Contents

Talk:Reclaimed water

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reclaimed water article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sanitation Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Biological Wastewater Processor was copied or moved into Reclaimed water with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this versionofWastewater reuse was copied or moved into Reclaimed water with this edit on 01:00, 20 March 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Icatalan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many cities actually ban citizens from drinking, bathing in, or filling swimming pools with reclaimed water, although the risk of harmful effects associated with doing so are very low. If you irrigate your lawn or plants with reclaimed water, you should place a sign on your property warning people not to drink from the irrigation system.

These two sentences seem to contradict each other. Why is a sign needed if it's so safe - usually safer, the previous text claims, than fresh water from the tap? Tempshill 03:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITS DEFINITELY NOT. I personally changed this article because i could not beleive that someone actually wrote that it was CLEANER than drinking water becasue it has removed some of the moinerals present in drinking water. You can actually smel the sewage in reclaimed water when people use it in sprinklers and other things. There are nearly 30 different chemicals present in it including hormones like birth control and pharmaceuticals and other things that the long-term effects on the human body are unknown. No one should EVER drink reclaimed water. [This unsigned comment was made by User 65.35.244.139]

Note to editor... The chemicals you claim to be found In reclaimed water are also found in the aquifers. And most if not all surface water. Please do more through research before making such claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.68.242.43 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your research and cite your sources when making those types of changes to an article (changing "reclaimed water is often cleaner than standard drinking water" to "reclaimed water is unsanitary"). I edited the article to make note of the fact that some pharmaceutical chemicals pass through the filtering process, but it is easy to find at multiple sources that reclaimed water is usually treated to higher standards than ordinary drinking water in order to ease people's concerns about it being unsanitary. --taestell 01:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaimed water can be made clean to any arbitrary level required. In NSW, Australia, reclaimed water is indeed made cleaner than ordinary "tap water". There are political/psychological reasons it is not actually used for drinking, but it is completely potable. Ordinary Person 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of 06:06, 3 February 2007 by 124.180.72.244

However, the U.S. has found similar tests unreliable.

You can't just say 'the US' without refering to a specific organisation. Additionally, editing this sentence in where you have gives the casual reader the impression that the pre-existing reference which now follows the new sentence contains information supporting the new information, which is most certainly does not (at no stage during the transcript is any U.S. organisation mentioned). Draffa 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current text includes this line:

Reclaimed water is not directly mixed with potable (drinking) water for several reasons:

This seems a very broad statement. Currently reclaimed water is turned into potable water in various places, by feeding the reclaimed water back into the dams that provide water that is made potable and distributed as tap water.

That is to say, "reclaimed water" and "potable water" are two intersecting sets, not mutually exclusive categories. Ordinary Person 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ignorant barrier some people have created upon themselves is unbeleiveable. Do your research... recycled water is perfectly fine to wash, bath-in or drink. It is water treated after the secondary treatment and through the processes of Microfiltration and Reverse Osmosis. And.....yes by this stage it is perfectly fine to drink. No you will not get diseased, sick, or someway deformed. All you will get is pure drinking water. I believe you are deeply inconsiderate if your are against recycled water. Grow up....learn the facts....its not sewage. Plus other alternatives such as dessalinisation, just arn't a viable long-term solution (high costs and high usage of electricity). Ignorance can be overcome quite easily......so do just that.

No one knows what pollutants or mircrobes remain in reclaimed effluent. Leading experts who are not in the employ of the huge wastewater industry warn of risks to public health. Do your research.Notindustry (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference provided lists a number of properties of reclaimed water but does not compare to standard drinking water. And the properties listed are not all the possible measures of how "clean" the water is. -- Barrylb 04:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaimed water used for irrigation does not have reverse osmosis or microfiltation. According to USDA, "Using present technologies, municipal wastewater may not completely disinfect recycled irrigation waters,and can contain enough pathogenic organisms to threaten human health once released into the environment" US Dept of Agriculture, 2005 report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notindustry (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google has more hits for "recycled water" than "reclaimed water". Currently recycled water redirects to reclaimed water. Perhaps it should be the other way around. -- Barrylb 12:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaimed irrigation water does not use reverse osmosis or mircrofiltration. According to USDA "Using present technologies, municipal wastewater treatment may not completely disinfect recycled irrigation waters,...Recycled water used for agricultural and municipal irrigation can contain enough pathogenic organisms to threaten human health once released to the environment." The same report says that organic chemicals in reclaimed pose an unknown risk to the environment. US Dept of Agriculture, 2005 annual report.Notindustry (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Payson, Arizona lies at an altitude of about 5,000-Ft at the foot of the Mogollon Rim. It is arid (20-24 inches rainfall average) but not a desert : Ponderosa Pine country. Of course, the area is subject to drouths, some severe. It is a growing community under conditions of very little private land : Residential prices are skyrocketing.

As a component in a larger program program dealing with water problems, the town takes a part of the "almost potable" effluent water from the local sewage treatment plant and feeds it into the Town Lakes. There, the water percolates from the bottom of the lakes into the local aquifer below, where it is considered "fully potable" == and tests that way. It is estimated that an amount of water is recovered in this way to account for about 30% of the water needs of the Town in the winter. A higher proportion of the Twon's requirements will likely be possible in the future as the Town will no longer sell effluent for private purposes -- and as the rules regarding irrigation are tightened.

What IS hard to understand is why the Valley (Metropolitan Phoenix) does not have any similar WATER REUSE policies in place. Inquiries are ignored.

Reference - www.ci.payson.az.us/Departments/water/ResourceDevelopment/gvp-recharge.htm

When adding a reference to this page, using the <ref></ref> tags, it is not necessary to manually add the reference to the References section, as it is done automatically (provided, of course, that the <references/> tag is in place, which it is in this article). Simply adding <ref>[website text-you-want-displayed-in-ref-section]</ref> is all that is needed with this system. Draffa 18:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that the QLD Government is calling the Referndum a Plebiscite instead, since the word Referendum is specifically mention in the Constitution re changing governence. In reality, there is next to no difference, as the Plebiscite is still non-binding. Draffa 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from one of the currently-linked ABC Online articles:

Many local councils have supported Mr Beattie's decision, but former Toowoomba mayor Clive Berghofer says the food export industry is now in danger.

For any Aussies reading, Clive has substantial interests in land slated for development in Toowoomba. He was outspoken in the Toowoomba Plebescite on RW last year. One might suspect he wasn't concerned over the quality of the water, but rather the potential impact on property prices for newly-developed land. His statement over the now-cancelled South-east Queensland Plebescite seem to indicate his position still stands. Similar objections were raised several years ago by a Mayoral Candidate when Caboolture considered implementing Recycled Water some years ago during another severe drought (best summarised as "They want you to drink poo!").

Not that the water really matters to Clive, since the ABC's Quantum program has shown his 'house-sized' water tank under his suburban house. :D Draffa 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Humans may face psychological barriers against drinking reclaimed water, since it was formerly sewage".

Do the folks who have psychological problems with drinking reclaimed water ever consider the places where their breathing air has recently been -- say, through the nearest sewer or autopsy facility -- and that without any subsequent treatment ?

"Fresh air" contains a wonderful variety of the worst kind of filth and noxious substances -- but fortunately our bodies filter or reject most of it.

A touch of rationality does wonders. Allenwoll 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Hear! Hear!  Cynthisa (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]     

I find it amusing that it has been considered a great step forward in sanitation to pipe sewage away from areas of human population. Now it is considered progess to give sewer water minimal treatment and to irrigate our lawns with it. It has been notoriously difficut to clean this water, especially of those fragments of pathogens which confer drug resistance on other microbes. Before giving it higher treatment and using it for drinking, many more studies, such as those using live fish, are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notindustry (talk • contribs) 19:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

70,000,000 gallons a day water reclaimation plant- purifies water coming from homes and will put it back in with the water supply for people rather than discharge it uncleaned into the ocean. - in orange county.. heard on news. may already be in article. smaller version of same plant already in singapore --Emesee (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal depolymerization#Similar processes seems to mention the plant you are talking about:

• Sforza, Teri (2007-03-14). "New plan replaces sewage sludge fiasco". Orange county register. Retrieved 2008-01-27.

The plant appears to be in Rialto, California, which is actually in San Bernadino County, California rather than in neighboring Orange County, California, but the plant will accept wastewater from Orange County. Interestingly, a byproduct of the plant will be carbonized sludge, or "E-fuel", suitable for burning in cement kilns as a substitute for coal. --Teratornis (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on re-reading the article, I see the plant in Rialto is actually a sludge treatment plant, which will accept sludge from several neighboring water treatment districts, including Orange County. The water treatment plant you mention appears to have the name Groundwater Replenishment System:

• Archibold, Randal C (2007-11-27). "From Sewage, Added Water for Drinking". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-30. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

--Teratornis (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Orange County Water District. --Teratornis (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing that it was considered a great step forward in sanitation to pipe sewer water away from areas of human population. Now we are giving it minimal (secondary) treatment, and watering our lawns with it!

reclaimed water used for irrigation of lawns, golf courses etc. rarely receives tertiary treatment and does not get reverse osmosis or microfiltration. In its 2005 annual report, the USDA recognizes that endocrine disrupting chemicals and pathogens, including drug resistant bacteria cannot be removed with present technology, and can pose an environmental and human health threat.Notindustry (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this might be worth adding to the article but I don't have time to do it at the moment: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090520-space-urine.html Robogymnast (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" Reclaimed water planned for use in recharging aquifers or augmenting surface water receives adequate and reliable treatment..." Yes? This may or may not be true.--Wetman (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to add some text about a January 2012 National Research Council report about water reuse. You can read more about the report here: http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Water-Reuse-Potential-Expanding/13303

This is the text I'd like to add:

In a January 2012 National Research Council report^[1], a committee of independent experts found that expanding the reuse of municipal wastewater for irrigation, industrial uses, and drinking water augmentation could significantly increase the United States’ total available water resources^[2]. The committee noted that a portfolio of treatment options is available to mitigate water quality issues in reclaimed water. The report also includes a risk analysis that suggests the risk of exposure to certain microbial and chemical contaminants from drinking reclaimed water is not any higher than the risk from drinking water from current water treatment systems—and in some cases, may be orders of magnitude lower. The report concludes that adjustments to the federal regulatory framework could enhance public health protection and increase public confidence in water reuse.

Does this seem OK? I'd welcome any feedback. Thanks, Earlgrey101 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across this Wikipedia article: Environmental persistent pharmaceutical pollutant. The article has some issues and needs some work. Nevertheless, I think it might be relevant to link to it, e.g. under concerns it could be linked in a sentence or provided as "further information". What do you all think about this? EvM-Susana (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge this page with the page on water reclamation. I have also said the same on the other talk page but there have been no responses. As this page here is more detailed I propose to move/merge the content of water reclamation to here and then to have a re-direct from water reclamation to here. What do others think? E.g. Thewellman, Velella EvM-Susana (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nobody had any objections, so this merger has now been done.EvM-Susana (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More photos could be added, quite a few are in Wikimedia Commons, just look for keywords like "wastewater reuse", "tertiary treatment", "water reclamation" etc. I have just added one which in my opinion is more suitable than that photo of a manhole cover in California which was there before.EvM-Susana (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ToUser:Bio-CLC: I have edited the text that is now under "health aspects (potable use)". However, I am not too sure if this is sufficiently clear: "This would be of much less concern if the population were to keep their excrement out of the wastewater e.g. via the use of the Urine-diverting dry toilet or systems that treat blackwater separately from greywater." - Keeping those streams separate would deal with the pathogen and pharmaceutical residues issue but not with the household chemicals issue: shampoo, soap, detergent etc. would all be in the greywater and could hence also end up in the potable reuse water. - Also, we should cite some high quality sources here. EvM-Susana (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC) To User:EvM-Susana Good point, but I think we can agree to worry most about pharmaceuticals, since they are specifically designed to affect the human body. The full idea is to keep these wastewater streams separate and send them somewhere they will be useful while staying away from others' drinking water. In particular, I think one of the best options would be process blackwater and then use it again in the same toilets. In this way, the Environmentally Persistent Pharmaceutical Pollutants stay in the system instead of contaminating surface or ground water. If the water is being with biological systems, such as anaerobic digestion, followed by artificial wetlands, I would expect the bacteria to get more and more efficient at breaking down these EPPPs and in the mean time no one has any contact with them. The water would be color-less, smell-free and acceptably free from pathogens, etc., so the users would not even notice the difference, and they already careful to not touch the water in the toilet. (I have searched the internet and asked the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance Forum and have found no cases of such closed-loop recycling of just blackwater.) This would be very important in California with the current, growing drought. Does anyone know who to send the idea to there? Bio-CLC (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The treatment for the blackwater would have to be quite elaborate though (could not be done at household level) and you'd need two separate piping systems. Greywater reuse is simpler and is relatively common now e.g. in Australia and probably also in California. Perhaps we should channel some of our energy into the page on greywater and link to it better from this page. - And I still think that all the stuff that is in shampoos, soap etc. is also not harmless, so potable reuse from greywater is also not that attractive in my opinion. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that there is now an article on wastewater reuse which had a redirect to here but where the redirect was taken out in October 2016. It seems to be totally overlapping with this topic here so I propose to put the redirect back into place and to move anything that is worth saving to the article here. What do people think (for example User:Velella, User:Thewellman)? EMsmile (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. An SPA populated the redirect with 65K of content in one go and insisted on it being retained there despite the best efforts of other editors. It looks very much like an undergraduate dissertation that the editor thought highly of. There is absolutely no point in having both articles, and any useful content (and there may well be some significant useful material) should be integrated here. In one sense it is a pity because the title was good, but it will still be there as a redirect. Since I received no ping from the mention above, I will ping @Thewellman:  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Thank you for inviting my comment. From an engineering perspective, I consider these articles to be overlapping upstream and downstream perceptions of the same process. My professional vocabulary may not be up-to-date with this politically contentious subject; so I wonder if some individuals may perceive significant differences from a social perspective? Both articles appear well written and well sourced. I would encourage editors to carefully retain as much appropriately sourced material as possible while rejecting obvious duplication and advertising. I do not feel qualified to organize this subject into an effective blend of content in a single article. Thewellman (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your opinions, User:Velella and User:Thewellman! We have an edit-a-thon coming up in a week so I might try to put that on top of my to do list for the edit-a-thon. Perhaps you'd like to pop in? See here for details.

  OK, so I am now busy doing the merger (moving content from wastewater reusetoreclaimed water, and after that is all done, I will suggest a name change to the article. So that in future it will be called wastewater reuse. But first I am doing the merger. EMsmile (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Update on progress: I have moved most of the content across, still need to look at the information in the lead and in Section 2 of wastewater reuse and integrate that into reclaimed water. Am planning to tackle that tomorrow. EMsmile (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I have merged all the content now and placed a redirect from wastewater reuse. I still need to work on the article to structure it better and remove redundancies. EMsmile (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Have done more hours and hours of work on the article. Found a LOT of poorly sources and opininiotated content which I cut out. There is still more to do in that respect. EMsmile (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of examples in this article. Some are provided in the type of reuse section. And some in a country section. I am wondering if this could be somehow streamlined but am not sure what's better. I am leaning towards putting examples by country, rather than by type of reuse. EMsmile (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved them all to be grouped by country. The number of examples given is probably a bit excessive, should we cull them down? EMsmile (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you an update about further work I am doing today: After speaking to another Wikipedian, I realised that the article is still too long and drawn out. So I will do some more work on compressing the content. E.g. the examples section is far too long. I will move some examples to other Wikipedia articles where it fits. EMsmile (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. EMsmile (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good reference which can be used to pull out some further figures at the global level for wastewater as a resource. I have added it in one place but it could be used more: ^[1]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reclaimed water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170408061139/http://www.unwater.org/publications/publications-detail/en/c/853650/tohttp://www.unwater.org/publications/publications-detail/en/c/853650/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907013345/http://news.ufl.edu/2000/05/24/water/tohttp://news.ufl.edu/2000/05/24/water/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just replaced the text for two of the country examples (United States, South Africa) with excerpts from the respective sub-articles. The aim is here to not duplicate content and to only update content in one place, not in two. The same could now be done for the other country examples. However, I wonder how we determine which countries to include here? How many? When does it get tedious? Maybe only those countries that are very active with those wastewater reuse activities. I am also mindful that we shouldn't just think of wealthy countries (Euro and US bias). Then again in developing countries, wastewater reuse takes place too but usually without advanced treatment (or even any form of treatment) and sometimes this causes dangerous side effects (health and pollution). Not sure if this is adequately covered/explained in this article yet. EMsmile (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the same now also for the other country examples, i.e. replaced them with excerpts.EMsmile (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wonder about the best title for this topic. Personally, I actually would prefer the article to be called "wastewater reuse" and have "reclaimed water" redirect to there (after merging the content). I think the article on "reclaimed water" is currently in better shape, but the title "wastewater reuse" is possibly more appropriate. "Reclaimed water" for me is a bit a "political term", making it sound nicer than what it is. Opinions? EMsmile (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the title, hence my slightly cryptic comment above. I also agree that reclaimed water has a number of political overtones such as in NEWater in Singapore. Wastewater reuse cuts to the chase. Thanks for the invitation to the editathon - I'll try and keep an eye out for useful stuff, but my time availability on Wikipedia is very limited at present. If you think I can be of any value on a particular topic, please ping me and if I am at a computer (rather than digging my allotment for Spring sowing) - I'll see what I can do. Regards.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought more about renaming this to wastewater reuse. But the article also contains some information on reusing stormwater or rainwater harvesting which would then no longer fit. What to do? EMsmile (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the rainwater harvesting is listed as an alternative. So renaming to "Wastewater reuse" is still something we should think about. Opinions, anybody? I suppose more correctly would be "Treated wastewater reuse" although we normally just speak of "Wastewater reuse". EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this discussion from four years ago. I still think the article should be renamed to "wastewater reuse" (or "Treated wastewater reuse" to be more precise?). This is the more common name and not a euphemism. Option B could be "water reclamation", which then matches better with the first sentence. We are talking here about all the process not just the water itself. Comments anyone? Perhaps Velella, ASRASR?EMsmile (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Water reuse includes all sources eg wastewater, rainwater, collected runoff, etc. So water reclamation might be an improvement over the present title "reclaimed water" as suggested by User:EMsmile. Is User:Velella still following this?

There is also an old article from 2014 called WateReuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WateReuse which is more of a commercial. This article was contested in 2014 and nothing has happened since. It gets an average of 1 view per day (in practice zero). So it probably should be put on the chopping block. ASRASR (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term "water reuse" currently redirects to here but the article is focused only on wastewater reuse as is indicated in the first sentence: "Water reclamation (also called wastewater reuse, water reuseorwater recycling) is the process of converting municipal wastewater (sewage) or industrial wastewater into water that can be reused for a variety of purposes." I think when people use rainwater, this is not termed "water reuse" but "rainwater harvesting". Runoff, if it's polluted, then it's basically wastewater. If it's not polluted then it's just normal water. A superficial Google search leads me to believe that water reuse is used interchangeably with wastewater reuse. E.g. EPA website, or Science Direct "Water reuse is the method of recycling treated wastewater for beneficial purposes, such as agricultural and landscape irrigation, industrial processes, toilet flushing, and groundwater replenishing (EPA, 2004)." Or "Water Reuse, the use of reclaimed water from treated wastewater, has been a long-established reality in many (semi)arid countries and regions. It helps to alleviate water scarcity by supplementing limited freshwater resources." (UBA). So I suppose we could either call the article "Water reuse", "Water reclamation" or "Wastewater reuse". EMsmile (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with you about WateReuse. It does not meet WP:N. I've written on the talk page there and will figure out what else needs to be done to progress the deletion process. EMsmile (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: P.S. I've started the deletion process by following this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion EMsmile (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a new section called "definition" to the article. Looking at the Google Ngram, the term "water reuse" is more common than "wastewater reuse" in (Google) books, see here. Personally, I find the term "wastewater reuse" more precise but I could also follow the argument that we should call it "water reuse". Interestingly, the term "water reclamation" seems to have dropped off in popularity, see here on Google Ngram. EMsmile (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term water reuse implies that it has been used once and then it is used again often after treatment. Agree that wastewater reuse is therefore more accurate for what we are talking about. Regarding rainwater harvesting I have seen large rainwater harvesting projects in China where the water is treated (settling tanks and solar boiling) before it can be used for human consumption. Although treated this isn't strictly speaking water reuse. Treatment of surface water, rainwater or groundwater for human consumption should therefore not fall under the term water reuse. So my thinking now is that the article should be titled "wastewater reuse". ASRASR (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, ASRASR. I'll try to make this name change happen now (unless anyone else who's watching this page has any objections?). EMsmile (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ipropose creating created a short section containing basic information about WateReuse. The existing article about WateReuse contains conflicting statements and other flaws, however, WateReuse appears in many citations, and at least 10 Wikipedia articles link to WateReuse. Wikipedia should tell readers what is known about WateReuse, without offering unsupported details. Comfr (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the section heading to "trade associations" to be broader. Also shortened content. If people want to know that sort of detail they can just click on the website. Why should this trade association be given more limelight than others, given that this is a global article, not specific about the US. Consider adding such content to the article water supply and sanitation in the United States. - By the way, whether other Wikipedia articles link to WateReuse or not is irrelevant when it comes to determining notability of a topic. EMsmile (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now placed a redirect at WateReuse as it looks to me like the merger was completed. I don't think any of the other detailed content at WateReuse was worth bringing across to here, although some could be added to water supply and sanitation in the United States, I guess. EMsmile (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaimed water → Wastewater reuse – I propose to change the title to the more accurate term "wastewater reuse" as per discussion on the talk page. The page "wastewater reuse" is currently a redirect to "reclaimed water" so would have to be deleted first. EMsmile (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the discussion so far is shown here (just above on this talk page): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reclaimed_water#Rename_to_%22wastewater_reuse%22?EMsmile (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; ngrams tells us that the WP:COMMONNAME is the current title. BilledMammal (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ngram of Google books is only one way of looking at this, and even there you see clearly how the usage of "reclaimed water" has declined since its peak in 1994. From my observation with the literature (and I used to work in the field), water reclamation is becoming an outdated term. It's either water reuse or wastewater reuse now. The latter is the more accurate term. In Google, "wastewater reuse" currently gets 745,000 hits, "reclaimed water" gets 1,490,000 hits, "water reuse" gets 2,850,000. I wouldn't base the decision just on that though, as there are combinations of the term, e.g. reuse of wastewater, reused wastewater, waste water reuse etc., so it's difficult to compare. It might also be that "reclaimed water" is more of a U.S. term. The WHO in its landmark publication of 2006 used "wastewater reuse" (actually they called it "safe use of wastewater"). EMsmile (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI, I've asked on the talk page of the closer why this was closed so quickly before a consensus was reached (in my opinion), see here. EMsmile (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CHeeseHater12345 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ecologist-185526, C.diabolis.

— Assignment last updated by Branchiobdellid (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]