English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Urban stormwater is increasingly being considered a viable alternative water supply in California and throughout the southwestern U.S. However, current economic analyses of stormwater capture do not adequately examine differences in stormwater project types and do not evaluate co-benefits provided by the projects. As a result, urban stormwater capture is undervalued as a water supply option. To advance economic analyses of stormwater capture, we determined the levelized cost of water in U.S. dollar per acre-foot of water supply (AF; 1 AF = 1233.5 m 3 ) for 50 proposed stormwater capture projects in California, characterizing the projects by water source, process, and water supply yield. In addition, we incorporated reported co-benefits of projects into the analysis to determine the net benefit of proposed projects. Proposed urban stormwater capture projects were more expensive than non-urban stormwater capture projects on a per-volume basis ($1,180 per AF and $531 per AF, respectively); however, this was primarily driven by the relatively large size of the non-urban stormwater capture projects examined. When incorporating the limited number of reported co-benefits of the projects, the expected levelized cost of water from urban stormwater capture projects decreased dramatically. For projects that reported even a limited number of additional benefits, the net levelized cost decreased from $1,030 per AF to $150 per AF, with some of the projects demonstrating a net benefit. Thus, scaling urban stormwater capture projects to capitalize on economies of scale and incorporating co-benefits of projects can dramatically improve the economic feasibility of these projects. This work demonstrates that stormwater capture can present a cost-effective water supply option in California, and that beyond California, fairer comparisons among projects and inclusion of co-benefits can provide decision makers with adequate information to maximize investments in water management.

Economic evaluation of stormwater capture and its multiple benefits in California