hay in Texas [55], and a historical difference in Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI) of 0.60% [56] to compare the cash flow between inflation and producing goods over time.

3. Results

Based on the design premises, both systems were modeled and designed to achieve their goals: (1) polish and discharge the effluent in a stream, and (2) store and irrigate an alfalfa crop. Thereafter, the land application design selection and financial evaluation were performed.

3.1. Stream Discharge System

As a result of the design calculations and assumptions, a total of two Pond-in-Ponds were implemented. The PIP dimensions (Figure 3) were 240 m in length, 80 m in width, and 3 m in depth, and the anaerobic pit was designed with a 6 m depth. The first was implemented in year 0 of operation and the second one after 5 years of operation to handle the growing influent flow until year 20. Based on those dimensions and the adjusted kinetic coefficient, a 40 mg/L effluent concentration and below would be achieved throughout the lifespan of the system, considering the flow variations and ponds’ construction.
For the second system, the constructed wetland with free water surface, the dimensions designed were 160 m in length, 50 m in width, and 0.67 m in depth. The filling material considered had 0.65 porosity, and the flows were calculated for summer and winter conditions. The first two cells were designed to be implemented in year 0 of operations, a third one in year 5, and a fourth one in year 15. The calculated dimensions should provide 20 mg/L of BOD consistently throughout the lifespan of the treatment system, below the 30 mg/L BOD concentration for effluent discharge in streams, according to the regulatory limit for nature-based systems in Texas [45].

3.2. Agricultural Reuse System

For the land application system, the PIP system was the same as the previous system designed for the stream discharge system. The land application design was decided upon the evaluation between the two proposed alternatives, TCEQ and TTU methods. The decision was based on reducing the storage volume, which has the biggest impact on the capital costs, and increasing the irrigation area, to increase the crop production and the operational revenue. The TTU method outperforms the TCEQ method in both aspects, with a 16% larger crop area and 42% less storage volume needed (Table 1).
Therefore, for the land application design using the TTU method (Figure 4), a storage pond with 125 acre-ft or 1.5 × 105 m3 was designed with a square configuration and a superficial area of 27,500 m2 (165 m × 165 m; water dimensions), an 8 m depth, and a sloping wall of 1:3. The land application site for the crop irrigation was designed to be 238 acre or 9.6 × 105 m2 (96 ha).
In addition to the BOD analysis, which is the major requirement from regulatory standards in Texas, the simulated nitrogen uptake was 82% of the potential update by alfalfa. This simulation provides evidence that there would be no nitrogen contamination to groundwater due to plants’ nitrogen consumption. Lastly, the salts balance performed indicated that the expected crop yield decrement would be under 3%, which is within the recommended range [49].

3.3. Financial Analysis and Cash Flow Projection

The cost estimation was based on the areas and volumes and is summarized in Table 2. The PIPs have a higher area and volume than the constructed wetlands, which led to higher land and excavation costs. The stream discharge system had a total cost of USD 428,000, while the agricultural reuse system totaled USD 1,585,000, which is over three times the discharge system.
Based on the estimated 7.2 ton per acre-year (17.8 ton per ha-year) alfalfa yield, the land application system would produce 1715 tons of alfalfa per year, on average. At a price of USD 217 per ton, the median for the study area, the average revenue would be over USD 372,000 per year, which would be doubled after year 10, with the projected system expansion.
The financial analysis performed to compare both systems with the cashflow projection (Figure 5) shows the benefits of choosing the agricultural reuse system over the discharge system. With a payback period of 3.7 years after the beginning of operations, the crop irrigation needs a short period to fully offset the initial costs invested.

4. Discussion

West Texas is a developing, very agriculture-oriented region with a semi-arid climate that relies on the Ogallala aquifer as its main fresh water source. With the depletion of this water source over the last few decades, this region needs sustainable solutions to approach water scarcity and sustain its growth [57]. Pond-in-Pond technology is proved to be a more efficient solution for wastewater treatment than conventional ponds. PIPs have been used in some municipalities in the region as the main treatment technology [39].
Constructed wetlands are often used as solutions to polish the effluent before stream discharge [58]. Although not evaluated, constructed wetlands also offer additional benefits such as the removal of nutrients like N, P, and emerging contaminants [59]. Although most treatment systems focus on treating the wastewater for stream discharge, the need to augment the water supplies enforced sustainable solutions to overcome water scarcity [60].
Land application systems represent a sustainable approach to reuse water [34]. The TTU method is a slow-rate system that was superior to its counterpart, the TCEQ’s method. Since the TTU method uses the vadose zone for storage, it reduces the surface water storage and evapotranspiration, and allows for a larger crop area, which promotes higher crop production [35].
Moreover, the TTU method controls the nitrogen leaching to groundwater which makes it a safer method, as nitrate contamination is a serious public hazard [61], and is especially important in West Texas, characterized by substantial groundwater abstraction, as displayed in Figure 2. Another important aspect that this land application method manages is the salt balance [35]. Salt control is important to avoid an excessive increase in soil salinity, as it has a significant negative impact on crop production [62].
Although wastewater treatment and reuse are consistently presented as a sustainable pathway, often studies lack financial analysis on its impact, especially for agricultural reuse projects. The financial analysis demonstrates that agricultural reuse, often referred to as non-profitable, when compared to industrial reuse, has a high potential to be explored.
As both systems were designed and the costs were analyzed, the agricultural reuse system had a much higher capital cost when compared to the discharge system. But to analyze the projected costs over time, cash flow analysis highlighted the quick payback period, which is often more than 10 years in municipal projects. This reinforces that this agricultural reuse solution is a profitable approach to valuing water, a resource that is usually considered waste after wastewater treatment.
Small-scale irrigation through wastewater reuse offers substantial advantages for local communities and families, providing a sustainable alternative that positively impacts the local economy. Particularly in communities with limited water resources, it becomes a viable solution, addressing water scarcity and bolstering agricultural productivity [63]. To further enhance the relevance and effectiveness of such initiatives, it is crucial to consider local environmental demands, tailor solutions to the specific needs of each community, and align with regional policies [64]. For example, Israel has been a pioneer in wastewater reuse for agriculture, particularly in arid regions [65]. Similarly, California has introduced decentralized wastewater treatment systems to recover water for the irrigation of landscapes [66].
Agriculture requires effective soil nutrient management for plant development. Among the macronutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus are also found in wastewater [67]. Unlike nitrogen, the limited availability of phosphorus (P) underscores the importance of utilizing the nutrient content in treated wastewater. This approach presents a sustainable method for agriculture while addressing the environmental impact of excessive fertilizer use [68]. Also, the implementation of wastewater reuse systems creates economic opportunities within the community and stimulates new job positions [69], especially for businesses involved in wastewater treatment and irrigation infrastructure.
Despite the benefits of wastewater reuse, it is essential to acknowledge the oversight in assessing nutrient transport post land application of treated wastewater. This aspect is recommended for a comprehensive understanding of the environmental impact, as effective nutrient management can enhance soil fertility and contribute to sustainable agriculture. Policies and regulations present substantial importance to the widespread implementation of wastewater reuse systems on a global scale [70]. Addressing public health concerns and community resistance is also essential for the successful adoption of wastewater reuse systems [71].
The reuse of wastewater can have environmental, economic, and human health impacts [72]. The economic impact is generally positive, as it increases productivity and reduces costs associated with water and fertilizers. From a health perspective, there may be exposure to pathogens and heavy metals. Environmentally, impacts on the soil can occur due to the introduction of salts, increased microbiological activity, and other chemicals in the soil [73].
These factors must be managed in a reuse project. For example, conventional units of wastewater treatment plants often exhibit elevated levels of pathogens [74,75], even after treatment, requiring an additional disinfection step. Conversely, natural ponds contribute to decreased pathogen concentrations through the action of solar radiation [76]. Nonetheless, depending on the intended application, a disinfection step may still be necessary.
One of the problems that can arise from applying wastewater to land for crop irrigation is bad odor; thus, it is important to stress the importance of wastewater pre-treatment prior to its land application. An excess of suspended solids can cause problems in the irrigation system, i.e., blocking the sprinkler head, and organic matter could lead to an odor nuisance. The recommended limit for biological oxygen demand concentration in land-applied effluent is 100 mg/L [77]. On the other hand, even after treatment, some studies have focused on pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, microplastics, and other chemicals which may be absorbed by crops irrigated with treated wastewater [72,78,79]. While wastewater reuse presents a sustainable water resource, addressing and mitigating potential risks associated with the presence of these chemicals is still an open topic in science frontiers.
In arid lands, where water scarcity and rising costs pose challenges to traditional agriculture, wastewater treatment and reuse gains even more significance. The nutrient-rich nature of treated wastewater becomes particularly valuable, potentially reducing expenses on external fertilizers and fostering agricultural sustainability.

5. Conclusions

The Pond-in-Pond (PIP) system is an established nature-based wastewater treatment solution focused on small and rural communities. The PIP is known for outperforming conventional ponds, given its superior treatment capacity and reliability over time. But most of the research developed over the years only focused on the technical aspect of the treatment, neglecting the sustainable potential this technology has to offer. This technology also offers resource recovery from the PIP, with the nutrient-rich effluent that can be reused in a more sustainable and safe way for crop irrigation.
This study compared two nature-based methods to treat wastewater and addresses water scarcity in small West Texas communities. The first system analyzed was composed of PIP and constructed wetlands to treat and discharge the effluent wastewater into a stream according to state regulation standards. Alternatively, the second strategy utilizes the potential of the effluent to reuse the water for alfalfa production. Although reuse is commonly referred to as a sustainable option, we analyzed its financial feasibility to prove that not only does it provide a sustainable resource, but it also generates revenue for the municipalities.
The land application water balance method selected was the TTU method, which provides lesser storage and increases the productive crop area, it was superior to the TCEQ’s method. Cash flow analysis showed that agricultural reuse would be more profitable over the years by generating income that would pay the increased investments back in under four years. This result reinforces the need to promote this technology in small communities that have limited investment capacity and a shortage of specialized labor.
This study is particularly relevant for arid regions, especially those that struggle with water scarcity, such as the ones in West Texas. Sustainable water practices outweigh traditional methods, demonstrating how innovative approaches can tackle water scarcity worldwide.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.C.S.d.S.J. and C.B.F.; methodology, L.C.S.d.S.J. and D.d.A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.C.S.d.S.J. and D.d.A.C.; writing—review and editing, L.C.S.d.S.J., D.d.A.C. and C.B.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The second author acknowledges the financial support provided by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge their respective institutions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations (UN): New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. He, C.; Liu, Z.; Wu, J.; Pan, X.; Fang, Z.; Li, J.; Bryan, B.A. Future Global Urban Water Scarcity and Potential Solutions. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 4667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rijsberman, F.R. Water Scarcity: Fact or Fiction? Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 80, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shahangian, S.A.; Tabesh, M.; Yazdanpanah, M. Psychosocial Determinants of Household Adoption of Water-Efficiency Behaviors in Tehran Capital, Iran: Application of the Social Cognitive Theory. Urban Clim. 2021, 39, 100935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schmidt, J.J. Water as Global Social Policy—International Organizations, Resource Scarcity, and Environmental Security. In International Organizations in Global Social Governance; CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 275–296. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bréthaut, C.; Ezbakhe, F.; McCracken, M.; Wolf, A.; Dalton, J. Exploring Discursive Hydropolitics: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2022, 38, 464–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Turhan, Y. The Hydro-Political Dilemma in Africa Water Geopolitics: The Case of the Nile River Basin. African Secur. Rev. 2021, 30, 66–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Al-Muqdadi, S.W.H. The Spiral of Escalating Water Conflict: The Theory of Hydro-Politics. Water 2022, 14, 3466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vasani, H. International Water Law and Hydropolitics: An Enquiry into the Water Conflict between India and Nepal. Water Int. 2023, 48, 259–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hussein, H.; Natta, A.; Yehya, A.A.K.; Hamadna, B. Syrian Refugees, Water Scarcity, and Dynamic Policies: How Do the New Refugee Discourses Impact Water Governance Debates in Lebanon and Jordan? Water 2020, 12, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hussein, H. An Analysis of the Framings of Water Scarcity in the Jordanian National Water Strategy. Water Int. 2019, 44, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hussein, H. Lifting the Veil: Unpacking the Discourse of Water Scarcity in Jordan. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 89, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Naidoo, S. Understanding Social Constructionism of Water Quality. In Social Constructions of Water Quality in South Africa; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switerland, 2022; pp. 13–29. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hellberg, S. Scarcity as a Means of Governing: Challenging Neoliberal Hydromentality in the Context of the South African Drought. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Sp. 2020, 3, 186–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brisman, A.; McClanahan, B.; South, N.; Walters, R. The Politics of Water Rights: Scarcity, Sovereignty and Security. In Water, Governance, and Crime Issues; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switerland, 2020; pp. 17–29. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ungureanu, N.; Vlăduț, V.; Voicu, G. Water Scarcity and Wastewater Reuse in Crop Irrigation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Food and Agriculture Organization. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture 2021—Systems at Breaking Point; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2022; ISBN 978-92-5-136127-6. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rosa, L.; Chiarelli, D.D.; Rulli, M.C.; Dell’Angelo, J.; D’Odorico, P. Global Agricultural Economic Water Scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaaz6031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Liu, W.; Shao, X.-F.; Wu, C.-H.; Qiao, P. A Systematic Literature Review on Applications of Information and Communication Technologies and Blockchain Technologies for Precision Agriculture Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bwambale, E.; Abagale, F.K.; Anornu, G.K. Smart Irrigation Monitoring and Control Strategies for Improving Water Use Efficiency in Precision Agriculture: A Review. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 260, 107324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Gawankar, S.A. Achieving Sustainable Performance in a Data-Driven Agriculture Supply Chain: A Review for Research and Applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 219, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Geetha Varma, V. Water-Efficient Technologies for Sustainable Development. In Current Directions in Water Scarcity Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 101–128. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fan, T.; Li, S.; Zhao, G.; Wang, S.; Zhang, J.; Wang, L.; Dang, Y.; Cheng, W. Response of Dryland Crops to Climate Change and Drought-Resistant and Water-Suitable Planting Technology: A Case of Spring Maize. J. Integr. Agric. 2023, 22, 2067–2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kumar, P.; Udayakumar, A.; Anbarasa Kumar, A.; Senthamarai Kannan, K.; Krishnan, N. Multiparameter Optimization System with DCNN in Precision Agriculture for Advanced Irrigation Planning and Scheduling Based on Soil Moisture Estimation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Madramootoo, C.A. Sustainable Ground Water Use in Agriculture. Irrig. Drain. 2012, 61, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mayer, A.; Heyman, J.; Granados-Olivas, A.; Hargrove, W.; Sanderson, M.; Martinez, E.; Vazquez-Galvez, A.; Alatorre-Cejudo, L.C. Investigating Management of Transboundary Waters through Cooperation: A Serious Games Case Study of the Hueco Bolson Aquifer in Chihuahua, Mexico and Texas, United States. Water 2021, 13, 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mittelstet, A.R.; Smolen, M.D.; Fox, G.A.; Adams, D.C. Comparison of Aquifer Sustainability Under Groundwater Administrations in Oklahoma and Texas1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2011, 47, 424–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lauer, S.; Sanderson, M.R.; Manning, D.T.; Suter, J.F.; Hrozencik, R.A.; Guerrero, B.; Golden, B. Values and Groundwater Management in the Ogallala Aquifer Region. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2018, 73, 593–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Terrell, B. Ogallala Aquifer Depletion: Economic Impact on the Texas High Plains. Water Policy 2002, 4, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Basso, B.; Kendall, A.D.; Hyndman, D.W. The Future of Agriculture over the Ogallala Aquifer: Solutions to Grow Crops More Efficiently with Limited Water. Earth’s Futur. 2013, 1, 39–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Deines, J.M.; Schipanski, M.E.; Golden, B.; Zipper, S.C.; Nozari, S.; Rottler, C.; Guerrero, B.; Sharda, V. Transitions from Irrigated to Dryland Agriculture in the Ogallala Aquifer: Land Use Suitability and Regional Economic Impacts. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 233, 106061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Reynolds, S.; Guerrero, B.; Golden, B.; Amosson, S.; Marek, T.; Bell, J.M. Economic Feasibility of Conversion to Mobile Drip Irrigation in the Central Ogallala Region. Irrig. Sci. 2020, 38, 569–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pinto, G.O.; da Silva Junior, L.C.S.; Assad, D.B.N.; Pereira, S.H.; Mello, L.C.B.d.B. Trends in Global Greywater Reuse: A Bibliometric Analysis. Water Sci. Technol. 2021, 84, 3257–3276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Minhas, P.S.; Saha, J.K.; Dotaniya, M.L.; Sarkar, A.; Saha, M. Wastewater Irrigation in India: Current Status, Impacts and Response Options. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 808, 152001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fedler, C.B. Design of Land Application Systems for Water Reuse. Water 2021, 13, 2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Silva Junior, L.C.S.d.; Fedler, C.B. Pond-in-Pond’s Anaerobic Pit Performance over Conventional Anaerobic Ponds—A Computational Fluid Dynamics Comparison. J. Water Process Eng. 2023, 51, 103444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stone, R.F. Waste Stabilization Basins for a Desert Sewage Treatment Plant. Civ. Eng. 1960, 30, 158–160. [Google Scholar]
  38. Oswald, W.J. Fundamental Factors in Stabilization Pond Design. Air Water Pollut. 1963, 7, 357–393. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Adhikari, K.; Fedler, C.B. Pond-In-Pond: An Alternative System for Wastewater Treatment for Reuse. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 103523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Deviller, G.; Lundy, L.; Fatta-Kassinos, D. Recommendations to Derive Quality Standards for Chemical Pollutants in Reclaimed Water Intended for Reuse in Agricultural Irrigation. Chemosphere 2020, 240, 124911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rahman, M.M.; Hagare, D.; Maheshwari, B.; Dillon, P. Impacts of Prolonged Drought on Salt Accumulation in the Root Zone Due to Recycled Water Irrigation. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2015, 226, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dos Santos Ferreira, M.; Gomes de Siqueira, J.; De Paulo Santos de Oliveira, V.; De Andrade Costa, D. Analysis of Municipal Public Policies for Payment for Water Environmental Services through the Public Policy Assessment Index: The State of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) as a Study Model. Agua Y Territ. Water Landsc. 2023, 23, e6976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. State of Texas, Office of the Governor, T.E.D. Texas Economic Snapshot. Available online: https://gov.texas.gov/business/page/texas-economic-snapshot (accessed on 10 January 2024).
  44. Texas Water Development Board. Water Use of Texas Water Utilities; Texas Water Development Board: Austin, TX, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  45. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Domestic Wastewater Effluent Limitation and Plant Siting; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Austin, TX, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  46. Smith, J.E. Process Design Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents; US Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  47. Reed, S.C.; Crites, R.W.; Middlebrooks, E.J. Natural Systems for Waste Management and Treatment, 2nd ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  48. Doorenbos, J.; Pruitt, W.O. Guidelines for Predicting Crop Water Requirements; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1977; ISBN 0254-5284. [Google Scholar]
  49. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration—Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sentelhas, P.C.; Gillespie, T.J.; Santos, E.A. Evaluation of FAO Penman–Monteith and Alternative Methods for Estimating Reference Evapotranspiration with Missing Data in Southern Ontario, Canada. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 635–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lang, D.; Zheng, J.; Shi, J.; Liao, F.; Ma, X.; Wang, W.; Chen, X.; Zhang, M. A Comparative Study of Potential Evapotranspiration Estimation by Eight Methods with FAO Penman–Monteith Method in Southwestern China. Water 2017, 9, 734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cai, J.; Liu, Y.; Lei, T.; Pereira, L.S. Estimating Reference Evapotranspiration with the FAO Penman–Monteith Equation Using Daily Weather Forecast Messages. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2007, 145, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Krebs, L. Texas Small Rural Land. Technical Report 2391; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  54. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Database. Field Office Technical Guide. Available online: https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/#/state/TX/search (accessed on 10 January 2024).
  55. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Acreage Report; NASS: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  56. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI). Available online: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
  57. Steiner, J.L.; Devlin, D.L.; Perkins, S.; Aguilar, J.P.; Golden, B.; Santos, E.A.; Unruh, M. Policy, Technology, and Management Options for Water Conservation in the Ogallala Aquifer in Kansas, USA. Water 2021, 13, 3406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Aguado, R.; Parra, O.; García, L.; Manso, M.; Urkijo, L.; Mijangos, F. Modelling and Simulation of Subsurface Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetlands. J. Water Process Eng. 2022, 47, 102676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. David, G.; Rana, M.S.; Saxena, S.; Sharma, S.; Pant, D.; Prajapati, S.K. A Review on Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Constructed Wetlands for Removal of Nutrients and Emerging Contaminants. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 20, 9249–9270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Garcia, X.; Pargament, D. Reusing Wastewater to Cope with Water Scarcity: Economic, Social and Environmental Considerations for Decision-Making. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 101, 154–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wu, J.; Bian, J.; Wan, H.; Ma, Y.; Sun, X. Health Risk Assessment of Groundwater Nitrogen Pollution in Songnen Plain. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 207, 111245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Tian, F.; Hou, M.; Qiu, Y.; Zhang, T.; Yuan, Y. Salinity Stress Effects on Transpiration and Plant Growth under Different Salinity Soil Levels Based on Thermal Infrared Remote (TIR) Technique. Geoderma 2020, 357, 113961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chauhan, J.S.; Kumar, S. Wastewater Ferti-Irrigation: An Eco-Technology for Sustainable Agriculture. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. McLennon, E.; Dari, B.; Jha, G.; Sihi, D.; Kankarla, V. Regenerative Agriculture and Integrative Permaculture for Sustainable and Technology Driven Global Food Production and Security. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 4541–4559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tal, A. Israeli Agriculture—Innovation and Advancement. In From Food Scarcity to Surplus; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 299–358. [Google Scholar]
  66. Luthy, R.G.; Wolfand, J.M.; Bradshaw, J.L. Urban Water Revolution: Sustainable Water Futures for California Cities. J. Environ. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mainardis, M.; Cecconet, D.; Moretti, A.; Callegari, A.; Goi, D.; Freguia, S.; Capodaglio, A.G. Wastewater Fertigation in Agriculture: Issues and Opportunities for Improved Water Management and Circular Economy. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 296, 118755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Saliu, T.D.; Oladoja, N.A. Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater and Reuse in Agriculture: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 2299–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sulich, A.; Rutkowska, M.; Popławski, Ł. Green Jobs, Definitional Issues, and the Employment of Young People: An Analysis of Three European Union Countries. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 262, 110314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Shoushtarian, F.; Negahban-Azar, M. Worldwide Regulations and Guidelines for Agricultural Water Reuse: A Critical Review. Water 2020, 12, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Morris, J.C.; Georgiou, I.; Guenther, E.; Caucci, S. Barriers in Implementation of Wastewater Reuse: Identifying the Way Forward in Closing the Loop. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021, 1, 413–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mishra, S.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, M. Use of Treated Sewage or Wastewater as an Irrigation Water for Agricultural Purposes—Environmental, Health, and Economic Impacts. Total Environ. Res. Themes 2023, 6, 100051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Al-Hazmi, H.E.; Mohammadi, A.; Hejna, A.; Majtacz, J.; Esmaeili, A.; Habibzadeh, S.; Saeb, M.R.; Badawi, M.; Lima, E.C.; Mąkinia, J. Wastewater Reuse in Agriculture: Prospects and Challenges. Environ. Res. 2023, 236, 116711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kokkinos, P.; Mandilara, G.; Nikolaidou, A.; Velegraki, A.; Theodoratos, P.; Kampa, D.; Blougoura, A.; Christopoulou, A.; Smeti, E.; Kamizoulis, G.; et al. Performance of Three Small-Scale Wastewater Treatment Plants. A Challenge for Possible Re Use. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 17744–17752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Leonel, L.P.; Tonetti, A.L. Wastewater Reuse for Crop Irrigation: Crop Yield, Soil and Human Health Implications Based on Giardiasis Epidemiology. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Otter, P.; Hertel, S.; Ansari, J.; Lara, E.; Cano, R.; Arias, C.; Gregersen, P.; Grischek, T.; Benz, F.; Goldmaier, A.; et al. Disinfection for Decentralized Wastewater Reuse in Rural Areas through Wetlands and Solar Driven Onsite Chlorination. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 721, 137595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. EPA-660/2-73-006b; Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Washington, DC, USA, 1973.
  78. Ofori, S.; Puškáčová, A.; Růžičková, I.; Wanner, J. Treated Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation: Pros and Cons. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 760, 144026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Natasha; Shahid, M.; Khalid, S.; Niazi, N.K.; Murtaza, B.; Ahmad, N.; Farooq, A.; Zakir, A.; Imran, M.; Abbas, G. Health Risks of Arsenic Buildup in Soil and Food Crops after Wastewater Irrigation. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 772, 145266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 01959 g001
Figure 1. Annual average precipitation isolines, in inches per year, from 1981 to 2010. Public data obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Figure 1. Annual average precipitation isolines, in inches per year, from 1981 to 2010. Public data obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Sustainability 16 01959 g001
Sustainability 16 01959 g002
Figure 2. Location map highlighting northwest Texas, cities, and water abstraction wells relying on the Ogalala aquifer.
Figure 2. Location map highlighting northwest Texas, cities, and water abstraction wells relying on the Ogalala aquifer.
Sustainability 16 01959 g002
Sustainability 16 01959 g003
Figure 3. Stream discharge system conceptual design representing a preliminary treatment, comprising a screening process, Pond-in-Ponds reducing the wastewater BOD under 40 mg/L, and the free water surface wetlands polishing the effluent under 20 mg/L to discharge in a surface water.
Figure 3. Stream discharge system conceptual design representing a preliminary treatment, comprising a screening process, Pond-in-Ponds reducing the wastewater BOD under 40 mg/L, and the free water surface wetlands polishing the effluent under 20 mg/L to discharge in a surface water.
Sustainability 16 01959 g003
Sustainability 16 01959 g004
Figure 4. Agricultural reuse system conceptual design representing a preliminary treatment, comprising a screening process, Pond-in-Ponds reducing the wastewater BOD under 40 mg/L, a storage pond to provide year-long water for irrigation and the land application system used to produce alfalfa with reused water.
Figure 4. Agricultural reuse system conceptual design representing a preliminary treatment, comprising a screening process, Pond-in-Ponds reducing the wastewater BOD under 40 mg/L, a storage pond to provide year-long water for irrigation and the land application system used to produce alfalfa with reused water.
Sustainability 16 01959 g004
Sustainability 16 01959 g005
Figure 5. Cashflow projection for both projects over a 20-year period. With a high revenue, the land application system proves to be more profitable over the years.
Figure 5. Cashflow projection for both projects over a 20-year period. With a high revenue, the land application system proves to be more profitable over the years.
Sustainability 16 01959 g005
Table 1. Summary on land application methods comparison.
Table 1. Summary on land application methods comparison.
ParametersTCEQTTUUnits
Irrigation area205 (83)238 (96)Acre (ha)
Storage volume308 (378,000)179 (221,000)ac-ft (m3)
HRT in storage tank10058days
Table 2. Summary of design parameters and estimated costs for each component in both design approaches.
Table 2. Summary of design parameters and estimated costs for each component in both design approaches.
ParameterPond-in-PondsConstructed WetlandsLand ApplicationUnits
Area9.5 (3.8)2.4 (1.0)238 (96)acre (ha)
Storage volume80
(98,700)		13
(16,000)		124
(153,000)		ac-ft
(m3)
Estimated land cost277448$1000
Estimated excavation cost34055527$1000
Estimated total cost366621219$1000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Silva Junior, L.C.S.d.; Costa, D.d.A.; Fedler, C.B. From Scarcity to Abundance: Nature-Based Strategies for Small Communities Experiencing Water Scarcity in West Texas/USA. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1959. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051959

AMA Style

Silva Junior LCSd, Costa DdA, Fedler CB. From Scarcity to Abundance: Nature-Based Strategies for Small Communities Experiencing Water Scarcity in West Texas/USA. Sustainability. 2024; 16(5):1959. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051959

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva Junior, Luis Carlos Soares da, David de Andrade Costa, and Clifford B. Fedler. 2024. "From Scarcity to Abundance: Nature-Based Strategies for Small Communities Experiencing Water Scarcity in West Texas/USA" Sustainability 16, no. 5: 1959. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051959

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop