Departamento de Ciências e Engenharia do Ambiente

Rainwater Harvesting

Case Study: FCT/UNL Campus

Carlos Schmidt Quadros

Dissertação apresentada para a obtenção do grau de Mestre em

Engenharia do Ambiente, Perfil Engenharia Sanitária,

Orientador: Professora Doutora Leonor Miranda Monteiro do Amaral

Co-Orientador: Professor Doutor Pedro Manuel da Hora Santos Coelho

Lisboa, 2010
ii
 Acknowledgements

Numerous people have contributed to the completion of this thesis through various
combinations of advice, moral support and information supply.

My thanks go first and foremost to my supervisors Professor Leonor Amaral and

Professor Pedro Coelho for their advice, patience and for keeping me on track.

I have to thank to my dear Maria do Rosário, for all the assistance and availability
since day one, for helping me find and collect all the needed information.

Thanks to Engineer Paixão, from the green spaces department, and to David, from
the security office, for all the assistance provided. Thanks to all the gardening team,
especially to Mr Luis, for all the availability and support given during this study.

Thanks to Engineer Inês Machado Aires, for all the care, sympathy and availability
for helping me whenever I needed.

Thanks to all my friends and colleagues, for all the stimulation, support and
friendship provided. Thanks to Ruben and Manuel for all the support during these last
three months.

Thanks to Jess, who always stood by me, for better or for worse; for the whole
affection and support, and to bear up with my bad moods.

Thanks to Engineer Inês Santos, from ECODEPUR, to Lieutenant Jorge Palma,

from the Air Force, to Professor João Fonseca and to my uncle Engineer Carlos
Schmidt and do my cousin Joana Schmidt, for all the data and information provided.

Thanks to Professor Murray Todd for the advice and all the help provided.

Last but not least, I want to thank all my family for always being there. Thank you
mother for all the affection, support and patience throughout these years. Thank you for
letting me live in your house for a much longer period of time than we all originally
anticipated. Thank you father, for all the incitement given from overseas.

iii
iv
Resumo

Com uma crescente pressão sobre o meio ambiente, nomeadamente sobre os

recursos hídricos, devido a forças externas como o aumento da população mundial e
as alterações climáticas, a água é hoje um recurso escasso e altamente valioso. Com
a necessidade de encontrar novas alternativas, o aproveitamento de águas pluviais
deverá ser visto como uma importante estratégia para uma melhor gestão dos
recursos hídricos, uma vez que constitui uma fonte gratuita de água potável.

Os sistemas de aproveitamento de águas pluviais são uma opção reconhecida para

os edifícios urbanos reduzirem a sua dependência em relação à rede de
abastecimento pública, já possuindo muitos exemplos de implementação a nível
global.

O objectivo desta dissertação é o de produzir uma avaliação global sobre o

aproveitamento de águas pluviais e o seu potencial de utilização em todo o mundo,
bem como analisar os seus benefícios económicos e ambientais.

Um caso de estudo será apresentado, cujo principal objectivo será avaliar a

viabilidade da implementação dum sistema de aproveitamento de águas pluviais para
rega dos espaços verdes do campus da Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da
Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

Será fornecida uma caracterização detalhada do actual sistema de rega do campus,

bem como do seu potencial para recolher e armazenar água da chuva. Através do
balanço de água entre a oferta e a procura, vários cenários serão apresentados, com o
objectivo de fornecer as informações necessárias que permitam aos decisores avaliar
a melhor solução para a aplicação desejada. Para tal, toda a informação disponível foi
analisada, a fim de determinar a viabilidade ambiental, técnica e económica do
projecto.

Palavras-chave: Escassez de água, aproveitamento de águas pluviais, sistema de

aproveitamento de águas pluviais, rega, reservatório, Método de Rippl.

v
 Abstract
With increasing pressure on the environment, particularly on water resources, due to
outside forces such as climate change and population growth, water is nowadays a
scarce and a valuable resource. With the need to find new alternatives, rainwater
harvesting should be seen as an important strategy for better management of water
resources, once it constitutes a free source of potable water.

Rainwater harvesting systems, which already have a global implementation, are a

recognised way for urban buildings to reduce their reliance on the public mains supply.
Its applications are predominantly non-potable, namely toilet flushing and gardening.

The aim of this report is to produce a comprehensive assessment of rainwater

harvesting and its potential use all over the world, as well as the potential economical
and environmental benefits. It is provided a description of all the rainwater harvesting
system components, as well as water quality requirements according to the water final
purpose.

A case study is presented, which main object is to evaluate the feasibility of

rainwater harvesting for gardening, applied to the University Campus of the Faculty of
Sciences and Technology of Universidade Nova, Lisbon (FCT/UNL).

A detailed characterization of the existing irrigation system on campus is provided,

as well as its potential ability to collect rainwater. According to the supply and demand
balance, several scenarios are presented in order to provide the necessary information
for the decision-makers to evaluate the best solution for the desired application. For
such, all the available information was analyzed, in order to determine the
environmental, technical and economical viability of the project.

Keywords: water scarcity, rainwater harvesting (RWH), rainwater harvesting

systems (RHS), irrigation, reservoir, Rippl Method.

vi
Symbols and Abbreviations
9MP – Ninth Malaysia Plan
ADWG – Australian Drinking Water Guidelines
ANQIP – National Association for Quality in Building Installation
ARCSA – The American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association
BS – British Standard
BT – Bell Tower Project
C – Runoff Coefficient
Cf – Filter Coefficient
cm – Centimeter
DB – Departmental Building
DL – Decreto Lei
DLC – Division of Logistics and Conservation
DR – Decreto Regulamentar
E. coli – Escherichia coli
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
ET – Evapotranspiration
ETA – ANQUIP Technical Specification
EV – Evaporation
EWR – Environmental Water Requirement
FCT – UNL – Faculty of Sciences and Technology of New University of Lisbon
GHG – Green House Gas
GSB – Genome Science Laboratory Building
Gt – Gigaton
HB – House Bill
ha – hectare
IAPMO – International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IWMI – International Water Management Institute
km2 – Square kilometre
L – Litres
LNEC – National Laboratory of Civil Engineering
m2 – Square Meter
m3 – Cubic Meter
MDG – Millennium Development Goals
min – Minute
vii
 mm – Millimetre
NPW – Non-Potable Water
NSF – National Standards Foundation
ºC – Degrees Celsius
OECD – Organisation for Economic Co--operation and Development
OWASA – Orange Water and Sewer Authority
P1MC – Programme of One Million Cisterns
PAHs – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCV – Green Campus Project
PNUEA – National Program for Efficient Water Use
PVC – Polyvinyl Chloride
RHS – Rainwater Harvesting System
ROI – Return on Investment
RT – Technical Report
RWH – Rainwater Harvesting
SMAS – Municipal Services of Water and Sanitation
SNIRH – Water Resources National Information System
UEV – Green Spaces Unit
UK – United Kingdom
UKM – Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
UNC – University of North Carolina
UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme
US – United States
USD – U.S. Dollars
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV – Ultraviolet
VF1 – Volume Filtre 1
VOCs – Volatile Organic Compounds
WFD – Water Framework Directive
WHO – World Health Organization
WSI – Water Stress Index

viii
Index
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................iii
Resumo.................................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Hydrologic Cycle ......................................................................................... 2
1.2. Water Scarcity and Global Crisis ................................................................. 4
1.2.1. The Falkenmark Water Stress Indicator ............................................... 5
1.2.2. Socio-Economical Scarcity Index ......................................................... 6
1.3. Water Scarcity in the World ......................................................................... 9
1.3.1. Europe and other OECD Countries ...................................................... 9
1.3.2. Africa and Middle East ....................................................................... 10
1.3.3. China and India .................................................................................. 11
2. Literature Review .......................................................................................... 13
2.1. Rainwater Management ............................................................................ 13
2.1.1. Rainwater Harvesting ......................................................................... 13
2.1.2. Benefits of Rainwater Harvesting ....................................................... 14
2.1.2.1. Rainwater Harvesting as a Strategic Tool for Adaptation to Climate
Change...............................................................................................................14
2.1.2.2. Rainwater Harvesting in Rural Areas ............................................ 16
2.1.2.3. Rainwater Harvesting in Urban Areas........................................... 17
2.1.3. Inconveniences of Rainwater Harvesting ........................................... 18
2.2. Water Legislation ...................................................................................... 19
2.2.1. Portuguese Legislation ....................................................................... 19
2.2.2. World Legislation................................................................................ 21
2.3. Potential Uses of Rainwater ...................................................................... 25
2.3.1. Case Studies – World Success Stories .............................................. 27
2.3.2. Case Studies – Implementations in Universities ................................. 33
2.3.3. Case Studies in Portugal .................................................................... 35
2.4. Water Quality Aspects Related to Rainwater and its Potential Uses .......... 37
2.4.1. Physico-Chemical Hazards ................................................................ 38
2.4.2. Microbiological Hazards ..................................................................... 42
2.4.3. Water Quality Standards for Irrigation ................................................ 44
2.4.3.1. Rainwater Quality Parameters ...................................................... 45
2.5. Recommendations on the design, installation and maintenance of a
Rainwater Harvesting System ................................................................................. 45
2.5.1. ANQUIP Hydric Certification .............................................................. 46

ix
 2.6. Components of a Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting System .......................... 47
2.6.1. The Catchment Surface ..................................................................... 48
2.6.1.1. Roof Runoff .................................................................................. 49
2.6.2. Conveyance System .......................................................................... 50
2.6.3. Pre-Tank Filtration and First-Flush Diversion ..................................... 52
2.6.4. Storage Tanks.................................................................................... 56
2.6.4.1. Tank Sizing .................................................................................. 57
2.6.4.2. Tank Location ............................................................................... 59
2.6.4.3. Tank Materials .............................................................................. 60
2.6.4.4. Tank Installation ........................................................................... 62
2.6.5. Pressure Tanks and Pumps ............................................................... 65
2.6.6. Water Treatment ................................................................................ 68
2.6.6.1. Filtration ....................................................................................... 69
2.6.6.2. Disinfection.................................................................................. 70
2.6.6.3. pH Treatment .............................................................................. 72
3. Case Study: Rainwater Harvesting for FCT/UNL Campus Irrigation ............. 73
3.1. Goals ........................................................................................................ 73
3.2. Methodology ............................................................................................. 73
3.2.1. Rainfall Data ...................................................................................... 73
3.2.2. Determination of Irrigation Water Consumption .................................. 74
3.2.3. Water Demand ................................................................................... 74
3.2.4. Determination of Green Areas with Active and Inactive Irrigation ....... 74
3.2.5. Determination of the Roof Areas ........................................................ 75
3.2.6. Roofing Material ................................................................................. 75
3.2.7. Determination of Reservoir Capacity .................................................. 75
3.2.6.1. Rippl Method ................................................................................ 75
3.3. FCT-UNL Presentation .............................................................................. 76
3.3.1. General Description of the University Campus ................................... 76
3.3.1.1. Rainwater Drainage ...................................................................... 77
3.3.2. Characterization of the FCT Irrigation System .................................... 78
3.3.2.1. Water Demand ............................................................................. 80
3.3.3. Supply Management .......................................................................... 82
3.4. Water balance ........................................................................................... 85
3.4.1. Null Hypothesis .................................................................................. 85
3.4.2. 1st Scenario ........................................................................................ 87
3.4.3. 2nd Scenario ....................................................................................... 89

x
 3.4.4. 3rd Scenario ........................................................................................ 92
3.4.5. 4th Scenario ........................................................................................ 93
3.5. Determination of the Optimum Tank Size .................................................. 94
3.5.1. Economic Analysis of the Rainwater Harvesting Systems .................. 96
3.6. Summary and Discussion of Results ......................................................... 98
4. Conclusions ................................................................................................ 103
References ........................................................................................................... 107

xi
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Expected population living in urban areas, by 2030 .................................. 3

Figure 2 - Expected world's population growth and decline, between 2000 and 2080
..................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3 - Water scarcity in 2050 based on the Falkenmark indicator ....................... 6

Figure 4 - IWMI water scarcity map .......................................................................... 7

Figure 5 - A map of water stress indicator as human use of renewable water

resources, which takes into account environmental water requirements ....................... 8

Figure 6 - Water stress in OECD countries based on gross freshwater abstractions

................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 7 - Distribution of water consumption in a common dwelling. ....................... 25

Figure 8 - Average water use in office buildings ..................................................... 26

Figure 9 - Aerial image of the Sony Centre glass-roof ............................................ 29

Figure 10 - Brazilian family and their rainwater cistern ........................................... 31

Figure 11 - Typical Japanese “Rojison” mechanism ............................................... 32

Figure 12 - Common gutter shapes ........................................................................ 51

Figure 13 - Gutter guard ......................................................................................... 52

Figure 14 - VF1 filter............................................................................................... 53

Figure 15 - Simple scheme of a dwelling‟s down pipe first flush diverter................. 55

Figure 16 - Standpipe first flush diverter ................................................................. 55

Figure 17 - Standpipe first flush diverter, with ball valve ......................................... 56

Figure 18 - External appearance of a first flush diverter system ............................. 56

Figure 19 - Complete underground storage tank .................................................... 60

Figure 20 - Calmed inlet for rainwater storage tanks .............................................. 62

xiii
 Figure 21 - Overflow siphon with skimming effect on tank water surface from
chamfered inlet slots ................................................................................................... 63

Figure 22 - Below ground tank with submersible pump and pressure difference
municipal backup with check valve ............................................................................. 65

Figure 23 - Submersible Pump with floating pump intake ....................................... 66

Figure 24 - Typical on-demand system for rainwater, incorporated with an integrated

treatment device ......................................................................................................... 67

Figure 25 - Floating filter with pump intake ............................................................. 68

Figure 26 - Data required for rainwater tank dimensioning by the Rippl method. .... 76

Figure 27 - Aerial view of the FCT University campus. ........................................... 77

Figure 28 - Percentage distribution of water demand for irrigation of green areas. . 82

Figure 29 - Building I roof, consisting of tile cement. Building II roof is identical. ..... 82

Figure 30 - Building X roof, covered with gravel. Buildings VII, VIII and IX roofs are
identical. ..................................................................................................................... 83

Figure 31 - View of the DB roof. As seen, the surface material is cement. .............. 83

Figure 32 - Aerial view of Buildings III, IV and V. All three are tar screen coated .... 84

Figure 33 - Green sectors of the FCT Campus. ...................................................... 85

Figure 34 - Blueprint of all the FCT buildings and the considered catchment
surfaces. ..................................................................................................................... 88

Figure 35 - Blueprint of the campus green areas with active irrigation. ................... 90

Figure 36 - Tank volume according to the percentage of irrigated area. ................. 95

Figure 37 - Construction costs for each RHS according to the reservoir capacity. 100

Figure 38 - ROI period for each RHS according to the reservoir capacity. ............ 100

xiv
 List of Tables

Table 1 - Estimated Annual Consumption for Green Areas Irrigation ...................... 47

Table 2 - Runoff coefficients for different roof types................................................ 50

Table 3 - Minimum Water Quality Guidelines and Treatment Options for Harvested
Rainwater ................................................................................................................... 69

Table 4 - Contact Time with Chlorine (Source: TWDB, 2005) ................................. 70

Table 5 - Active and inactive irrigation areas of FCT. ............................................. 79

Table 6 - Operating Watering Equipments in FCT Campus. ................................... 79

Table 7 - Average weekly flow of water consumed for irrigation in FCT .................. 81

Table 8 - Water demand for irrigation. .................................................................... 81

Table 9 - Characteristics of all the roofs contemplated in the case study. ............... 84

Table 10 - Average annual volume of affluences by building and total irrigation water
consumption. .............................................................................................................. 86

Table 11 - Estimated annual volume of irrigation water and respective economic

value, for the considered irrigation area of 2.3 ha. ...................................................... 86

Table 12 - Assessment of the economic value associated to the fees charged for
water consumption by the SMAS. ............................................................................... 87

Table 13 - Average annual volume of affluences by building and total irrigation water
consumption, for the 1st scenario. .............................................................................. 88

Table 14 - Average annual volume of affluences by building and total irrigation water
consumption, for the 2nd scenario. ............................................................................. 90

Table 15 - Estimated annual volume of irrigation water and respective economic

value, for the considered irrigation area of 1.1 ha. ...................................................... 91

Table 16 - Assessment of the economic value associated to the fees charged for
water consumption by the SMAS. ............................................................................... 91

xv
 Table 17 - Average annual volume of affluences by building and total irrigation water
consumption, for the 3rd scenario. .............................................................................. 92

Table 18 - Average annual volume of affluences by building and total irrigation water
consumption, for the 4th scenario. .............................................................................. 93

Table 19 - Summary of the characteristics associated to each scenario. ................ 94

Table 20 - Characteristics of proposed RHS for different percentage of irrigated

area. ........................................................................................................................... 95

Table 21 - Estimated workloads and respective costs of construction for reinforce

concrete tanks, according to each dimension. ............................................................ 97

Table 22 - Characteristics of proposed RHS and respective ROI period................. 99

xvi
1. Introduction

In the late 20th and early 21st century, water emerged as one of the most relevant
environmental and socio-economic themes in society. Formerly, water was seen as an
inexhaustible good and accessible to all, without any economic value. However this
situation changed dramatically, mainly due to outside forces such as climate change
and population growth, making water a scarce and a valuable resource, economically
and strategically.

There has always been a strong link between water resources and economic and
social development. History has shown us how water has always contributed to
development, requiring increasing amounts of water to meet all human and
environmental needs. However, this balance has reached a breaking point in some
places in the world, following a rise in strong environmental pressure and increasing
conflict between consumers.

With the growing importance of the concept of sustainable development, water has
become the epicentre of management strategies and world politics. New water sources
must be found. Thus, among other actions, the collection and use of rainwater has
gained increasing importance all over the world. It is a source of drinking water, which
should be seen as an important strategy for better management of water resources and
to minimize the problems related to its scarcity. This will reduce the consumption of
freshwater, especially for non-potable uses, and also be a way to mitigate catastrophic
natural events such as floods and droughts.

The use of rainwater was once widely applied by past civilizations, but as time went
by, fell into disuse. Nevertheless, countries like Sweden, Germany, Brazil, Australia,
the United States and some African countries like South Africa, have been focusing
heavily on this practice, with large economic investments.

In Portugal, the achievements in the field of utilization of rainwater are practically

non-existent, though not a totally obscure subject. At this point, Portugal is not
particularly concerned about the scarcity of drinking water despite the fact that some
regions, such as the Alentejo, already manifest acute water deficit. The collection and
use of rainwater should be seen as an advantageous tool in terms of the environment
and the economy.

1
 Therefore, the aim of this report is to produce a comprehensive assessment of
rainwater harvesting (RWH) and its potential use all over the world. A case study is
presented, the main object of which is to evaluate the feasibility of use of rainwater for
gardening, applied to the University Campus of the Faculty of Sciences and
Technology of Universidad Nova, Lisbon (FCT-UNL).

1.1. Hydrologic Cycle

Water is essential to life, the functioning of ecosystems, economic growth and

sustainable development. All this is influenced by its cycle and its variation in terms of
quality and quantity, in both surface and subterranean aquatic systems, through the
processes of precipitation, evaporation (EV) and evapotranspiration (ET).

Through the hydrological cycle, the oceans, continents and atmosphere are closely
linked, since the same water circulates throughout each of these domains. However, of
all the water on the planet, only a small percentage - 2.5% - is considered freshwater.
For this reason, the terrestrial hydrological cycle is considered the keystone of the
world‟s water resources as it is the basis of survival of the human race. As stated by
the World Water Assessment Programme (2009), freshwater “is required for food
production, industry, drinking water, inland water transport systems, waste dilution and
healthy ecosystems”.

The amount of water in the world is finite and therefore must be preserved.
Nevertheless, its distribution is quite varied due to natural cycles of ice freezing and
melting, to temporal variations in precipitation, the levels of ET and streamflow
patterns.

As global temperature increased considerably over the 20th century, there is a

general consensus among the climate science community that climate warming will
intensify or accelerate the global hydrologic cycle, which could have major impacts on
the world‟s water resources. This trend could be evidenced by the increasing rates of
EV, ET, precipitation and streamflow in many areas. Associated changes in
atmospheric water content, soil moisture, ocean salinity and glacier mass balance may
also be implicated (Del Genio et al., 1991; Loaiciga et al., 1996; Trenberth, 1999; Held
and Soden, 2000; Arnell and Liu, 2001 in World Water Assessment Programme, 2009).

Also important is that the acceleration of the water cycle could be associated with
the more frequent occurrence of extreme events, such as droughts, floods and tropical
2
storms. The consequences of these natural disasters are quite significant and can
directly affect human health and welfare through catastrophic damage, or indirectly
through adverse effects on ecosystems and crop productivity. These extreme
hydrologic phenomena are a known threat to populations at risk, especially in
developing countries, without the necessary means for adaptation and mitigation
(Huntington, 2006).

While climate change will continue acting on the planet‟s water systems, other
forces outside the water sector are currently a major source of concern. New and
continuing human activities and processes of all types – demographic, economic and
social – have become primary drivers of the pressures affecting our water resources.

The world population is growing fast, implying increased freshwater demand and
consumption. According to the United Nations Population Fund Report (2007), by
2030, human population living in urban areas is expected to swell to almost 5 billion,
about 1.7 billion more than in 2008, while the world‟s rural population is expected to
decline by some 28 million. Furthermore, most of the urban growth will be in developing
countries, consisting around 81 per cent of urban humanity (Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Expected population living in urban areas, by 2030 (Source: UNFPA, 2007)

Figure 2 presents an expected population growth and decline by 2080. As stated,

population will increase mainly throughout Africa, Southwest Asia and South America.

3
 Figure 2 - Expected world's population growth and decline, between 2000 and 2080 (Source: Lutz,
Sanderson and Scherbov, 2008 in World Water Assessment Programme, 2009).

This major urban expansion in developing countries has global implications,

especially in regions where the current population does not have sustainable access to
safe drinking water and adequate sanitation. Migration can be seen as the major factor
of urbanization. People all over the world are seeking for better economic opportunities
and better access to water and sanitation services. People are running away from war,
political conflict and environmental crises. People are searching for refuge, poverty
alleviation, political and environmental sustainability, health services and food, in order
to survive.

Urbanization has unique social and environmental impacts, given that it is

accompanied by the complete metamorphosis of natural land surfaces. With the
increasing area of paved surfaces, the permeability of soil and infiltration decreases,
and surface runoff accelerates, transporting all kind of pollutants and materials into
superficial water systems, degrading water quality.

All these demographic processes combined with the rapid global rise in living
standards – as incomes permit, people consume more – present the main threat to the
sustainability of water resources. Water scarcity is a reality which has major impacts on
people‟s well-being, at a global scale.

1.2. Water Scarcity and Global Crisis

“Water scarcity will be one of the major threats to humankind during this century”
(Prinzs, 2000). According to the World Health Report 2007, “currently 1.1 billion people

4
lack access to safe water and 2.6 billion people lack access to proper sanitation”. The
need to provide sanitation, both for drinking-water and hygiene, remains a huge
challenge today in developing countries.

So, what is water scarcity? According to Rijsberman (2006) “when an individual

does not have access to safe and affordable water to satisfy her or his needs for
drinking, washing or their livelihoods we call that person water insecure. When a large
number of people in an area are water insecure for a significant period of time, then we
can call that area water scarce.”

It is reasonable to state that there is no commonly accepted definition of water

scarcity. To define an area as “water scarce” is necessary to take into account people‟s
needs, and whether the needs of the environment are included in that definition, and
what fraction of the resource is made available to satisfy these needs

For this author, it is evident and inexorable that while populations continue to
spread, there will be more pressure and more demand over water resources which will
culminate in an inevitable reduction of its availability. It is of crucial importance to
understand that a major problem in many areas of the world is that water withdrawals
from natural systems will exceed their ability to recharge, resulting in a progressive
lowering of groundwater tables. It is a vicious cycle which has already managed to
destroy several wetlands and will continue to cause irreparable damages in many
others, unless brought into focus the urgent need for planned action to manage water
resources effectively.

It is essential to evaluate and determine the availability of water, where and when,
as it affects the perspective of general users and the judgement of policy makers, on
the imperativeness to address water policies as a primary subject to focus on water
crisis. Some water indicators are used to measure water well-being and to provide a
very useful background to assess global water scarcity.

1.2.1. The Falkenmark Water Stress Indicator

This indicator is the most simple and easy-to-understand, as it relates water scarcity
to water accessibility and human population. In other words, it associates water
availability per capita per year, normally at a national scale. According to Falkenmark et
al. (1989) in Rijsberman (2006), the attraction of such instrument is elementary: “if we
know how much water is needed to satisfy a person‟s needs then the water availability

5
per person can serve as a measure of scarcity.” Based on the assessment of water
needs for the environment and other sectors such as energy, industrial, agricultural and
household, they recommended 2,000 cubic metres (m3) of renewable water resources
per capita per year as the lower limit necessary to accomplish water demands.
Countries where supply is inferior to 1,000 m3 are considered to experience water
scarcity, and under 500 m3, absolute scarcity. Between 1,000 m3 and 2,000 m3,
countries are said to evidence water stress (Wallace, 2000).

Figure 3 represents future per capita water availability based on the Falkenmark
indicator. The forecast is that around one in six people will have insufficient water to
meet their primary needs and that 67% of the world's population in 2050 may suffer
water stress (Wallace, 2000).

3
Figure 3 - Water scarcity in 2050 based on the Falkenmark indicator. Blue – more than 2,000 m per
3 3
person per year; Orange – between 1,000 and 2,000 m per person per year; Red – less than 1,000 m
per person per year (Source: Fischer and Heilig, 1997 in Wallace, 2000).

1.2.2. Socio-Economical Scarcity Index

Others have aimed for a more precise evaluation of water demand, instead of
considering fixed requirements per person, such as the basin factor, on a national
scale. They correlated annual demand for water and annual renewable freshwater
resources with human and environmental needs. In a more accurate approach Raskin
et al. (1997) in Rijsberman (2006), replaced water demand for water withdrawals,
presenting scarcity as “the total annual withdrawals as a percent of available water
resources” - Water Stress Index (WSI). These water withdrawals can be interpreted as
6
the quantity of water taken out of lakes, streams, rivers or groundwater aquifers to fulfil
human necessities.

In other words, when the water drawn from groundwater and superficial systems is
insufficient to assure all human and ecosystem needs, countries experience water
scarcity. As an increasing number of river basins are insufficient to provide the water
demanded, intense competition among all the potential users is inevitable (World Water
Assessment Programme, 2009). The International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
analysis of water scarcity assesses the quota of the renewable water resources
attainable for human requirements as the primary water supply. It's evaluation of
demands is based on ET and the remnant of water withdrawn is explainable as return
flows (Figure 4) (Rijsberman, 2006).

Figure 4 - IWMI water scarcity map (Source: based on Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management
in Agriculture, 2007)

Economic scarcity occurs when countries have sufficient renewable resources, but
would have to make very significant investment in water infrastructure to satisfy people
demand for water. Much of Sub-Saharan Africa is characterized by economic scarcity.
Countries that will not be able to meet both human demands and environmental flow
needs are called physically water scarce. Arid regions are most often associated with
physical water scarcity. Symptoms of physical water scarcity are severe environmental

7
degradation, declining groundwater, and water allocations that favour some groups
over others (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 2007).

Available information however, hides the full reality of scarcity at local or basin level.
For the biggest countries such as the United States (US) this is a very problematic
issue, where average water use, according to US Department of Energy (2006) in
World Water Assessment Programme (2009), accounts for only 25% of available
resources at a national scale, but can reach 80% on a regional scale.

However, another approach of the earth's water stress identifies Nature as a

stakeholder, since it supplies significant benefits to people and societies. It is an
important step towards sustainability, since concerns over environmental issues often
come in second place or when competition is critical. Despite some controversy, a
voice for nature in sharing decisions for water withdrawal at the basin level was defined
as the Environmental Water Requirement (EWR) (World Water Assessment
Programme, 2009).

In Figure 5, Smakhtin et al. (2004) have attempted to present the distribution of WSI
values on a global scale, taking into account an estimated EWR.

Figure 5 - A map of water stress indicator as human use of renewable water resources, which takes into
account environmental water requirements. The yellow, orange and red bands designate the areas where
water stress is more severe (Source: Smakhtin et al., 2004)

Figure 5 highlights important river basins (circles) where perspectives to meet EWR
are at risk, particularly if water removals continue to increase, severely degrading
downstream wetlands. Therefore, water use is reaching levels that seriously
compromise development and life, especially for more vulnerable people who rely on

8
natural ecosystems for their livelihoods. Examples include the world's largest shallow
lake (Lake Chapala in Mexico) and some of the largest rivers (such as the Murray-
Darling, Yellow and Orange) that are turning into smaller streams closer to their mouth,
because flows are no longer sufficient to maintain the health of aquatic ecosystems
(Smakhtin et al., 2004).

1.3. Water Scarcity in the World

The final verdict of many analyses about the global scarcity of water is that a
considerable portion of the world population – around two-thirds – will be highly
affected by water stress over the next decades (Rijsberman, 2006).

Some conclusions concerning water stress in some parts of the world, after
analysing the maps presented above, are as follows.

1.3.1. Europe and other OECD Countries

In a general overview, there are no major concerns over water scarcity in Europe
compared to other regions of the world. However, some countries have been
experiencing growing water stress, mainly because water is still seen as an endless
resource and a public commodity. According to Bixio et al. (2006), “Approximately half
of the European countries, representing almost 70% of the population, are facing water
stress issues today”.

Since both people and water are unequally distributed on a global scale, not all
water utilization puts the same pressure on its resources. Consistent with the WSI,
when the proportion of water withdrawal to water availability is inferior to 10%, water
stress is low. A ratio between 10 and 20% means that water stress is moderate.
Between 20 and 40% indicates that a country is water scarce and that significant
investments should be considered to provide adequate supplies. When the ratio is over
40% a country is considered to be extremely water scarce and both demand and
supply need urgent management (Figure 6).

9
Figure 6 - Water stress in OECD countries based on gross freshwater abstractions (Source: OECD, 2005).
b) Internal resources = precipitation - ET;
Total resources = internal resources + transboundary inflows.

As it shown, seven OECD countries already withdraw more than 20% of their
internal water resources, while Belgium, Hungary and the Netherlands face serious
water problems.

1.3.2. Africa and Middle East

The most perceptive freshwater problems occur in the arid areas of the world and
affect countries mostly in North Africa and in the Middle East. For most of them the
Falkenmark indicator is already below the 1,000 m3/capita/year threshold and for
Egypt, the most populous country of this region according to Rijsberman (2006), “the
Falkenmark indicator is likely to drop below the 500 m3/capita/year within the next 25
years.” This scenario is expected to worsen in the next decades and to spread out

10
through large regions of Africa and large parts of South and Southeast Asia (Wallace,
2000).

West Africa is also a region that cries for attention, particularly the Sahelian
countries. Desertification, erosion and deforestation are the main consequences of
human-related activities in a region characterized by low, erratic and highly variable
rainfall. Such blurred information is highly prejudicial for crop production, leading these
zones to severe food production, starvation and malnutrition. The long dry periods
induce people to migrate to overcrowded urban developments, leaving behind former
fertile land. One of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) is to help smallholder
farmers ensuring successful interventions in rain-fed agriculture, with the objective to
reduce poverty and hunger. Though successfully tested and, in some cases, already
adopted, innovative ways to improve crop production such as RWH, have a great
potential and should be always considered through integrated land and water
management (Barry et al., 2008).

1.3.3. China and India

While the severe lack of freshwater resources is mainly related with the Middle East
and Africa, important markets such as China and India are already facing economic
restraint due to water scarcity.

The population of China is the largest, representing more than 22% of the world‟s
total. Nevertheless, this country possesses only 7% of earth's freshwater resources,
being adversely distributed throughout the territory. South China holds nearly 81% of
the water resources of the country, stopping only a third of total agricultural land and
serving a population of around 700 million. On the other hand, the northern part, which
only has 19% of usable water, represents two thirds of agricultural land and serves
40% of the population of the country. Currently, of the many challenges that China has,
the problems associated with the quality and quantity of water is on top of their list of
priorities (Smakhtin et al., 2004).

The Huang-Ho River (Yellow River) Basin is of major importance, with an area of
almost 800,000 square kilometres (km2), and serving more than 100 million people. As
already demonstrated in Figure 5, this area is an example of an environmentally water
scarce basin, reaching the critical point of total water exploitation (Smakhtin et al.,
2004). In response to this crisis, china implemented a mega project to transfer water
from the south (Yangze River) to the north (Yellow River), yet these efforts were not
11
enough, since the topographic conditions that surround this river do not allow it. The
land is characterized by great cliffs and high altitudes, which makes the construction of
systems for transfer of water and irrigation networks absolutely impracticable.
Therefore, the collection and use of rainwater emerge as a viable solution to lack of
drinking water supply in areas badly affected by the hydrological stress. In the last two
decades RWH, through the implementation of cistern storage, became the
government's key water strategy in response to the critical situation of this area
freshwater scarcity (Zhu et al., 2004).

India is the seventh largest country by geographical area and the second most
populous country of the world. With its population exceeding one billion people, the
demand for clean water increases exponentially. The intense exploration of the
aquifers has led the country to go through complicated water stress, since they do not
have the capacity to regenerate. Following this trend, within a few decades India will
experience a severe shortage of water, especially in large urban areas like New Delhi
(Sharma, 2007).

New measures have to be urgently taken to preserve water resources, both surface
and underground, before it is too late. In this context, the use of rainwater in India is
seen as an important weapon to reverse this trend. All over the country, especially in
large cities, projects to collect rainwater from the roof-tops are being implemented. The
water collected will be used for both domestic use and to recharge groundwater
aquifers (Sharma, 2007).

12
2. Literature Review

2.1. Rainwater Management

The water issue has remained too low on the list of political priorities of world
leaders and decision-makers, for too long. And this situation has to end. More and
more people seek and require water, because their survival depends on it. And as
water supplies are shrinking dramatically, the environment is deteriorating, people
suffer and world crisis increases. Decisions have to be made and significant investment
is needed to reverse this trend.

As the pressure on water resources intensifies, an efficient integrated management

of water is essential for sustainable development, both economic and social, in order to
meet multiple demands and purposes, poverty reduction and cares for equity.

With an aging water infrastructure, decreasing water quality and most of all with a
growing population and intense urbanization, there is the urgent need to explore
sustainable alternatives to our current water supply system. Among such possibilities,
RWH is a topic with great potential and should not be ignored by government leaders.
Despite some interest shown by certain societies, much can be done, since this issue
can be seen as a great opportunity towards sustainable development by improving
standards of living and protecting the environment (UNEP, 2009).

2.1.1. Rainwater Harvesting

In recent decades, rainfall has been considered a source of pollution from the
moment it is formed in the atmosphere, continuing on the urban impervious surfaces –
streets, roads, roofs and yards – where the stormwater run-off is mixed with all kinds of
materials and pollutants accumulated during dry periods. A major objective of rainwater
management is to assume stormwater as an important resource and not as a nuisance,
implementing measures to protect the natural water cycle and ecological systems
(Niemczynowicz, 1999).

Rainwater is seen by many as the ultimate source of free freshwater and therefore
should be well utilized. Since most of it returns to the atmosphere through EV and ET,
RWH has to be seen as an important strategy to address problems of water scarcity,
and also to protect the quality of surface waters, reducing formation of surface run-off

13
and downstream flooding occurrence. Collecting rainfall is a decentralised,
environmental solution, which can be used for “toilet flushing, irrigation in urban small-
scale urban agriculture or even for production of drinking water” (Niemczynowicz,
1999).

What is Rainwater Harvesting? RWH is a system which consists in numerous

technologies used to collect water from rooftops and yards, and storing it in tanks or
reservoirs for later uses, providing water for the purpose of meeting demand by
humans and/or human activities. The RWH level varies from household level to large-
scale water harvesting projects, and its technologies can be split into two types
depending on source of water collected: in situ and ex situ techniques of RWH (UNEP,
2009).

In situ RWH aims to recharge soil water for crop and other vegetation growth, by
enhancing rainfall infiltration and reduce surface runoff. This system has a relatively
small RWH catchment and it is characterised by the soil being the storage medium for
the water. This system can also be used to recharge shallow groundwater aquifers
and/or to supply other water systems in the landscape, providing the availability of
water for many purposes, including livestock and domestic supplies. Ex situ RWH
distinguishes from the in situ practices, because the water is stored outside the
collecting area. The catchment surface varies from natural soil to an artificial structure,
such as roads, yards, pavements and rooftops. The water generated is usually stored
in wells, dams, cisterns and tanks, and from there it can be applied for multiple
purposes trough centralised or decentralised distribution systems: domestic and public
uses, agriculture, irrigation, etc. (UNEP, 2009).

2.1.2. Benefits of Rainwater Harvesting

2.1.2.1. Rainwater Harvesting as a Strategic Tool for Adaptation to

Climate Change

As mentioned before the global temperature is rising, the population multiplying,

urbanization expanding and pressures on natural resources are reaching catastrophic
levels.

One of the main consequences of climate change is the occurrence of natural

disasters, including floods and droughts, characterized by the temporal variation of the
precipitation phenomena, both in quantity and intensity. These events will negatively

14
influence the amount of water / freshwater available, both for human-beings and
natural ecosystems.

RWH should be seen as a key intervention in mitigation and adaptation to climate

change, mainly as a way to meet the increasing water needs and demands.

Rainwater harvesting reducing CO2 emissions

Using this technology, besides being cost effective, has the advantage of reducing
Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, since its simple operating procedure requires less
energy consumption when compared to the main water distribution systems. The latter
are obviously more polluting, once the processes of capturing, storing and treatment of
water are associated to the use of larger quantities of materials and higher energy
consumption.

According to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) “the expanded use of rainwater harvesting and other “bottom-
up” technologies have the potential of reducing emissions by around 6 Gig tons (GT)
CO2 equivalent/year in 2030”. At the urban scale, infrastructures for collecting rainfall,
such as green roofs or retention ponds, contribute to the cooling of cities affected by
the urban heat island effect, through its ET. It's an important step towards reducing the
CO2 footprint and improving human well-being, by saving energy for cooling during the
summer season (UNEP, 2009).

Rainwater harvesting as a strategic tool for drought mitigation

RWH helps communities, urban and rural, to adapt to water scarcity, both for
potable and non potable purposes. Furthermore, it should be seen as a necessary
strategy for the recharging of aquifers in areas where water levels are very low or its
quality is much deteriorated. Thus, the exploitation of surface aquatic systems and the
extraction of underground water will be lower, contributing to a better management of
natural ecosystems.

Groundwater recharge can be induced through different structures, such as

percolation tanks. These tanks show great promise in drought mitigation, especially in
areas with impermeable surfaces but high percolation rates (UNEP, 2009).

15
 2.1.2.2. Rainwater Harvesting in Rural Areas

In the rural context, many areas face concerning situations of abandonment and / or
desertification, since intense agriculture and over-exploitation of aquifers and reservoirs
are responsible for situations of heavy water scarcity. RWH is an important strategy for
the rural people once its decentralized nature enables individuals and communities to
manage their own water for their own purposes. Using harvested rainwater for the
irrigation of higher value crops, such as in kitchen gardens, especially off-season has
been beneficial for household food supplies and incomes.

The low cost of these technologies and its implied benefits, should be seen as an
attractive investment option in rural areas.

Adaptation strategies to ecosystem management

In watershed management, RWH should be seen as a major instrument to preserve

forests and other green areas, and to protect lands and water resources, by reducing
their vulnerability to erosion and sediment load deposition. At the watershed basin,
stormwater storing can contribute to water pollution control by collecting runoff from
within a watershed area, storing it, and using it for other purposes. This way, there will
be an increasing capacity for the ecosystems to provide sustainable water flows
downstream, habitat for biodiversity and adequate livelihood support (UNEP, 2009).

Rainwater harvesting enhancing agricultural production

Collecting rainfall through in situ and ex situ RWH techniques has a direct benefit to
the management of agro-eco systems. These interventions contribute to amplify both
surface and shallow groundwater reserves, expanding the irrigated area and enabling
an increased cropping intensity as well as cash crop production. This new
management approach brings great opportunities for sustaining farm ecosystems and
livestock benefits. In some cases, with an improved irrigation supply, farmers are able
to grow a second crop during the winter season. This enhanced agricultural production,
which provides work, income and food security, allied with a sustainable watershed
management should be seen as an essential strategy to reverse the growing pressure
of urbanization, by decreasing the tendency of migration and consequent
desertification of the rural area (UNEP, 2009).

16
 2.1.2.3. Rainwater Harvesting in Urban Areas

Cities are characterized by their extensive impermeable soil with hardly any natural
infiltration. Its drainage systems were built to collect the urban flows in order to
attenuate the peak flow, avoiding problems of flooding downstream. However, with
increased variability and intensity of precipitation, coupled with solid waste pollution
typical of cities, stormwater sinks are no longer effective in drainage of surface runoff
and fail to provide flood protection. Adding stormwater collecting points within an urban
catchment has the potential not only to provide protection against the risk of flooding,
but also to allow the storage of freshwater, suitable for other requirements and to meet
demand (Mitchell et al, 2007).

Economically, the primary benefit of RWH is its relevant savings on water bills, since
rainwater falls for free. Moreover, incorporating it into an urban stormwater
management plan will decrease the size of other rainwater facilities, helping to
compensate the initial expense of a Rainwater Harvesting System (RHS).

In most urban areas, rooftop and surface runoff are linked to the drainage system
that conveys the sewage to water treatment plants. These piping systems require the
use of oversized pipes to handle the stormwater runoff, much more expensive. Once in
those facilities, stormwater will be treated as waste water, implying a greater
investment in the operations associated to the process.

But the most worrying situation occurs when witnessing heavy rains, as water
treatment facilities are overwhelmed with stormwater. When this happens, in order to
avoid further problems downstream, effluents are discharged directly into the receiving
environment, contaminating the water with untreated sewage (Virginia Rainwater
Harvesting Manual, 2009).

As it is obvious, treating rainwater as wastewater is totally unnecessary, requires

large investments, lead to more pollution and ultimately wastes precious resources

That is why in many cities, especially in the United States of America (USA) and
Canada, a downspout disconnect program has been implemented in recent years with
great success (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009).

Downspout disconnection represents an in situ technique where rooftop runoff is

collected by eaves troughs installed along the edge of the roofline, where stormwater is
conveyed to ground level by one or more downspouts. There, the water can be directly

17
applied to land (lawns or gardens) or downspouts can connect directly into storm sewer
system or into a combined storm and sanitary sewer system, depending on the local
drainage system.

This program appears as a cost-effective alternative for reducing the volume of

rainwater that requires public management, bringing a number of economic and
environmental benefits to the municipality and to the homeowner (Downspout
Disconnection, n.d.):

 in separate sewer areas, the redirected rainwater reduces volume of flows

transported and carrying loads to watercourses;
 In mixed sewer areas, disconnection reduces the amount of combined flow
requiring treatment, thus decreasing the threat of combined sewer overflows. The
operation of centralized sewage treatment plants is improved by the higher
concentration of sewage water, resulting in cleaner outflows to the receiving
environment;
 Other environmental benefits can result in terms of groundwater recharge and
availability of "recycled" rainwater.

2.1.3. Inconveniences of Rainwater Harvesting

The main inconvenience of RWH is associated to the limited supply and uncertainty
of rainfall. Rainwater is not a reliable water source; therefore this is a less attractive
issue to some governmental agencies tasked with providing water supplies in
developing countries, especially those affected by prolonged droughts. Other
numerous barriers to the acceptance of systems exist. The most relevant barriers and
inconveniences to the uptake of RHS are (Mitchell et al., 2007, Roebuck, 2007,
Kahinda et al., 2007, Farahbakhsh et al., 2009):

 Absence of legally binding water quality standards: unwillingness of any

Government or regulatory body to take responsibility for setting and monitoring
standards;
 Lack of information regarding RHS costs and maintenance requirements;
 Difficulty in achieving and maintaining reliable level of water quality;
 Lack of public awareness and acceptance;
 Current low cost of public mains water makes investment profit in water efficiency
measures unattractive: water companies focus is on reducing consumer costs not

18
 on creation of a sustainable water supply system; and, the cost of water is rarely
a driver for the end-user but cost of installing a RHS may be seen as significant;
 Storing capacity limits the amount of harvested rainwater;
 Rainwater can be contaminated by all sorts of microbiological and chemical
pollutants thus, if not properly treated before usage, may cause serious health
risks;
 It is also acknowledged that harvesting excessive amounts of urban stormwater
runoff could be detrimental to stream health;

2.2. Water Legislation

Currently, water laws don't deal with RWH as a source of good water for use in
housing and for possible drinking purposes. However, in many countries, this
procedure is being practised outside the legal framework without too much government
involvement. This way, by creating facts on the many benefits that can be learned from
the application of this practice, practitioners scattered all over the world hope that
appropriate institutional and legal framework is established, comprising the use of
rainwater.

With the support of institutions of higher importance at national and global scale,
within and outside the water sector, this practice will be better promoted, with an
assured future and can no longer be ignored.

As we shall see further ahead, some countries already have RWH as a strategy to
take into account, and developed technical specifications or standards for
implementation of systems for rainwater utilization.

2.2.1. Portuguese Legislation

It was only since the year 1995 that the concept of rainwater began to take shape in
Portuguese legislation.

Decreto Lei (DL) Nº 207/94, of August 6th, came to update existing legislation on
public systems and residential water distribution and sewerage, as well as approve the
Decreto Regulamentar (DR) 23/95, of August 23rd, which defines for the first time the
concept of rainwater. According to this DR, rainwater is defined as the water that
"results from precipitation fallen directly on the spot or in adjacent watersheds and
generally has smaller quantities of pollutants, especially of organic origin. Considered
19
to be equivalent to stormwater from the watering of gardens and green areas, washing
streets, sidewalks, public parks and parking lots, usually collected by gutters, sinks and
drains" (Ministério das Obras Públicas, Transportes e Comunicações, 1995).

The most relevant DL regulating water in Portugal are:

DL nº 236/98, of August 1st, which sets standards, criteria and quality objectives in
order to protect the aquatic environment and improve water quality in terms of its main
uses. It defines the requirements of water use for the purposes of human consumption,
aquaculture life support, bathing waters, irrigation and wastewater disposal (Ministério
do Ambiente, 1998).

DL nº 306/2007, of August 27th, approves quality standards for water intended for
human consumption, reviewing the DL nº 243/2001, of September 5th, which
transposed into domestic law the Directive No. 98/83/EC, of the Council, November 3rd,
related to the quality of water intended for human consumption (Ministério do
Ambiente, 2007).

Today there is no legislation regulating the use of rainwater, proving very little
progress in the last 15 years regarding this matter. Rainwater is still regarded by the
Portuguese legislation as wastewater.

In 2001 the Programa Nacional para o Uso Eficiente da Água (PNUEA – National
Program for Efficient Water Use) was prepared and approved by resolution of Council
of Ministers No. 113/2005 of 30 June 2005, following the Water Framework Directive
(WFD) - Council Directive 2000/60 EC of 23 October (Resolution of the Council of
Ministers No. 113/2005). On December 29th, 2005, appears the Water Act or Law Nº
58/2005, which transposes into national law the Directive 2000/60/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council, establishing the foundation and institutional framework for
the sustainable management of water (Assembleia da República, 2005).

The PNUEA aims to promote efficient water use in Portugal, mainly at the level of
urban areas, agriculture and industry, by proposing a set of strategic measures that will
contribute not only to improve environmental conditions in aquatic resources, as well as
to reduce the wastewater and energy consumption associated to its utilization. The
measures which address the use of rainwater are measures 8 (Use or reuse of lower
quality water), 38 (Use of rainwater in gardens and alike), 45 (Use of rainwater in lakes
and lagoons) and 48 (Use of rainwater in sports fields, golf courses and other
recreational spaces) (Baptista, et al., 2001).
20
 In 2005 the Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC – Civil Engineering
National Laboratory) prepared several Technical Reports for Support in Implementation
of PNUEA, including the Relatório Técnico 9 (RT – Technical Report), which refers to
the analysis of regulatory documents and regulatory framework, through which
inconsistencies and disparities are identified in the implementation of the measures
proposed by PNUEA. In accordance to RT9, the RD 23/95 "prohibits the use of non-
drinking water in housing for purposes other than washing decks, irrigation and fire
fighting (Article 86)" emerging as an obstacle to the possibility of using lower quality
water in building networks, for toilet flushing for example (Oliveira, 2008).

Despite the relevance of this issue, there hasn't been an attempt to change the
Portuguese legislation or to establish specific rules aimed at the collection and use of
rainwater in building facilities. However, the Associação Nacional para a Qualidade nas
Instalações Prediais (ANQIP – National Association for Quality in Building Installation)
developed in 2008 two ANQIP Technical Specifications - ETA 0701 and ETA 0702 -
which regard RHS in buildings. These technical recommendations consist of a set of
guidelines, criteria, rules or procedures considered advisable, although not mandatory.

2.2.2. World Legislation

 Spain

Decreto 262/2007, December 20th, of Housing Department, approves new rules for
Galician dwellings. All new residential buildings shall install a RHS for domestic reuse
(Decreto 262/2007, 2008).

 Australia

Many cities throughout Australia are committed to certify that new housing is
planned, designed and built in order to meet the latest water and energy efficiency
standards, supported by national legislation

 Victoria

5 Star Standard – Since 2005, new houses and apartments must be constructed to
meet 5 Star energy efficiency rating for the building fabric and 5 Star water
management efficiency for taps and fittings. Besides that, it also requires either a
rainwater tank for toilet flushing, or a solar hot water system (International Water
Harvesting and Related Financial Incentives, n.d.).
21
  South Australia

Since July 2006, new houses are required to have an additional water supply to
supplement the main water distribution system. The additional water supply has to be
plumbed into the house to a toilet, to a water heater or to all cold water outlets in the
laundry, from a rainwater tank. “The same rules will apply to new extensions or
alterations where the area of the extension or alteration is greater than 50 square
metres (m2) and includes a toilet, water heater or laundry cold water outlet” (Rainwater
Tanks, 2009).

 New South Wales

BASIX (Building Sustainability Index) – sets energy and water reduction targets for
house and buildings. This index may contribute to a 40% reduction in mains water
utilization in new dwellings, by including an alternative water supply, such as a
rainwater tank, for outdoor water use and toilet flushing and/or laundry (International
Water Harvesting and Related Financial Incentives, n.d.).

 Gold Coast

“The construction of a 3,000 litres (L) rainwater tank has been made mandatory in
the Pimpama Coomera Master Plan area of the Gold Coast. This is for all homes and
business centres connected to the Class A+ recycled Water system. The tank should
be plumbed to their cold-water washing machine and outdoors faucets” (International
Water Harvesting and Related Financial Incentives, n.d.).

 Brazil

Lei Estadual 4.393/2004 – regulates about the "business planners and construction
companies are to provide the mandatory necessary devices to capture rainwater for all
the residential and commercial housing” (Lei Estadual nº 4.393, 2004). The same law
dictates “the installation of a device for rainwater collection in residential developments
with more than 50 families and in commercial developments with more than 50 m 2 of
built area in the State of Rio.”

Projecto de Lei No. 317/2006 – “requires the installation of devices to capture

rainwater in residential and commercial properties built in the state of Espírito Santo”
(Pojecto de Lei N° 317/2006, 2006). According to the same source, the same Draft
states that design and construction companies, as well as public agencies, which

22
conceive architectural projects, are “obliged to plan for the installation of RWH
apparatus in residential projects or commercial enterprises with more than 50 m 2 of
built area in the State of the Espírito Santo.”

 United States of America

The American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association (ARCSA) has been

alerting Americans to the problems related to water scarcity, promoting the importance
of RWH through numerous conferences and workshops performed all over the country.
This association, together with the International Association of Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), developed a standards guide which contains
specifications for each system component and example diagrams, and it‟s an excellent
tool for those interested in designing and installing rainwater catchment systems
(HarvestH2o, 2010).

RWH is exploding in almost all states, cities and localities in the United States of
America (USA). Below is a list of the states that have given more relevance and spent
greater effort on trying to approve Bills or Standards towards legalization of RWH.

 Illinois

SB2549 Status – redresses the Illinois Plumbing License Law. Provides that “if a
unit of local government regulates RHS, then the reclaimed water systems must meet
specific requirements” (HarvestH2o, 2010).

The Illinois Department of Public Health shall publish a “minimum code of standards
for RWH collection systems and RWH distribution systems by March 1, 2011”
(PLUMBING-RAINWATER SYSTEMS, 2010). According to the same source, this law
“requires rainwater harvesting collection systems and rainwater harvesting distribution
systems to be (A) used only for non-potable uses and (B) constructed in accordance
with the Illinois Plumbing Code.”

 Ohio

The state of Ohio has the most widespread regulations on RWH in the country, with
codes on “cistern size and material, manhole openings, outlet drains, overflow pipes,
fittings, couplings, and even roof washers. Ohio‟s rules also address disinfection of
private water systems” (HarvestH2o, 2010).

23
  Texas

House Bill (HB) 645 – approved by the 78th Legislature in 2003, “prevents home-
owners associations from banning outdoor water-conserving measures such as
composting, water-efficient landscapes, drip irrigation, and RWH installations. The
legislation allows home-owners associations to require screening or shielding to
obscure view of the tanks” (HarvestH2o, 2010).

HB 4299 – “requires rainwater collection on all state buildings and recommends

water agencies counties promote RWH. Also authorizes financial institutions to issues
loans for developments using rainwater as a sole source. Approved by the House and
died in the Senate” (HarvestH2o, 2010).

HB 2430 of May 2005 – establishes “rainwater harvesting evaluation committee to

recommend minimum water quality guidelines and standards for potable and non-
potable indoor uses of rainwater. The committee will also recommend treatment
methods for indoor uses of rainwater, methods by which RHS could be used in
conjunction with existing municipal water systems, and ways in which that the state can
further promote rainwater harvesting” (TWDB, 2005).

 Washington

Law RCW 36.89.080 of 2003 – mandates the reduction in stormwater fees of at

least 10% for any commercial facilities that installed RHS (HarvestH2o, 2010).

 United Kingdom

British Standard (BS) 8515 – gives recommendations on the design, installation,

alteration, testing and maintenance of RHS supplying non-potable water for
remodelling or new UK houses, giving the public confidence that their RHS is of the
best quality. This standard only covers for systems supplying water for domestic water
uses that do not require potable water quality such as laundry, toilet flushing and
garden watering (BSI Group, 2009).

 Germany

DIN 1989 – Planning, installation, operation and maintenance of RHS.

“This standard applies to systems utilizing rainwater in households and commercial

and industrial companies, as well as in public organizations, in which it is used for

24
flushing toilets, for cooling purposes, for washing and cleaning systems and for
watering green areas.” (V 8 - Rainwater Harvesting Systems, n.d.).

This standard is in the vanguard on rainwater utilization being considered as the

most complete and reliable on this subject. Therefore, it should be an example to follow
by every country that aims to adopt RWH as a key strategy towards water
management sustainability. The German Standard provides technical reliability and
ensures designs are high-quality and safe (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual,
2009)

2.3. Potential Uses of Rainwater

As mentioned earlier, one of the benefits of using rainwater is savings on water bills.
Rainwater falls for free and it's available for everyone who wants to capture it from their
home or building roofs and yards.

Most water used in homes and industries does not need high quality water – e.g.,
toilet flushing and gardening. As we can see in Figure 7, many of the activities typical
of every household do not require potable water (Harmer Kessel, 2009).

Figure 7 - Distribution of water consumption in a common dwelling (Source: Harmer Kessel, 2009).

Figure 8 indicates the average water use in office buildings (Roebuck, 2007).

25
 Figure 8 - Average water use in office buildings (Source: Leggett et al, 2001a in Roebuck, 2007).

The same water we drink is used to wash cars, irrigate lawns, to wash clothes and
toilet flushing. Consumption suitable to be replaced by rainwater is nearly 50% of the
total average water consumption spent in a dwelling, in contrast to the 2% of water
used for cooking and drinking, the activities that really need higher quality water. Of
course these values vary from case to case, but never stray too far from this reality.

Although mainly aimed at non-potable demands, harvested rainwater can be used

for potable purposes (drinking and food production) if properly treated according to
WHO Standards. However, since it is a process that requires more care and higher
treatment costs, it is a less common solution.

In short, the several uses of rainwater include:

 Toilet flushing
 Laundry / clothes washing
 Landscape irrigation / water gardening
 Household cleaning
 Vehicle washing
 Building washing
 Cooling towers
 Fire fighting
 Industrial processing
 If properly treated, potable purposes include:
 Drinking water

26
  Bathing
 Cooking
 Dish washing

For all the problems associated with water scarcity and the continuing increase of its
demand, the concept of RWH has been acknowledged by many countries, cities,
societies and individuals, all over the world. With the growing interest and adequate
investment, the development of new technology was inevitable, and therefore
examples of simple high-tech RHS can be found through all the 5 continents, especially
in countries like Australia, Brazil, Germany and Japan.

Some success stories are presented below, which could serve as a starting engine
for other countries to adopt this strategy, with the aim of using alternative water
sources and reduce global water crisis.

2.3.1. Case Studies – World Success Stories

 Berlin, Germany

 Daimler-Chrysler Complex at the Potsdamer Platz

Between 1996 and 1998 was constructed one of the largest building site in Europe,
under very strict stormwater management conditions, introducing RHS in its buildings
architecture in order to save city water, to create a better microclimate and to control
urban flooding (UNEP, 2002).

To comply with these goals, some techniques were adapted to the building
structures (Centgraf & Schmidt, 2005):

• Extensive and intensive green roofs

• Collection of roof-runoff

• An artificial lake for rainwater retention and EV

About 23 m3 of rainwater is collected from the rooftops of the 19 buildings which

comprise the complex, equivalent to a total catchment area of 32,000 m2. The water is
stored in a 3,500 m3 underground cistern and from there it is fed into the system of
canals built on the south side of the building complex (Sustainable Cities™, 2008). The

27
water is then used for refilling the artificial lake, for toilet flushing and irrigation of green
areas including intensively greened roofs (UNEP, 2002).

 Belss-Luedecke-Strasse

Another important project is the Belss-Luedecke-Strasse building estate. Rainwater

from all roof areas along with the runoff from streets, parking spaces and pathways, is
collected and discharged into a separate public rainwater sewer and conveyed into a
reservoir with a capacity of 160 m3. The water is treated in several stages and used for
toilet flushing as well as for garden watering.

This system is designed to flush out the initial flow into the sanitary sewer for proper
treatment in a sewage plant, ensuring the removal of the majority of the pollutants of
the initial rainfall. It is estimated that the savings of potable water through the use of
this system are of about 2,430 m3 per year, thus preserving the groundwater reservoirs
of Berlin (UNEP, 2002).

 Sony-Center

This building complex is a symbol of contemporary Berlin, where the 400 m 2 glass-
roof covering the shopping centre is the landmark of its modernization. One of the
concerns of this development architecture was the integration of a rainwater utilization
system. The water collected on the roof is drained into the storage tanks located in the
basement, with a capacity ranging from 100 to 200 m3. Among the various reservoirs,
the system has a total capacity of 900 m3 (König, 2001).

The harvested rainwater is used for the irrigation of outdoor recreational facilities
and for the toilets and urinals in the Office Tower (building A), from the 1st to the 14th
floor. Still to mention that there is a reserve tank in case of fire (König, 2001).

28
 Figure 9 - Aerial image of the Sony Centre glass-roof (Travel Lynx, 2010).

 Brazil

In Brazil, many projects have been developed focusing on rainwater utilization. From
the year 2000, the Cosch Company began to spread this technology and is responsible
for most of the Brazilian reference projects, mainly in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and
Curitiba (Cosch, 2007).

Some of these success stories are:

 Coca-Cola Brazil

Coca-Cola Brazil, formed by Coca-Cola headquarters in Rio de Janeiro and 17

groups of manufacturers, prioritizes the efficient and rational use of water once it is its
main raw material. To this end, Coca-Cola joined the Clean Water Program that seeks
to reduce consumption, prevent waste, promote reuse and search for alternative
sources of water (Coca-Cola Brasil, 2006).

Currently, this system uses 2.08 L of water for each L of beverage produced,
holding one of the best rates of this industry around the world. Twelve years ago, this
rate was around 5 L (Coca-Cola Brasil, 2009). A major factor which led to the reduction
of water consumption is related to the search for new sources of water. In fact, Coca-
Cola Brazil stopped using water from the public supply and set out to capture its own
water, mainly rainwater. Since 2005, the implemented RHS (RHS) already operates

29
successfully in the headquarters, where rainwater is used for feeding the cooling
towers (Coca-Cola Brasil, 2006).

Besides its headquarters, there are already nine manufacturers who use rainwater
collected from their harvesting systems as the main raw input, which represents 2.3%
of the average consumption of these factories, reaching the mark of 12% in some
cases. Today, the ability to capture rainwater in all Coca-Cola factories, including its
headquarters, is 89 million L of water per year (Saúde & Lazer, 2009).

 Projects in the 2007 Pan American (Cosentino, 2009)

These projects include the João Havelange Stadium, the Water Park, the Multisport
Arena and Velodrome. Its RHS were design in a way that from the moment the rain
falls on the roof, the system operates by collecting and storing it, providing quality
water for non-potable purposes, such as, toilet flushing, irrigation, fire fighting reserve
and floor washing.

The João Havelange Stadium has a catchment area of 13,000 m2 and its total
storage capacity is an average of 953,000 L of rainwater per month.

The Water Park has a catchment area of 6,000 m2 and its total storage capacity is
460,000 L of average rainwater per month.

The Multisport Arena has a catchment area of 14,750 m2 and its total storage
capacity is 1,148 m3 of average rainwater per month, distributed by four 140 m3
reservoirs.

The Velodrome has a catchment area of 3,000 m2 and its total storage capacity is
233 m3 of average rainwater per month, distributed by two 70 m3 reservoirs.

 Programa Um Milhão de Cisternas (P1MC – Programme of One Million

Cisterns)

This program developed by the Articulação do Semi-Árido Brasileiro (ASA Network

– Articulation of the Semi-Arid of Brazil) started in 2003, which the primary objective is
to provide clean water for cooking and drinking for 1 million homes, equivalent to about
5 million people. This job will be achieved through in situ construction of 1 million
cisterns, whose unit capacity is to store around 16 billion L (16 million m3) of rainwater.
Through this program, besides providing drought security, each family is independent
and has the freedom to make the management of its own water resources. By March
30
2010 about 287,500 tanks have been built and are already being explored by many
municipalities of the semi-arid, benefiting more than 1 million people (P1MC, n.d.).

Figure 10 - Brazilian family and their rainwater cistern (Source: CECOR, 2008).

 Tokyo, Japan

In Tokyo and other Japanese cities, more and more municipalities and organizations
have given utmost importance to rainwater utilization since the mid 80's. Thus, instead
of channelling it into sewers and then to the ocean, RWH in Japan aims to secure
water sources for emergency responses, to prevent urban flooding, to restore water's
natural cycle and to find alternative water for non-drinking purposes (König, 2001).

 Sumida City, Tokyo

Sumida ward is considered to be one of the leaders in rainwater utilization at the

local government level and there are several examples of such sustainable approach.

 Ryogoku Kokugikan Sumo-wrestling Arena

This Sumo Wrestling Stadium, built in 1985, is very well known for its substantial
rainwater utilization system. From the 8,400 m2 building rooftop, stormwater is captured

31
and drained into a 1,000 m3 underground storage tank. The collected water represents
a considerable proportion of the water used for toilet flushing and air conditioning
(UNEP, 2002).

 Rojisons

“Rojison” represents a simple rainwater utilization facility available at the community

level. Consists in a system where rainwater is collected from the roofs of private
houses and stored in several underground tanks, with capacities of 3 tons to 10 tons
each. The tanks are accessible for general public and local residents can pump up the
water by hand, using it for watering gardens, drinking water in case of emergencies
and for fire-fighting (Samaddar & Okada, 2007).

Figure 11 - Typical Japanese “Rojison” mechanism (Source: International Technology - Urban Case
Studies)

According to Samaddar (2007), about 180 tanks have already been installed in
Sumida City, with a total storage capacity of 10,000 m3 of rainwater. Furthermore,
Sumida ward accounts for more than 19 “Rojison” used by its communities. Since
1985, all newly constructed buildings are required to install rainwater utilization
facilities.

32
 2.3.2. Case Studies – Implementations in Universities

 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

In March 2006 the Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP) was announced to the country. This
plan consists of the allocation of the national budget between the years 2006 and 2010
to all economic sectors, in order to overcome Asian financial crisis towards economic
and environmental sustainability.

Under this initiative, the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) began the
construction of a new building in the Faculty of Science and Technology consisting of
two blocks, namely the Administration edifice and the Laboratory edifice. It's in this new
complex, financed by the 9MP in about 750 million MYR (180 million €), that will be
installed the pilot project of RHS.

Initially, this system was implemented only for the Administration Building, since it is
the first one to be constructed. Its rooftop was considered to be the most suitable
catchment area and from there, the rainwater is conveyed through the gutters, into the
downpipes which are linked to the filtration tank. The filtration tank is where the water
collected will be filtered before channelled to the storage tank. The filtration method
consists of three phases: natural sand filter, stone and charcoal filter and finally, bio-
filter.

The storage tank is a solid concrete structure, built underground, with a capacity to
store 50 m3 of water before pumping it to a delivery tank situated on the top of the
building. This tank is connected to the public water distribution system, which will
provide water in case of low rainwater supply. The plumbing system is separated from
the public water supply, to keep harvested rainwater from mixing with treated city
water.

The main goal of this project is to provide the maximum water for toilet flushing and
building washing. According to the data available in this paper, the amount of water
demand only for toilet flushing in the Administration Block can be covered by the
harvested rainwater in the month with the lowest average rainfall (January).

At first, the water collected will be applied for toilet flushing and building washing,
but eventually could be used for other activities such as washing vehicles and watering
plants and gardens.

33
 The implementation of this project in the UKM will bring many economic and social
benefits. It will provide water for non-potable uses reducing the consumption of drinking
water thus helping to reduce the dependence on the public system, and therefore on
water bills. Socially, it will be an important step to attract and involve students and
practitioners who are interested in this subject, contributing for future research (Rashid
& Darus, 2009).

 University of North Carolina – The Bell Tower Project

The University of North Carolina (UNC) at the town of Chapel Hill is the oldest public
university in the USA and one of the more aware that we live an era of crisis, always
looking to create innovative solutions to a complex array of issues using a holistic,
sustainable approach

In the year 2000, an investment was made in the university campus of around 2
billion U.S. Dollars (USD) (1.5 billion €) for various program improvements, including
the construction of the Bell Tower Project (BT), one of the greatest buildings ever
completed on campus. This project involved an investment of 231.5 million USD (170
million €) and consists of a multi-purpose complex whose main feature is its innovative
water grid, which is being incorporated into the design as part of a pilot project for
testing and optimization.

The construction of this complex aims, in addition to the educational services

offered, to accomplish the fulfilment of several key strategies including reducing water
consumption of the public network, and storm water management, by maintaining or
improving water quality, peak discharge attenuation and total volume reduction.

It is located immediately upstream of the confluence of two small streams of 10 and

is 25 hectares in size. The existing buildings of the BT occupy much of the perimeter of
the 10 hectare sub-watershed and a 16,350 m2 asphalt parking lot is situated in the
centre of the watershed. The Genome Science Laboratory Building (GSB) and the
parking deck, which are the major structures of this development, will be connected by
a new central park, a large green area that replaced the existing parking lot.

Below this park lies the stormwater management facilities, composed by a “1,365 m3
concrete stormwater detention structure and a 1,325 m3 stone-filled cistern for storage
and reuse of harvested roof water.” All new and existing stormwater surface pipe and
drainage systems are connected to the underground concrete detention system.

34
 The water that falls on building rooftops will be captured and reused as a water
supply source for irrigation and toilet flushing, promoting the concept of non-potable
water (NPW) system. This system also incorporates an automatic reclaimed water
makeup system to provide a reliable secondary source of water, when the city
experiences severe droughts. The entire stormwater management facility has the
ability to treat approximately 2,690 m3 of stormwater.

According to this article, upon completion of this project, the NPW systems will
reduce UNC‟s demand on Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) potable water
“by an average of 3,785 m3 per day, or about 10% of the average daily demand of the
entire OWASA system. This volume reduction is expected to increase to 5,678 m3 per
day by the year 2028” (Efland et al., 2008).

 Universities in the United Kingdom

Several universities in the UK, such as, University of York, Sheffield Hallam
University and University of Southampton, are implementing energy and water
efficiency concepts in some of the existing campus buildings and its new developments
are a practical example of sustainable construction.

The new National Science Learning Centre located at the University of York cost
around £11 million (13 million €), but includes many beneficial features, among them, a
geothermal cooling/heating system which saves £11,000 (13,000 €) annually compared
to conventional alternatives, extensive use of natural lighting and ventilation and
utilization of rainwater for WC and urinal flush systems (People & Planet, 2006).

The University of Southampton‟s new Administration and Student Services Building

increases the capacity of an older building by linking through a spectacular three-storey
glass atrium. In association with its main features is RHS to flush W.C. (HEEPI&SUST,
2008).

2.3.3. Case Studies in Portugal

The new SETH engineering headquarters, located in Oeiras, Lisbon, implemented

innovative solutions on the building design in favour of greater environmental
responsibility. One of the applied technologies was the installation of a RHS. The water
is collected from roofs and balconies of the building and conveyed to a reservoir with
30 m3 capacity. From there, the water is used for sanitary facilities, garage washing
and gardening (SETH Engineering, 2009).
35
  Natura Towers

The Natura Towers are a new development of two office buildings in Telheiras,
Lisbon, designed to maximize their energy performance and minimize its environmental
impact through a proper selection of ecological and self-sustaining solutions. One
measure refers to RWH, from the building rooftops. The water is stored in underground
reservoirs and from there is used for irrigation of green spaces (MSF TUR.IM, 2009).

 Herdade da Boavista e Sampaio

This project is an eco friendly tourist village, sited in the municipality of Alcácer do
Sal, Alentejo, designed to enhance the closest contact with nature in a sustainable
manner. The development, in addition to the reuse of graywater, has incorporated a
RHS which collects water from the house roofs. The stored water is mainly used for
irrigation of the adjacent green areas (Amazing Projects, 2010 and Pedro, 2010).

 Mar Mediterrâneo building

The Mar Mediterrâneo building, SONAECOM headquarters in Lisbon, distinguishes

for its high quality aesthetics and sustainable construction. It is characterized by its
rationalization and efficiency of energy consumption, especially with regard to water
consumption. The building has the particularity of having a rainwater reuse system
adapted to its toilet flushing system (Bouygues Imobiliária, 2007).

 Aerodrome Control Tower of Castelo Branco

This project was developed aiming at the use of rainwater for toilets and urinals
discharging, for all WC located on floors 1 and 0. The collection is made from the tower
rooftop, with an approximate area of 120 m2, where water is diverted into a reservoir,
with a capacity of 7 m3, located on the 4th floor. Before entering the reservoir, the water
flows through a filter in order to remove all types of debris such as tree leaves. The
“polluted” water will be forwarded to the property sewer collector, while the clean water
will be stored in the reservoir.

During the dry periods, the public water supply will feed the reservoir through a
monitored valve which will be triggered as soon as the water level reaches the
minimum quota of 30 cm from the bottom of the reservoir (Bertolo, 2006).

36
 2.4. Water Quality Aspects Related to Rainwater and its
Potential Uses

In the past, rainwater was considered to be pure, soft and free of chemical and
microbiological contaminants. So clean, that it could be used and consumed without
any treatment. However, with the intensification of the industrial revolution as the main
cause, this is no longer true.

With increasing pollution, stormwater collected in many places, especially in

megacities, may contain a variety of chemical and organic impurities. From the moment
it falls, as it dissolves carbon dioxide and nitrogen – acid rain – through the catchment
surface (rooftops, ponds, gutters), to the storage site, there is a potential for chemical,
physical and microbiological contamination (UNEP, 2002).

Nowadays, in general, rainwater does not meet the quality standards imposed by
WHO (The Schumacher Centre for Technology & Development, 2008). Yet, that
doesn't mean that the water is inadequate for use. The problem is that there is no
specific internationally recognized standards regulation for the use of rainwater for non
potable purposes. If one day that happens, it will promote the use of rainwater sources
and avoid potential health risks due to misuse. Obviously, the type of treatment to be
applied to the harvested water varies with the purpose for which it'll be used. Although
rainwater can be collected in various ways, this paper will focus only on the collection
of rainwater from roof catchment systems and therefore, the quality problems of
ground-surface rainwater runoffs will not be covered through this chapter.

A rooftop RHS is essentially composed of a catchment surface (roof), a conveyance

system (gutters or pipes) and a storage structure (a cistern or a tank). During this
process there is a potential for chemical, physical and microbiological contamination, in
all three stages. Despite roofs being higher than the ground, it doesn't mean they are
free from dirt, dust, faeces from birds and small animals and other debris, such as
leaves and twigs. Thus, falling rainwater not only dissolves air pollutants, as when it
falls on the roof, but it also dissolves contaminants from the roof material, collects dirt
and then flows into storage. Changes may also occur during storage, depending on its
location, water depth and the material used (Meera & Ahammed, 2006).

In short, there are several factors that influence the water quality of roof runoff (Lye,
2009):

37
  Roof material – chemical characteristics, roughness, surface coating and age;
 Construction methods of the roof – size, exposure, inclination;
 Local weather and environmental conditions – season, antecedent dry periods;
 Precipitation events – intensity, wind, duration;
 Chemical properties of pollutants – vapour pressure, solubility in water;
 Location of the catchment surface – proximity to pollution sources: industrial
areas, agricultural areas, heavy traffic;

Despite the significant water conservation and stormwater management potential for
RWH, there are still many uncertainties about the impact of this practice to human
beings, hence it is necessary to make a thorough assessment of its quality and its
potential jeopardy to human health. The most common hazards in harvested rainwater
from rooftops are microbiological hazards and physico-chemical hazards.

2.4.1. Physico-Chemical Hazards

The physico-chemical contamination of rainwater is an issue which greatly affects

this practice, varying in space and time.

The sources of physical-chemical hazards of RWH can be divided in two categories

(enHealth Council, 2004):

1 – Off-site sources: hazards whose origin is far from the point of collection, beyond
the control of the owner/resident. That includes industrial emissions, agricultural
pollution, traffic emissions, bushfires, etc.

2 – On-site sources: hazards that arise from the conception of the system,
controllable by the owner/resident. That includes materials and characteristics of the
catchment surface, roof materials, gutters, tank material, etc.

 Industrial emissions

The biggest urban and industrial areas are likely to be more air polluted. Thus, there
is a greater probability of rainwater becoming contaminated as it falls in these
surroundings, by airborne pollutants such as particulate matter and heavy metals
(TWDB, 2005). In these localities, rainwater collection for human consumption has
attracted most concern since long-term contamination by heavy metals is known to
cause numerous biological disorders (Lye, 2009). Several surveys reported that
rainwater collected in domestic tanks in Port Pirie have shown concentrations of lead
38
exceeding drinking water guidelines, the source of which is thought to be a very large
smelter. Therefore, residents of Port Pire were recommended not to use rainwater
collected in domestic tanks for drinking or food preparation (enHealth Council, 2004).

Trace organic compounds, such as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), are commonly found in roof runoff. These
chemical are of great concern because of their potential hazards to public health, being
considered the largest class of suspected carcinogens prevalent in urban atmospheric
deposition (Meera & Ahammed, 2006). Several studies report that the highest levels of
PAHs in urban runoff are usually found in the vicinity of industrial areas or intense
urban traffic. Moreover, some of them alert for the fact that roof characteristics also
seem to affect the level of trace organics in roof runoff (Zobrist et al., 2000; Moilleron et
al., 2002; Polkowska et al., 2002).

 Agricultural pollution

In agricultural areas, the main source of pollution may be the use of chemicals, such
as pesticides, in intensive farming. In fact, according to Lye (2009), the use of fertilizers
and pesticides in agriculture “is a leading pollution source of rainwater in rural areas of
many countries.” Thus the potential contamination of rainwater and catchment surfaces
(roofs) by nitrates due to fertilizer residue in the atmosphere, and pesticide residues
deposition from crop dusting is of great public concern (TWDB, 2005).

Despite all the potential risks, surveys of rainwater quality in rural areas presented in
EnHealth Council (2004), reported that “pesticides are rarely detected and, where they
are, concentrations are well below health-related guideline values”. Nevertheless,
periodic assessments of contamination of harvested rainwater by pesticides are
necessary, to avoid possible health problems.

 Bushfires and Particulate matter

Bushfires, if not induced, tend to be most common and severe during warm and dry
seasons. This event generates large amounts of ash, fine particulates and other debris,
susceptible of settling on roof catchment surfaces or to be incorporated in rainwater as
it falls through the atmosphere. Such material is likely to be washed into storage tanks,
either when a rain event occurs or during roof cleaning. Even though the presence of
particulate matter in stormwater doesn't represent a major health concern, it may affect
the taste, turbidity and colour of harvested rainwater (enHealth Council, 2004).

39
  Roof Material

The type of roof material and its periodic cleaning will highly affect the quality of
rooftop RWH.

According to numerous studies (EnHealth Council, 2004; Meera & Ahammed, 2006;
Hamdan, 2009; Despins et al., 2009) nearly all water quality parameters – turbidity,
Total Organic Carbon, hardness, colour, pH, organic matter, concentration of heavy
metals, etc – were considered to vary significantly based on the type of rooftop
material.

Roofs can be fabricated from a diversity of materials such as concrete, bitumen,

asbestos/fibrocement, metal, terracotta and clay tiles, polycarbonate or fibreglass
sheeting (EnHealth Council, 2004; Hamdan, 2009).

Differences in roofing material affect turbidity, hardness and colour of harvested

rainwater. Wide variations are seen in the concentration of most constituents such as
major ions, nutrients, pesticides and heavy metals. According to Zobrist et al. (2000), in
a typical rain event, runoff from a tile roof presented high concentrations of most
constituents in the first minutes or first tenths mm of runoff depth, while runoff from a
gravel roof exhibited a different behaviour, as there was a significant retention of
rainwater in the gravel layer.

Studies by Wallinder et al. (2000), Chang et al. (2004) and TWDB (2005), suggested
that variations depended not only on roof material, but also on characteristics of
precipitation, orientation and slope of roof, air quality of the region, weather patterns,
etc. Dust derived from calcium rich-soils is susceptible to settle in rooftops, consisting
in a source of calcium and magnesium in the form of carbonates. Also, acidic ions like
nitrates and sulphates are considered to be transported by deposition.

Another important parameter for this subject is the pH value of the harvested
rainwater. In theory, pH of rainwater varies between 4.5 and 6.5 but usually increases
slightly as soon as it falls on the roof and during tank storage. This chemical
phenomenon is of great relevance, once it is a key factor in chemical precipitation of
pollutants in stormwater runoff. As it runs on certain types of roofs, like fibrous cement,
rainwater tends to become more alkaline which is a favourable condition for
precipitation of heavy metals compounds (Zobrist et al., 2000; Hamdan, 2009).

40
 Heavy metals are of singular importance in RWH “due to their toxicity,
ubiquitousness, and the fact that metals cannot be chemically transformed or
destroyed”, by simple treatment processes (Davis et al., 2001). Several attempts have
been made over the years to determine the influence of atmospheric deposition,
especially in the vicinity of industrial areas, and roofing materials on heavy metal
contamination of rooftop runoff. Roofs can act as a source of heavy metals through
leaching and disintegration of its building materials over the years. Among the many
possible types of materials, metals surfaces in direct contact with falling rainwater,
besides being subjected to atmospheric corrosion, will dominate the runoff pollution
pattern, especially for lead, zinc and copper (Zobrist et al., 2000; Davis et al., 2001;
Chang et al., 2004; Eletta & Oyeyipo, 2008).

The presence of lead in harvested rainwater is the most common since lead can
stem from several types of roofs, including polyester, slate, galvanized iron and asphalt
shingle roof. Lead fittings have also been suggested as potential sources of
contamination of harvested rainwater, mainly in poorly maintained roofs and gutters
(Zobrist et al., 2000; Wallinder et al., 2000; Metre & Mahler, 2003). Therefore lead
fittings are not recommended.

Water quality should be monitored for heavy metals in order to avoid major hazards
to human health, especially if the harvested rainwater is to be used for drinking
purposes or food preparation.

 Tank Material

All details about rainwater storage have a major influence on overall water quality.
The design of tanks, the materials used and its location are the most influential issues
in obtaining water with good or poor quality.

Tank design solutions include techniques to minimize re-suspension of sediments,

such as the installation of a wave absorber mechanism at the tank water inlet in order
to reduce water turbulence, and a specialized service for storage tank maintenance.
Most storage reservoirs should be equipped with manholes to allow access for cleaning
(Lye, 2009).

A study by Han & Mun (2008) revealed that the quality of stored water delivered to
the end users will not only determine its final use but will also affect its acceptance by
the general public, as a suitable alternative of potable water. They suggested that
higher efficiency in particle removal can be obtained by having a considerable distance
41
between inlet and outlet. It is also recommended that tanks should be designed to
maintain a minimum of 3 m water depth and to withdraw water from the near-surface
by using a floating suction device.

Rainwater reservoirs can be designed from several suitable materials including

plastic, concrete, fibreglass and galvanized steel (enHealth Council, 2004). Studies by
Zhu et al. (2004) and Despins et al. (2009) reported the effect of storage material on
some quality parameters such as taste, turbidity, colour and pH, being this variable the
most sensitive to the type of material. Rainwater stored in concrete tanks tends to be
more basic, and this could be attributed to the presumable leaching of calcium
carbonate from the cistern walls. Rainwater stored in non-concrete tanks is likely to be
slightly acidic; however it is unlikely to have a direct health impact on humans. New
rainwater cisterns may also provide specific tastes and odours to the harvested water.
Concrete reservoirs can release excess lime, inflicting a bitter taste to water.
Galvanized tanks can impart a metallic taste when first filled, due to leaching of excess
zinc (Despins et al., 2009).

Summarizing, many studies from different parts of the world on the physico-
chemical characteristics of roof-harvested rainwater, report that, in general, physico-
chemical quality meets the drinking-water quality guidelines with the notable exception
being pH.

2.4.2. Microbiological Hazards

Stormwater harvesting from rooftops is subject to contain a wide variety of

microorganisms from various sources. Although many are considered safe and not
likely to cause illness, their presence indicates that disease-causing organisms
(pathogens) could be in the stored rainwater. Therefore, water quality and safety will be
ensured by the minimization or exclusion of their presence (enHealth Council, 2004).

The most common indicators of faecal contamination generally used for assessing
the microbial quality of water are Escherichia coli (E. coli) and faecal coliforms (or
Thermotolerant coliforms). However, an increasing number of microorganisms are
being added to the current US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
microbiological guidelines for water that is going to be ingested in some manner by the
consumer. Some pathogenic and opportunistic organisms, such as Salmonella spp.,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Legionella spp., Campylobacter spp. and Cryptosporidium
(protozoan pathogens) are often present in harvested rainwater. These organisms are
42
likely to cause possible health problems to its consumers and therefore none of them is
allowed (zero CFU per 100 ml) in high quality drinking water sources (Lye, 2002). Thus
serious doubts were raised about whether traditional indicators will be sufficient to
accurately assess the state of water safety.

Microbial quality/contamination of harvested rainwater from roofs depends on

several factors (EnHealth Council, 2004 and Meera & Ahammed, 2006):

 faecal material (droppings) deposited by birds, lizards, rats and other climbing
animals;
 dead animals and insects, either in the roof or gutters, or in the tank itself – can
lead to direct faecal contamination and has a certain impact on the water taste
and odour;
 soil and leaf litter accumulated in gutters, especially if kept damp for long
periods due to poor drainage;
 type of roof – microbial quality of water collected from metallic roofs is usually
better than that from other types of roofs;
 Periods between precipitation events – contamination increases with longer dry
periods between rainfall episodes due to greater deposition occurrence on
roofs.
 Weather patterns and environmental conditions: wind speed/direction,
temperature and rainfall intensity – can significantly influence the bacterial load
of roof run-off.

Also quite relevant are the issues relative to storage tanks. The majority are installed
above ground. Yet, underground tanks will not cease to exist. These require higher
constructive considerations, since if they aren't fully sealed and protected against run-
off, microorganisms in the soil associated with human and animal faeces may also
contaminate stored rainwater (enHealth Council, 2004). Additionally, rainwater tanks
serve as an excellent site for mosquito breeding. Besides the discomfort and nuisance
they cause, certain types of mosquitoes can be vectors of viruses and diseases, such
as malaria and the dengue virus, especially in 3rd world countries located in tropical
and subtropical areas, where water scarcity is a capital problem. To avoid or minimize
this situation, it is recommended that all tanks should have devices to prevent mosquito
proliferation (enHealth Council, 2004).

There are many surveys about the influence of the storage period and location of
rainwater cisterns on the microbiological quality of water. It is considered that relatively
43
clean water entering the tank will generally improve in quality if allowed to sit inside for
some time. However, it is possible that certain bacterial strains are likely to proliferate
during storage and that levels remained constant during long term storage. It is
assumed that these contradictory results are linked to the availability of nutrients and
environmental conditions, suitable for bacterial proliferation in storage cisterns.
Therefore, physical location of the tanks is of utmost importance (Meera & Ahammed,
2006). They should be sited in a shady, dark spot to prevent algae growth and keep
water cool (The Schumacher Centre for Technology & Development, 2008).

Numerous studies from different parts of the world (Lye, 2002; EnHealth Council,
2004; Meera & Ahammed, 2006; Sazakli et al., 2007) reported that the microbiological
quality of rainwater is often suspect and does not meet microbial drinking-water quality
standards. Consumption of untreated stormwater is likely to cause some health related
problems, yet more studies are necessary to assess the real microbial risk of rainwater
to human beings.

Despite these revealed conclusions, Meera & Ahammed (2006) emphasised that
“collected rainwater still represents the best option in many situations in terms of
microbiological quality”, sometimes even better than that of other sources of drinking
water such as shallow groundwater.

2.4.3. Water Quality Standards for Irrigation

As stated by Lye (2009), chemical water quality standards, chemical analyses and
chemical detection limits are very similar worldwide, almost reaching for universal
agreement. In stark contrast are the levels of microbiological contamination of water,
whose standards vary greatly throughout the world from relatively simple to relatively
complex, corroborating a lack of general compliance.

The quality requirements should be different whether the water is for potable or non-
potable purposes. Within this category, recommended standards will depend on
whether the water comes into contact situations or not with the human being, or even if
it is for ecological applications. For example, it is assumed that the water quality
standards required for bathing will be different than those for toilet flushing or garden
irrigation (Lye, 2009).

In Portugal it seems there is no research on the characterization of the quality of

rainwater. Since there is no legislation governing the use of rainwater for irrigation, this

44
technique must be governed by DL nº 236/98. In Annex , the maximum recommended
concentrations (MRC) as well as the maximum acceptable concentrations (MAC) of
water quality for irrigation are established (Ministério do Ambiente, 1998).

This DL establishes the parameters limiting the quality of water for irrigation, without
distinguishing agricultural irrigation from recreational or landscaping irrigation.

2.4.3.1. Rainwater Quality Parameters

As stated before, quality requirements for non-potable applications vary if the water
is likely to get in contact or not with humans. Nevertheless, people everywhere are
exposed to all kinds of bacteria during everyday activities at home, at work and
between both. Thus, minimal exposure to slightly contaminated harvested rainwater
shouldn't be that significant.

Many studies and reports throughout the years support this theory. According to
Konig (2001), “in well designed and operated systems only coarse filtration prior to
entry into the storage tank is required and that the risk to human health from non-
potable applications is minimal”. Leggett et al (2001b) reports that when harvested
rainwater is to be used for toilet flushing or irrigation, disinfection techniques are not
necessary and should not be applied. Shaffer et al (2004) asserts that when rainwater
is intended for WC flushing, irrigation and other non-potable uses, coarse filtration and
tank settlement provide satisfactory treatment (Roebuck, 2007).

Based on the testimonials presented above, it was decided that rainwater quality
parameters would not be considered in the thesis. Assuming that contamination from
the catchment surface is low and that the system is well designed and operated, there
will be no major consequences if the water gets in contact situations with human
beings.

2.5. Recommendations on the design, installation and

maintenance of a Rainwater Harvesting System

Water supply and water quality associated with rooftop harvesting depends on
implementing a system maintenance program. Simple and sensible management
procedures should be considered in order to minimize health and aesthetic hazards for
the collected rainwater. Some preventive measures associated with design, installation

45
and maintenance of RHS are presented below (enHealth Council, 2004; TWDB, 2005;
May & Prado, 2006; Lye, 2009):

 Proper design/sizing of the RHS components;

 Use of most appropriate materials in construction, according to local
characteristics;
 Coating of roof surfaces, especially of metal materials, to minimize contamination
by leaching;
 Protect all inlets, overflows and other openings with insect proof mesh
 Regular cleaning of the catchment surface: removal of atmospheric depositions,
dust, leaves and animal faeces;
 Regular cleaning of gutters and first-flush devices;
 Monitoring tank levels;
 Avoid exposure of the storage tank to sunlight to inhibit algae growth;
 The rainwater tank should be connected to an independent backup water supply
network in order to meet daily non-potable consumption, in case of low rainwater
supplies;
 Proper treatment/disinfection materials and procedures, according to the water
final use;
 Periodic water quality testing;
 Periodic reparation and maintenance of the RHS;
 Rainwater pipes should be distinguishable from potable water pipes, through the
application of different colours. Moreover, warning signs should be placed next to
taps and hoses, where rainwater is being utilized;

2.5.1. ANQUIP Hydric Certification

As mentioned in section 2.2.1, ANQIP developed two Technical Specifications - ETA

0701 and ETA 0702 - regarding the certification of RHS in Portugal. ETA 0701
establishes technical criteria for the implementation of RHS for non-potable purposes.
When installing a RHS, all the essential components and additional accessories should
be considered, in order to assure the proper functioning. The main criteria relevant for
the implementation of RHS for irrigation of recreational gardens and parks, according
to this report, are presented bellow (ANQIP, 2008):

46
  The rainwater piping should be dimensioned similarly to the dimensioning of the
potable network. It is recommended that the rainwater piping and all the related
accessories should be properly identified, using colored tape or colored pipes,
different from the potable piping system.
 It is recommended that all washing or irrigation taps should be provided with a
detachable handle (security key) to prevent improper use.
 Rainwater use for irrigation does not require any physico-chemical or
bacteriological complementary treatment.
 It is advisable to evaluate the quality of the stored at least every six months,
mainly due to pH control.

Table 1 - Estimated Annual Consumption for Green Areas Irrigation

Green Areas
Lawn** Garden** Golf Course***

Annual Consumption* for 6 2 2 2

450 to 800 l/m 60 to 400 l/ m 200 to 450 l/ m
months: (April-September)
* Mean Values
** Depending on the variety of grass, soil type and country region.
*** Varying according to different playing zones; varying according to soil type and country region;

For technical reasons and regarding public health, facilities certification under the
ANQIP Technical Specification ETA-0702 is highly recommended. This certification
requires the preliminary assessment of the project by ANQIP as well as a continuous
analysis of the project development.

2.6. Components of a Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting

System

RHS is the direct collection of rainwater from purpose-built catchments, usually

building rooftops. The systems can be categorized as small, medium and large scale
generally based on the size of catchment area.

A RHS consists of six main elements (TWDB, 2005; Che-Ani et al., 2009):

(1) The catchment surface;

(2) A conveyance system – gutters and downspouts;
(3) Filtration system and first flush diverters;
(4) The storage facility;

47
 (5) A delivery system – gravity fed or pumped to the end use;
(6) Treatment techniques

2.6.1. The Catchment Surface

The rooftop of a building or a house is the most common catchment area as they
are already built and able to collect large volumes of rainwater. The quantity and quality
of the harvested rainwater from a catchment surface is a function of the rain intensity,
type of roof material, roof surface area and the surrounding environment (TWDB, 2005;
The Schumacher Centre for Technology & Development, 2008).

There are several types of materials that can be used, yet roofs should be ideally
built of chemically inert materials such as plastic, aluminium or fibreglass.
Nevertheless, other materials are also considered suitable including slates,
clay/concrete tiles and galvanised corrugated iron. It is also recommended that if paint
is used, it should be non-toxic – no lead-based paints (Khoury-Nolde, n.d.).

 Metal roofs

The amount of rainwater collected not only varies with the size, but also with the
texture of the roof: the smoother the better. Metal roofs in general have a smooth
surface and a high runoff coefficient, where losses are negligible. Some cautions
however should be taken into account regarding some materials. Copper roofs and
roofs with lead components such as flashings and paints, are not recommended,
especially if the harvested rainwater is to be used for potable purposes (TWDB, 2005;
Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009).

A largely commercialized roofing material for RWH in Australia and also in the USA,
is 55 % aluminium/45 % zinc allocated sheet steel named Galvalume® (TWDB, 2005).

 Asphalt shingle

Asphalt roofs are usually identified as an inappropriate catchment surface for

potable systems due to leaching of toxins, such as lead and mercury (Metre & Mahler,
2003; TWDB, 2005). However, the composition of a specific asphalt roof vary widely
from each location, and therefore, these surfaces can be used to collect water for
irrigation. These roofs have an approximated runoff coefficient of 90% (Downey, 2009).

48
  Clay/concrete tiles

Clay and concrete tiles are suitable for potable or non-potable systems, and are
easily available materials. Since both are semi-porous, the system's efficiency will
decrease due to water loss by absorption or poor flow, which is around a 10 percent
deficit. These porous materials are also susceptible to create an ideal habitat for algae
and other microorganism‟s development. To prevent bacterial growth and reduce water
loss, tiles should be painted or coated with a special sealant (TWDB, 2005).

 Slate

According to the TWDB (2005) “slate‟s smoothness makes it ideal for a catchment
surface for potable use, assuming no toxic sealant is used”. However, cost
considerations are a barrier to its use.

 Gravel

These roofing materials are rare, and the water harvested is usually suitable only for
irrigation due to leaching of compounds.

2.6.1.1. Roof Runoff

Not all the rain falling on a roof surface will be collected and conveyed to the storage
system. Some water runoff will be lost mainly due to processes such as depression
storage, and EV. Other factors that also contribute to water losses include the rainfall
depth and intensity, the type of roof material and the roof slope (Roebuck, 2007). The
“effective runoff” represents the amount of water that can be collected from a roof
surface, whilst the “runoff losses” represent the water that cannot be collected. The
most commonly used approach for estimating the effective runoff volume is the
application of a dimensionless runoff coefficient which represents the observed losses
from the catchment compared with an idealised catchment from which no losses occur
(Fewkes, 2006).

 Runoff Coefficient

According to Fewkes (2006) the runoff coefficient represents the proportion of

rainwater collected from an actual roof compared with an idealised roof from which no
losses occur. The effective runoff volume is calculated by multiplying the volume of rain
falling on the roof by the runoff coefficient.

49
 Table 2 provides some examples of coefficients for a variety of different roof types.
These data are based on specialized bibliography and on the long-term experience of
these subject experts (Roebuck, 2007; Downey, 2009; Tomaz, 2009).

Table 2 - Runoff coefficients for different roof types (Source: Adapted from Roebuck, 2007).

 Filter Coefficient

The filter coefficient is given by the ratio between the total volume of rainwater that
reaches the filter and the total volume of filtered rainwater that hits the tank. Therefore,
the losses during the filtration process reflect the volume of water that is usually
discharged to the wastewater or rainwater sewage systems. A typical and accepted
value for the filter coefficient is 0.9, which means that 90% of rainfall is collected
(Ashley & Roebuck, n.d.); Balmoral Tanks, 2008).

2.6.2. Conveyance System

A conveyance system, consisting of gutters and downspouts, is required to transfer

the rainwater from the roof catchment area to the storage system.

Gutters are usually installed along the building just below the roof and capture the
water as it falls from the roof, conveying it to the downspouts. It is very important that
the gutters are installed with the appropriate slope towards the downspout, in order to
avoid water accumulation in a specific section which can lead to algae growth and
mosquito breeding. Still & Thomas (2002) recommend a dual-slope gutter (with a slope

50
in the region of 0.5% for 2/3 of its length, 1.0% for the remaining 1/3 of its length) and
that the inside edge of the gutter should be 20 mm inside the roof edge, regardless the
roof shape. Their findings support that roof area is the primary determinant of gutter
size. They also suggest a trapezoidal or semi-circular gutter shape (Figure 12) for
optimal interception and conveyance. Semi-circular or trapezoidal shapes are
recommended because they are able to drain a larger roof area, hence contributing to
a more efficient drainage system. The down pipes usually present an inferior cross
section, and are connected to the guttering system through drop outlet which generally
consists in a 45-degree “elbow” that allows the downspout pipe to snug to the side of
the house or building (TWDB, 2005).

Figure 12 - Common gutter shapes (Source: Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009).

The gutter system should be regularly inspected and cleaned, in order to minimize
water contamination and to ensure that water moves freely through the conveyance
system. According to the Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual (2009) “installing
covered gutters or adding guards to existing gutters is ideal to prevent debris build-up
and clogging” (Figure 13). Mesh screens are mostly used in locations with tree
overhang.

51
 Figure 13 - Gutter guard (Source: GutterSupply Company)

Materials suitable for the pipework are polyvinyl chloride (PVC), galvanized steel
and the more expensive seamless aluminium. Once again, it is recommended that lead
flashings shouldn't be used, in order to avoid water contamination (TWDB, 2005).

2.6.3. Pre-Tank Filtration and First-Flush Diversion

 Pre-tank filters

The inclusion of filter screens in a RHS is another protective mechanism of water

quality by keeping debris out of the storage system. Nowadays, an advanced filter does
not restrict the diameter of the gutter, being usually installed in the downspouts. It can
also be connected along the gutter system (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual,
2009).

Pre-tank filter design is very relevant since, if leaves are allowed to accumulate on
the screen or mesh, water quality will be impaired. If organic debris enters the storage
cistern, a succession of events will certainly occur, culminating in the reduction of
oxygen levels and consequent bacterial growth. According to the Virginia Rainwater
Harvesting Manual (2009), the best filter device should be self-cleaning and self-drying
between rainfall events to prevent biofilm growth, which would block the pores. The
best material is considered to be stainless steel, since it can stand up to all weather
conditions, maintain shape and does not rust, therefore reducing contamination
likelihood.

52
 The German company 3P Technik is today in the front line of filter manufacturing
and other innovative developments for RWH. Among several alternatives, the volume
filter VF1 (Figure 14) with or without telescopic extension, has been widely
commercialized throughout Germany and also other countries (Dierkes, 2009).

Figure 14 - VF1 filter (Source: 3P Technik)

The water coming from the downspout(s) enters the filter and is equally distributed
across the cascade filtration (1). The larger residues (leaves) are led across the
primary filter cascades directly to the sewer (2). The cleaner water then flows through a
secondary filter sieve, with pores of 0.65 millimetres (mm) (3). The cleaned water then
flows into the next system component, eventually a first-flush diverter or the storage
tank (4), and the filtered dirt flows to the sewer (5) (3P Technik, n.d.).

An important feature related to the secondary filter's mesh structure is that dirt is
continuously cleaned away into the sewer due to the steep inclination of the filter
cartridge. Thus, VF1 filter requires very low maintenance and needs to be cleaned only
1 to 2 times per year. This filter type has a connection capacity for roof areas up to 350
m², according to DIN 1986 (3P Technik, n.d.).

 First-Flush Devices

A rooftop collects and accumulates dirt, dust, animal faeces, dead animals, airborne
residues and other debris, especially during dry periods. When it rains, water will slowly
capture all the sediment present in the roof, all of which are undesirable elements to
have in a water harvesting system.
53
 The first flush phenomenon is the initial surface runoff of a rainstorm which is likely
to contain all kinds of microbial and physico-chemical pollutants. First flush diversion of
initial runoff is a simple precautionary measure which will prevent highly contaminated
water from entering the storage tank, improving significantly the quality of collected
rainwater. The flushed water, depending on its quality, can be routed to a planted area
or be used for other purposes such as cleaning, washing, etc. (TWDB, 2005; Mosley,
2005).

In the first minutes of a rain event the contaminant concentrations in roof runoff are
expected to be extremely high, decreasing later on towards a constant level. However,
not enough is known in order to identify exactly what constitutes a “first flush”. There
are many variables that influence the determination of how much rain needs to be
diverted to ensure clean and safe water. For example, the geographical parameters,
the intensity of a rain event, the effects of weather patterns (dry period length between
rain events), the properties of the catchment surfaces and the nature of the
contaminants themselves, have great influence on the volume of rainwater to be
discharged (TWDB, 2005; Meera & Ahammed, 2006).

Opinions vary on the amount of first flush water that needs to be diverted. Yaziz et
al. (1989) for both types of roof catchments sited near the University of Agriculture
campus in Serdang, reported that bypassing a volume of 5 L (0.5 mm), would be
sufficient to prevent microbiological contamination by faecal coliforms. However, the
presence of heavy metals, such as zinc and lead and, high levels of total coliforms and
plate counts, suggests that caution is needed in selecting a suitable first-flush volume
before rainwater harvesting. Kus et al. (2010) based on the analysis of roof runoff from
an urban residential roof located in the Sydney metropolitan area, concluded that water
with most water quality parameters compliant with the Australian Drinking Water
Guidelines (ADWG) standards was generally obtainable by diverting the first 2 mm of
rainfall. However, lead and turbidity did not comply, requiring diversion of
approximately the first 5 mm of rainfall to meet ADWG standards. According to the
TWDB (2005) the recommended volume ranges from 4 to 8 L (0.4 to 0.8 mm) of first-
flush diversion for each 9 m2 of collection area.

There are different types of first flush devices available worldwide. The most
common and simple systems are (TWDB, 2005; Mosley, 2005):

(1) Down pipe first flush diverter: a PVC standpipe fills with the initial water runoff
during a rainfall event. When the pipe becomes full, cleaner water will flow into
54
 the main collecting pipework connected to the storage tank (Figure 15 and
Figure 16). The first flush standpipe is drained continuously via a pinhole or by a
tap left slightly open. Besides that, the same pipe usually has a cleanout fitting
at the bottom, which must be emptied and cleaned after each rainfall event.

Figure 15 - Simple scheme of a dwelling‟s down pipe first flush diverter (Source: Mosley, 2005).

Figure 16 - Standpipe first flush diverter (Source: TWDB, 2005).

(2) Standpipe with ball valve: the ball valve type consists of a floating ball that
floats up, as the chamber fills, and seals off the top of the diverter pipe
(Figure 17) trapping first-flush water and routing the clean water to the tank.

55
 Figure 17 - Standpipe first flush diverter, with ball valve (Source: Rain Harvesting).

In Figure 18 the external appearance of a first flush system is presented. As it seen,

the first flush chamber is routed directly to a flower garden.

Figure 18 - External appearance of a first flush diverter system (Source: Bailey Tanks, 2010).

2.6.4. Storage Tanks

The storage facility is considered to represent the biggest capital investment of a

RHS (TWDB, 2005; The Schumacher Centre for Technology & Development, 2008;
Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009). Therefore the tank must be carefully
thought and designed, to provide optimal storage capacity according to the site
location, while being economically feasible.

56
 Some key considerations should be taken into account in every tank design
(Khoury-Nolde, n.d.; TWDB, 2005; Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009):

 Storage tanks must be opaque, especially if located above ground, to prevent

algae growth.
 Tanks must be covered to prevent environmental contamination and mosquito
breeding.
 All tanks must include an adequate extraction system, a screened vent pipe, a
calm rainwater inlet and an overflow device.
 The tanks should be placed in a site with appropriate support and foundations,
since water has a considerable weight.

 Tanks must have an accessible manhole for cleaning and maintenance

purposes.

According to the Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual (2009), tank selection is

based on three main criteria: size, location and material. Size selection will affect tank
location, and both together will determine the choice of tank materials.

2.6.4.1. Tank Sizing

The sizing of a storage tank is determined by correlating several variables (EnHealth

Council, 2004; TWDB, 2005; The Schumacher Centre for Technology & Development,
2008; Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009):

 area of the catchment surface;

 local precipitation and weather patterns;
 volume of water needed (demand);
 maximum amount of rainwater collected (supply);
 availability of a backup water supply;
 availability of space on the site;
 budget;

There are a number of different methods used for tank sizing. These methods vary
in complexity and sophistication and can be seen from two perspectives: the demand
side approach or the supply side approach. Each of these approaches varies from
manufacturer to manufacturer, country to country, region to region.

57
  Demand Side Approach

According to the Schumacher Centre for Technology & Development (2008), this
simple method consists of the calculation of the largest storage requirement based on
the building occupancy and consumption rates. As an example, the following typical
data was used:

 Consumption per capita per day, C = 20 L

 Number of people per household, n = 6
 Longest average dry period = 25 days
 Daily consumption = C x n = 120 L
 Storage requirement, Total daily demand = 120 x 25 = 3,000 L

Which means that the tank volume required for this example would be 3 m 3. This
method assumes sufficient rainfall and catchment area, and therefore should only be
applied in areas where this is the situation. It is the simplest method available for rough
estimates of tank size.

 Supply Side Approach

According to EnHealth Council (2004) the maximum volume of rainwater that can be
collected can be calculated using the formula:

Runoff (m3) = A x (rainfall – B) x roof area

Where:

 “A” is the efficiency of collection. Values between 0.8–0.85 (that is, 80–85%
efficiency) have been used.
 “B” is the loss associated with absorption of surfaces and first flush diversion
 “Rainfall” should be expressed in m and „roof area‟ in m2.

The Schumacher Centre for Technology & Development (2008) method is quite
similar to the previous, but instead of applying a collection efficiency value, it uses a
runoff coefficient which depends on roof material and slope. The volume of collected
rainwater is calculated through the formula:

Total Rainwater (m3) = roof area x rainfall x runoff coefficient

Where:

58
  “Rainfall” is expressed in m and “roof area” in m2.
 “Runoff coefficient” values vary widely, according to the roofing material. It may
also take into consideration losses due to percolation, EV, etc.

 Average Rainfall

In areas where rainfall has a non-uniform distribution, more care is needed in the
design of the storage tank. During certain periods of the year, when there is a deficit of
rainwater, either the tank is big enough to collect all the water during rainfall events
needed to meet demand during dry seasons, or the tank shall be connected to a public
water supply system. In general, the average rainfall (daily and monthly) value is used
to estimate the total volume of collected rainwater (enHealth Council, 2004). However,
according to the Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual (2009), “using monthly
averages of rainfall can lead to significant errors in tank sizing”. This ideology is based
on the following principle: imagine 2 cities where each receives 100 mm of rain per
month. If city A has only one heavy rain event per month, the tank must have the size
to collect all 100 mm at the same time. If city B has many small rain events distributed
throughout the month, only a small storage tank will be needed.

In Portugal, the most accurate source of daily rainfall data can be obtained from the
Sistema Nacional de Informação de Recursos Hídricos (SNIRH – Water Resources
National Information System) from Water Institute.

2.6.4.2. Tank Location

Tank location is dependent on its size, aesthetics, space available, climate and soil
conditions. They can be installed below ground, partly underground or above ground,
preferably located close to supply and demand points to reduce the distance of
pipework as well as pump requirements. In compliance with the Virginia Rainwater
Harvesting Manual (2009), although there is no governmental law or rule, for storage
volumes exceeding 40 m3 or if multiple downspouts or roof drains are being used, the
most viable option is underground storage. A below-ground storage vessel is
unobtrusive, protected from direct sunlight and the water is kept cooler. Figure 19
shows a typical example of an underground storage tank. However, some
inconveniences arise such as the increase in installation and construction costs,
especially if the soil is hard and rocky, or if the site's groundwater level is high. Also, to
avoid water contamination it is recommended that the tanks should be located at least
15 m away from potential sources of pollution such as animal stables or septic tank
59
systems (TWDB, 2005). Needless to say that underground tanks are of much more
difficult maintenance.

Figure 19 - Complete underground storage tank (Source: Roebuck, 2007 in König, 2001).

2.6.4.3. Tank Materials

 Metal

Galvanised steel is an attractive, widely used material for construction of rainwater

tanks. These tanks are lightweight, easy to relocate and available in variety of sizes,
from 570 L to 9,460 L (TWDB, 2005). Metal tanks, from the outset, are not resistant to
corrosion and are likely to leach some metals which may cause water contamination,
making it unsuitable for potable purposes. To avoid such nuisance, metal tanks should
be lined with rust-resistant coatings such as Zincalume® or Aquaplate® (enHealth
Council, 2004) or with a food-grade liner, usually polyethylene or PVC (TWDB, 2005).

These types of tanks can only be installed above ground (Virginia Rainwater
Harvesting Manual, 2009). New metal tanks should always be flushed before use, due
to the probable leaching of contaminants which may affect water quality. Other
precautions should be considered when Aquaplate® coatings are applied (enHealth
Council, 2004).

Tanks must be covered at all times, because the coating is not resistant to
prolonged exposure to sunlight;

When cleaning or installing the tank, the coating must not be damaged. If so, it
should be immediately repaired or replaced.

 Concrete
60
 Concrete tanks are either poured in place or prefabricated, and may be installed
above ground or below ground. They are strong and very durable, and likely to keep
water cool in hotter climates. A big advantage over other tank materials is that concrete
neutralizes the acidity of harvested rainwater, providing at the same time a desirable
flavour imparted to the water from the calcium in the concrete, dissolved by the slightly
acidic rainwater (TWDB, 2005).

Concrete tanks are expensive to build and difficult to maintain. They are likely to
crack and leak, especially if constructed below ground in clay soil (Virginia Rainwater
Harvesting Manual, 2009). To avoid these problems a structural engineer should be
involved during installation of a poured-in-place concrete cistern, to determine
accurately the size and spacing of reinforcing steel to match the structural loads of the
tank.

 Polyethylene and Polypropylene

Commercially available plastic tanks are increasing in a wide variety of sizes and
low prices. They are durable, lightweight, easy to install and easy to relocate if
necessary. They are usually placed above ground nonetheless, specially reinforced
tanks, in order to tolerate soil expansion and contraction, can be installed underground
(TWDB, 2005).

Plastic tanks should be constructed with opaque plastic to inhibit algae growth. The
tanks should also be coated or painted with materials of food-grade standard, to
prevent ultraviolet (UV) degradation (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009).

 Fibreglass

Fibreglass tanks are also available in a wide variety of sizes, however, for capacities
under 379 L, the tanks are considered expensive so polypropylene cisterns are
recommended. They are manufactured with a food-grade coating on their interior
surface and should also be opaque, to prevent algae proliferation. These types of tanks
are highly durable, lightweight and require low maintenance. One of its main features is
that the fittings are an integral part of the tank, eliminating the potential problem of
leaking (TWDB, 2005).

61
 2.6.4.4. Tank Installation

Rainwater tanks must be properly installed to prevent damage and to minimise risk
of contamination. Below-ground tanks must be accurately sealed, especially in the
access points, to avoid infiltrations from underground water or surface run-off. Above-
ground tanks should be installed on a stable, level soil or pad and underground tanks
must be designed to support the weight of the soil above (Virginia Rainwater
Harvesting Manual, 2009).

All tanks should have a few accessories that will enhance their performance and the
quality of water supplied: a screened vent pipe, to expel air as rainwater enters the tank
and draw air in as rainwater is pumped out of the tank; a rainwater inlet; an overflow
device; and a backup water supply.

 Rainwater Inlet to the Tank

Calming rainwater inlets in the pipeline access to the reservoir is a very important
mechanism to maintain quality of the stored water. This device will direct the entering
water upwards to prevent the stirring up of the sediment layer that usually settles on
the bottom of the tank (Figure 20). The gadget also supplies the lower part of the tank
with oxygen, preventing the occurrence of an anaerobic process in stagnant water.

Figure 20 - Calmed inlet for rainwater storage tanks (Source: 3P Technik).

The sediment layer at the bottom of a rainwater tank is often known as biofilm.
Biofilms are layers of bacteria bind by chains of polymer matrices, usually
carbohydrates, which offer protection for their development based on symbiotic
relationships, enabling their survival in hostile environments. Coombes et al. (2006)
proposed that the formation of biofilms contribute to improving water quality on a
storage system. Their observations reveal that typical soil and environmental bacteria
such as Bacillus Spp. are likely to form biofilms in rainwater tanks. They conclude that
62
the processes of formation of biofilms remove bacteria and heavy metals from the tank
water.

To protect the biofilm and ensure high water quality, cleaning the rainwater storage
tank should be avoided at all times, as long as the other components of the RHS are
functioning properly. Any disturbance of the system could be harmful to the bacteria.
This is particularly worrying if the backup water supply has to be activated, since the
treatment chemicals present in the water are likely to kill the biofilm layer. The backup
water should instead bypass the tank through solenoid valves and appropriate
backflow prevention (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009).

 Overflow Device

The storage tanks should have an overflow device adapted to the inlet pipe to
prevent water backup in the downspouts and to promote the best possible water
quality. Even with proper pre-tank filtration and first-flush devices, small debris, such as
pollen, are likely to enter the tank. These particles are expected to float at water
surface, since they are lighter than water (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual,
2009).

As illustrated in Figure 21, as the tank water level rises, the floating debris will be
skimmed off by the siphon inlet into the sewer or to an infiltration soak away (3P
Technik, n.d.). The surplus runoff with the debris should be directed to a pervious area
(garden) or to a storm drainage system.

Figure 21 - Overflow siphon with skimming effect on tank water surface from chamfered inlet slots

(Source: 3P Technik).

63
 As the tank water level rises, the water flows over the skimmer siphon inlet into the
sewer or to an infiltration soakaway. Any floating materials are skimmed off via the
chamfered slots. The surplus water with the pollen is led out of the rainwater tank
(outlet 110 mm).

 Backup Water Supply

As a preventive measure, a RHS should always have an independent connection to

the municipal water supplies. Since rain is an irregular event, there‟s always the
possibility of rainwater shortage. Therefore, the storage tanks can be partially filled with
potable water, as a backup for the system water needs.

These systems are required to incorporate in its design a backflow device inside the
potable water pipe connected to the tank, in order to prevent contamination of the
public water supply by the harvested rainwater. It is also recommended that the
municipal water inlet should be installed above the highest possible rainwater level, to
ensure cross contamination does not occur (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual,
2009).

This system is activated by several means. The most applied is based on floating
switches and activation valves. If the stored rainwater reaches a certain level too low, a
floating switch will be activated shutting off the RWH pump and activating a valve which
enables water to flow from the backup source. Another conjecture is based on a
pressure differential system. According to this concept, the RHS operates at a higher
pressure than the backup source. When the water level in the tank becomes low, the
rainwater pump cuts off. Therefore, the higher pressure water no longer retains lower
pressure water from the backup source allowing it to flow to the final purpose of the
RHS. Figure 22 illustrates how a pressure differential backup water supply system
could be constructed (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009).

In these configurations is also important to assure that the piping systems can be
distinguished through different colours. It is known that the colour purple is often used
to designate non-potable water piping, particularly wastewater. However, Portuguese
technical specifications do not establish a mandatory colour to designate rainwater
piping. Therefore it should be of the responsibility of the system designer to properly
identify rainwater piping systems.

64
 Figure 22 - Below ground tank with submersible pump and pressure difference municipal backup with
check valve (Source: adapted from RMS)

2.6.5. Pressure Tanks and Pumps

Pump systems and pressure tanks are responsible for the distribution of water, from
the storage tank to the end use, with the required pressures and necessary amounts.
This can be accomplished by the use of some applications: a submersible pump, a
booster/jet pumps or a combination of pumps, according to the requirements of each
project (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009).

 Submersible Pumps

These pumps lodge in the bottom of the tank, where they are supposed to draw
water from. However, as mentioned before, a layer of sediments and bacteria usually
settle to the bottom of the tank and the surface of the water is often charged with a film
of grease and floating debris. Therefore, in order to aspirate the cleanest water of the
rainwater tank, the submersible pump is fitted with a floating pump intake with a hose
(Figure 23) (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009). The floating ball will protect
the pump from sucking up sediment, increasing the safety of every rainwater
installation.

65
 Figure 23 - Submersible Pump with floating pump intake (Source: 3P Technik).

 Booster/Jet Pumps

These pumps operate by lifting the water out of the tank and pushing it to the
desired location. Once they are external, they are louder than submersible pumps and
should also be protected from the weather (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual,
2009).

 Pump Combinations – Pump/Pressure Tank

Pump combinations are generally necessary when the distance from the cistern to
the end use is significant. One typical combination is the pump-and-pressure tank
arrangement Pump combinations are generally necessary when the distance from the
cistern to the end use is significant. One typical combination is the pump-and-pressure
tank arrangement (TWDB, 2005). The pump system will draw the water, pressurize it
and store it in a pressure tank until needed. It is very important to include a check valve
and a pressure switch in this configuration, especially if more than one pump is being
used. A one way check valve between the tank and the pump prevents pressurized
water from being returned to the tank. The pressure switch regulates operation of the
pressure tank. If two or more pumps are being used, the pressure switch will determine
which pump will run to meet the demand, drawing more water into the pressure tank.
The pressure tank maintains pressure throughout the system and its size is essential to
ensure that the system operates efficiently and effectively. In compliance with the
TWDB (2005), the pressure tank has a typical capacity of 150 L.

66
  On-demand Pump

This configuration combines in the same unit, a pump, a motor, a controller, a check
valve and a pressure tank. The on-demand pumps are designed to activate in
response to a demand, eliminating the need, cost, and space of a pressure tank. These
systems can be specifically designed to be used with rainwater and, in addition, may
incorporate a 5-micron fibre filter, a 3-micron activated charcoal filter and an UV lamp,
for the necessary treatment purposes (Figure 24) (TWDB, 2005).

Figure 24 - Typical on-demand system for rainwater, incorporated with an integrated treatment device
(Source: TWDB, 2005).

 Floating Filters

This device is similar to the floating pump intake, usually attached to the
Submersible pumps. The main difference is that the water is being filtered as it is
drawn from the storage tank. The filter is usually designed using an adequate pore size
to prevent clogging (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009). The floating ball will
certify that the suction basket of the floating pump intake is always situated
approximately 15 to 20 cm below the water surface (Figure 25) (3P Technik, n.d.).

67
 Figure 25 - Floating filter with pump intake (Source: 3P Technik).

2.6.6. Water Treatment

Water quality is highly dependent on the appropriate design and maintenance

strategies of the RHS. These strategies range from the elementary practice such as the
regular cleaning of the catchment surfaces and storage tanks, to more elaborate
methods of treatment such as chlorination and UV light disinfection.

If the water is to be used for drinking purposes or cooking, it requires the necessary
treatment methods available for the individual country, to secure the fully potable
standards. However, if the water is for non-potable uses it is expected that the quality
requirements will be lower than those for human consumption, and therefore treatment
recommendations will be less stringent. But one certainty exists: suspended solids and
bacterial microorganisms will be present in harvested rainwater and therefore, some
form of treatment of the harvested rainwater is necessary, and the level of treatment
will be in accordance to its final use. Table 3 provides an example of minimum water
quality guidelines and suggested treatment methods for collected rainwater.

68
 Table 3 - Minimum Water Quality Guidelines and Treatment Options for Harvested Rainwater (Source:
Kloss, 2008)

Minimum Water Quality Suggested Treatment

Use
Guidelines Options
Total coliforms – 0 1 - Pre-filtration – first flush
diverter
Fecal coliforms – 0 2 - Cartridge filtration – 3
micron sediment filter
followed by 3 micron
Potable indoor uses Protozoan cysts – 0
activated carbon filter

Viruses – 0 3 - Disinfection – chlorine

residual of 0.2 ppm or UV
Turbidity < 1 NTU disinfection
1 - Pre-filtration – first flush
diverter
Total coliforms < 500 cfu per
2 - Cartridge filtration – 5
100 mL
Non-potable indoor micron sediment filter
uses
Fecal coliforms < 100 cfu per
3 - Disinfection – chlorination
100 mL
with household bleach or UV
disinfection
Pre-filtration – first flush
Outdoor uses N/A
diverter

2.6.6.1. Filtration

 Sediment Filtration

Sediment filtration removes small particles and associated contaminants that

haven't settled in the bottom of the tank. This preventive measure will increase the
effectiveness of disinfection. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
guidelines, for non-potable indoor uses, sediment filters should be 5 micron or finer.
For potable indoor uses, sediment filters should be 3 micron or smaller (Kloss, 2008).

 Carbon Filtration

Filtration by activated carbon is very effective at removal of organic compounds,

such as pesticides and some hydrocarbons. Therefore, this technique is highly
recommended in treating water for potable uses. It also improves aesthetic quality of
water (i.e. odour and taste). An activated carbon filter of 3 micron or smaller should be
placed after the sediment filter (Kloss, 2008).

69
 2.6.6.2. Disinfection

 Chlorination

Chlorination is a simple and economic method, once it is the most frequent process
used to disinfect public drinking water. The most usual forms of chlorine are liquid
sodium hypochlorite (common bleach) and solid calcium hypochlorite (TWDB, 2005).

Table 4 presents chlorine contact times correlating water temperature with its pH
value, consistent with TWDB (2005). As shown, chlorine dosing is less effective as pH
levels increase.

Table 4 - Contact Time with Chlorine (Source: TWDB, 2005)

Water pH Water Temperature

10 ºC or warmer 7 ºC 4 ºC or colder

Contact time (min)

6.0 3 4 5
6.5 4 5 6
7.0 8 10 12
7.5 12 15 18
8.0 16 20 24

As a security measure, it is recommended that chlorine should be carefully diluted in

a plastic bucket already filled with water, before adding it to the storage cistern. If
possible, the mixture should be spread evenly across the surface to maximize the
blending. A period between 1 to 24 hours is suggested before using the water
(enHealth Council, 2004; Mosley, 2005).

As stated by the enHealth Council (2004), “to achieve effective disinfection, it is

necessary to add sufficient chlorine to provide a free chlorine residual of at least 0.5
mg/L after a contact time of 30 minutes”. This can be accomplished by measuring the
chlorine residual through a swimming pool test kit. Yet, these values of chlorine contact
time and concentrations vary according to tank volume and to type of bleach – each
one has a different level of active ingredient (enHealth Council, 2004; Mosley, 2005).

This practice, however, is not considered appropriate in most cases and should only
be applied in specific occasions as a remedial action. Besides giving an unpleasant

70
smell and taste to water, its effectiveness is of short duration and will only act on the
water stored at the time of dosing. Another drawback is that chlorine residuals react
with decaying organic matter in water to form trihalomethanes, considered to be a very
dangerous and carcinogenic by-product. Chlorine is effective against harmful bacteria
and many viruses, but is limited in neutralizing Giardia or Cryptosporidium. To eliminate
these microbial pathogens, it is necessary to implement a mechanism of micro-filtration
(enHealth Council, 2004; TWDB, 2005).

 UV Light

UV radiation has always been a very common disinfection process in wastewater

treatment plants, and nowadays is also widely used in potable water treatment. It is a
very effective operation in exterminating or sterilizing all bacteria, virus, and cysts
present in water, by exposure to UV light, providing a continuous assurance of water
quality. Besides its powerful disinfecting ability, this practice has the advantage of not
involving addition of chemicals and doesn't leave behind any disinfection by-products
(enHealth Council, 2004; TWDB, 2005).

In the specific case of applying this method for harvested rainwater treatment, it is
imperative that the water must go first through sediment filtration, once pathogens can
be shadowed from the UV light by suspended particles in the water (TWDB, 2005). The
UV light system may be installed in pipework delivering water from the storage cistern
to a dwelling or to specific taps used to supply water for drinking and cooking purposes
(enHealth Council, 2004).

The UV light setup requires relatively low maintenance. Nevertheless UV lamps

have a limited effective life and need to be replaced after a period of nine to 12 months.
It is also recommended the installation of a system incorporating a sensor which
indicates when the device is or is not operational (enHealth Council, 2004).

 Ozone

Ozone acts as a powerful oxidizing agent to reduce colour, to eliminate foul odours,
and to reduce total organic carbon in water. An ozone generator forces ozone into
storage tanks through rings or a diffuser stone, where it will quickly react due to its
strong instability (TWDB, 2005). For disinfection purposes, ozone is generally less
effective at destruction of viruses but still highly effective in killing bacteria or protozoa
(such as Giardia). Unlike chlorine, ozone does not leave a disinfectant residual in the
treated water (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009).
71
  Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis works by forcing water under high pressure through a semi-
permeable membrane, from an area of higher concentration of contaminants, to an
area of lesser concentration of contaminants. This mechanism does not destroy or
deactivate bacteria or viruses; it removes them by using a membrane with a pore size
smaller than 0.0001 micron (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, 2009). This is
however not a recommended method for rainwater treatment, once a considerable
amount of water is lost during the process.

2.6.6.3. pH Treatment

As stated before (section 2.4), the pH of rainwater tends to be slightly acidic, which
can cause some nuisances in the use of harvested rainwater. However, most problems
related with pH can be easily corrected with low-cost, low-maintenance, but highly
effective solutions.

Harvested rainwater pH should be always tested before use. Home testing kits are
available at low prices or samples can be taken to state-certified laboratories. In
accordance with the EPA and the National Standards Foundation (NSF)
recommendations, water pH should be above 6.5, especially when dealing with metal
plumbing systems. If the pH value is inferior to 6.5, treatment solutions should be
considered.

Frequently used techniques are based on the addition of neutralizing agents, such
as pieces of limestone rock, to the storing tank. Other common neutralizing agents and
their dose per 4 m3 of water are as follows (Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual,
2009):

 Limestone: 60 grams;
 Quicklime: 30 grams;
 Hydrated lime: 30 grams;
 Soda ash: 30 grams;
 Caustic soda: 45 grams;

Another recommended solution to address this problem is to use a storing system

made of concrete. The addition of limestone to concrete reservoirs will help neutralize
the acid with no maintenance required (Younos, T.M. Et al., 1998 in Virginia Rainwater
Harvesting Manual, 2009).

72
3. Case Study: Rainwater Harvesting for FCT/UNL
Campus Irrigation

3.1. Goals

The main goal of this case study is to assess the feasibility of collecting and using
rainwater for irrigation of green areas in the FCT-UNL campus. Primarily there will be
an overview of the university campus, as well as a thorough characterization of the
existing irrigation system in operation. By gathering all the necessary information, a
characterization of supply and demand will be carried out, as well as the existing
limitations on the effective capture of rainwater. According to the constraints
encountered, various scenarios of water balance will be presented in order to find the
best solution for the desired application. For such, an optimal sizing of the reservoir
must be achieved, as well as the complete analysis of all the available information, in
order to assess the environmental, technical and economical components of this
project and thus, determine its viability.

3.2. Methodology

The followed methodology in preparing this case study was based primarily on
gathering information on six key variables: Rainfall Data, Determination of Irrigation
Water Consumption, Water Demand, Determination of Green Areas with Active and
Inactive Irrigation, Determination of the Roof Areas and Roofing Material.

3.2.1. Rainfall Data

The rainfall information must be collected from the closest weather station to the site
under consideration and with the longest data extension possible, in order to reflect
local climatic variations. To promote the system simulation process for probabilistic
study, the longer the record length, the more reliable the results will be.

For this case study the data are initially collected from the Meteorological Station of
Monte da Caparica. The reporting period is 25 years (series of daily precipitation), from
which weekly series of precipitation data will be used to compute the balance of
rainwater inflow volumes and the consumption of irrigation water (total of 1301 weeks).
In spite of the fact that daily rainfall series would produce results of greater reliability it
73
would require a very extensive data set, while using weekly precipitation series, the
data set will be less extensive but still very significant and with the desired reliability,
appropriate for display of long-term trend.

Despite being the closest station to the FCT, there are several gaps in available
data between 1985 and 2009. Thus, these breaches were filled primarily with data from
the Meteorological Station of Alcochete, since it is the second closest to the study area,
and also with data from a rain sensor of the FCT, in existence since 2002, and with the
data from Meteorological Station of Vila Nogueira de Azeitão.

All data from the meteorological stations were collected through the website of the
SNIRH.

3.2.2. Determination of Irrigation Water Consumption

Since there are no meters for water consumed in irrigation, the determination of
annual expenditures was made empirically through a field survey, which identifies all
the existing irrigation equipment operating in the various sectors of the FCT Campus.
Once all the equipment was identified, the water flow of each unit was determined as
well as its weekly operating period. For this to be achieved, the collaboration of the
gardening team of FCT was crucial. In section 3.3.2 a detailed characterization of the
existing irrigation system on campus is provided.

3.2.3. Water Demand

Water demand determines the amount of water needed for irrigation and
consequently the storage requirements. The water demand over the year is not
constant; therefore it is necessary to assess the monthly distribution rate of water
requisites for green spaces irrigation.

3.2.4. Determination of Green Areas with Active and Inactive Irrigation

The identification of all green areas that exist in the campus was made by direct
measurement of the same, from the existing drawings in AutoCAD format (Annex II)
provided by the Rectory of the UNL and by the heads of the Projecto Campus Verde
(PCV – Green Campus Project). However, since the available documents date back to
2004, some green areas had not yet been considered to integrate the mentioned

74
drawings. Therefore, the missing areas were measured using the measuring tool
provided by Google Maps.

3.2.5. Determination of the Roof Areas

The determination of roof areas of the several buildings included in the FCT
Campus was performed through AutoCAD drawings (Annex III), using the
measurement tool provided by this software. The drawings in question were provided
by the heads of the PCV.

3.2.6. Roofing Material

This variable is very important since it will influence the rainwater runoff and thus,
the amount of water that can be potentially collected and conveyed to the storage tank.
This information was gathered through a direct field survey, with support from the
Security Office on FCT Campus.

3.2.7. Determination of Reservoir Capacity

3.2.6.1. Rippl Method

The most commonly used method for tank dimensioning in rainwater harvesting, is
the Rippl Method. It consists on the calculation of a storage volume required to ensure
a regular flow during the most critical period of drought observed. It usually considers
monthly series of precipitation data, with the most possible extension. In this particular
case, weekly series of precipitation data will be applied (Annecchini, 2005; Tomaz,
2009).

For this method, the affluence inflow is deducted from the water demand flow, for
the same time period. The maximum positive accumulated difference corresponds to
the volume of the reservoir (Pereira et al., 2010). By this method, the tank usually
presents an oversized volume, since it is dimensioned to meet demand during the most
critical dry periods.

To accomplish the rainwater tank dimensioning by the Rippl Method, an Excel

spreadsheet was used, which was based on collecting all the necessary data (Figure
26).

75
 Figure 26 - Data required for rainwater tank dimensioning by the Rippl method.

 Column 1 – Reporting period time in weeks (1301 weeks).

 Column 2 – Weekly precipitation data.
 Column 3 – Total catchment area (roofs area).
 Column 4 – Total water inflow collected by the system. It is obtained
multiplying C2 by C3 and by the runoff coefficient related to each roof
surface (see section 2.6.1.1).
 Column 5 – Weekly water demand for irrigation, which varies according to
the month.
 Column 6 – Difference between water demand and water inflow.
 Column 7 – Accumulated sum of the values obtained in C6. The maximum
positive accumulated difference corresponds to the volume of the reservoir.

3.3. FCT-UNL Presentation

3.3.1. General Description of the University Campus

The FCT University Campus, created in 1977, is located in Monte da Caparica,

Almada, and is one of nine units of the UNL. Currently with an area of 30 ha, with
capacity for expansion up to 60 ha, the FCT is attended by about 7500 students, of
whom about 1,400 are graduate students (master‟s and doctorates) (Faculdade de
Ciências e Tecnologia - Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2010).

The urbanization plan of the campus has three poles of development: the university
centre run by the rectory of FCT and UNL, the area of university residences managed
by the UNL Social Services and the Almada - Setúbal Science and Technology Park
(Madan Park) (Calado & Fouto, 2000).

76
 Currently, through its 14 departmental sectors, 18 research centres and its 8 support
services, in addition to the teaching and research activities, FCT-UNL provides
assistance to public and private entities in their areas of expertise. Figure 27 shows a
picture of the FCT campus locating all buildings.

Figure 27 - Aerial view of the FCT University campus (Adapted from: www.fct.unl.pt).

3.3.1.1. Rainwater Drainage

The sewerage and domestic water drainage systems were built in phases, as the
campus was expanding. The first phase consisted on the implementation of networks
of Buildings I, II, former sports complex, canteen and Hangars I, II, III and IV. Then the
networks of Buildings III, IV, VI and Departmental Building (DB), Environmental
Excellence Centre and the Grand Auditorium were the next to be built. Over the past
ten years the campus has grown to the south sector with the construction of Buildings
VII, VIII, IX and X, with the New Library being the last structure to be elevated.

The water drainage system of the FCT is presented in Annex IV. According to
Faustino (2008) two collectors of concrete, a 600 mm and a 700 mm (in the south
zone), for rainwater, depart from the campus of Monte da Caparica. However, this map
is quite outdated concerning to the final layout of the collectors, to some connections
between branches and to some piping diameters. This is mainly due to the construction
of new buildings in the southern part of the university, which altered the topography
and infrastructure of the campus (Faustino, 2008).

77
 The buildings VII, VIII, IX and X and the DB were designed to drain rainwater
directly from their roofs into existing storm sewers located below ground. Thus, once
the infrastructure is already installed, it will be of outmost importance to identify the
precise location of the connection points of these buildings‟ storm sewers to the main
stormwater collector, since it is precisely in those points that the harvested rainwater
from each roof must be intercepted, in order to be conveyed to the storing system, yet
to be built.

As stated by Faustino, in 2005 a complete survey was conducted of the water

supply network of the campus. Annex V is referred to the mentioned survey, where the
existence of two connection points to the municipal supply can be verified. Point A is
located on the north ring road between the Grand Auditorium and the New Library
buildings and point B is located in front of the main entrance gate of the campus.

An exhaustive survey was held of the domestic wastewater and rainwater networks
from the entire campus in late 2007 under the coordination of the Divisão de Logística
e Conservação (DLC – Division of Logistics and Conservation). However, this
information is still being compiled and it's not yet available for consulting.

3.3.2. Characterization of the FCT Irrigation System

Primarily, this case study was designed with the purpose of rainwater harvesting for
toilet flushing, since this domain represents a large share of consumption of potable
water in housing and offices. However, a project of this dimension involves a high initial
investment, determined by the need to build a dual network of mains water supply –
one for potable water and the other for rainwater. It only becomes economically
interesting in projects build from scratch and, therefore, it was decided to go with other
perspective.

The scenario under study will be rainwater harvesting for irrigation of the campus
green areas, with the aim of presenting viable solutions to reduce consumption of
potable water from the mains water supply.

Annex II shows the map of the green areas on campus. This map has been
amended in accordance with existing green sectors of the Campus. Through this map,
both active and inactive watering areas were estimated, as shown in Table 5.

78
 Table 5 - Active and inactive irrigation areas of FCT.

2
Area (m ) Area(ha)
Active Irrigation Sectors 11 210 1.1
Inactive Irrigation Sectors 11 760 1.2
Total 22 970 2.3

Recently, an exhaustive survey was conducted of all the campus irrigation sectors
and the equipment associated with each sector – about 37. Through this field survey it
was possible to identify all the equipment in automatic and manual operation, as well
as the zones with active and inactive watering. Only then, since there is no water
meters associated with irrigation, was it possible to estimate the weekly flow rate of
water consumed in this process. In Table 6, all the equipments operating on campus,
as well as all the associated features, are presented:

Table 6 - Operating Watering Equipments in FCT Campus.

Watering Frequency Flow Rate Total Water

Equipment Brand Series Nº 3 3
(min/week) (m /min) Flow (m /week)
T-bird (T-22) 2 140 0.005 1.4
T-bird (T-30) 10 140 0.005 7.0
T-bird (T-30) 3 180 0.005 2.7
T-bird (T-40) 13 140 0.007 12.1
Rainbird 5000 + 41 140 0.012 67.0
5000 + 38 180 0.012 79.8
5000 + 21 210 0.012 51.5
Sprinkler
Maxipaw 5 140 0.008 5.8
Maxipaw 4 180 0.008 6.0

Super 800 20 140 0.013 37.3

Toro
Super 800 2 180 0.013 4.8

PGP 15 140 0.012 24.5

Hunter PGP 3 180 0.012 6.3
PGP 15 210 0.012 26.8

18 Van 15 140 0.007 4.7

Rainbird 18 Van 16 180 0.007 19.2
Sprayer 18 Van 7 210 0.007 9.8

Tvan 27 140 0.006 22.1

Toro
Tvan 1 180 0.006 1.1
Rain Bug (5
Dripper Rainbird 55 210 6.7E-05 3.9
heads)
Total 403.7

79
 The flow rate of each device was taken from available irrigation catalogs
representative of the associated brand (Hunter Industries Incorporated, 2010; Rain Bird
Corporation, 2010; The Toro Company, 2010). With the assistance of Engineer Paixão,
head of the Unidade de Espaços Verdes (UEV – Green Spaces Unit), it was possible
to accurately determine the specific flow rate of each series.

3.3.2.1. Water Demand

Analyzing Table 6, the weekly consumption of irrigation water is expected to be

around 403.7 m3, regardless the month or season of the year. Considering that the
irrigation system on campus is usually programmed week by week and that many
sectors are manually programmed, it was decided that this value corresponds to the
water consumption per week during 8 months of the year – from March till October.
Taking into account the estimated area with active irrigation – 1.1 ha – it is conclusive
that the annual water expenditure is expected to be 1.25 m3/m2 per year, equivalent to
13 750 m3 per year.

Taking into account Table 1, complemented with information provided by several

entities specialized on this subject, the reference value of water consumption for
irrigation of small gardens and parks is between 0.1 and 0.8 m3/m2 per year.
Comparing the reference value with the actual expenditure it is considered that there is
a considerable inefficiency in water consumption, currently carried out by the FCT
green area watering system. Besides the economic inefficiency, one cannot ignore the
involved environmental component, when using significant amounts of drinking water
unnecessarily. Thus, new values must be considered for sizing the entire RHS.

Considering that the inactive sectors can resume activity in the future or assuming
that new green areas may arise in the coming years, it is admitted, for sizing purposes,
that the considered irrigation area is equivalent to both active and inactive sectors – 2.3
ha. Therefore, according to the assumption presented above, the volume of water
spent per year is expected to be around 28 750 m3 per year.

Table 7 presents the numbers for the actual average weekly flow of water consumed
for irrigation in FCT and the hypothetical consumption if all the FCT green sectors were
being irrigated.

80
 Table 7 - Average weekly flow of water consumed for irrigation in FCT

Irrigated Area = 1,1 ha Irrigated Area = 2,3 ha

Average weekly flow of water consumed Average weekly flow of water consumed
3 3
for irrigation in FCT = 403,7 m for irrigation in FCT = 827,1 m
3 2
Annual water expenditure for irrigation (8 months) = 1,25 m /m .year

Average annual flow of water consumed Average annual flow of water consumed
3 3
for irrigation in FCT = 13 750 m for irrigation in FCT = 28 750 m
Current Scenario Hypothetical Scenario

Table 8 presents the water needs for irrigation as well as the mean weekly flow rate
for each month, to be considered for sizing the RHS, which is based on typical values
for irrigation at the central and coastal part of Portugal.

Table 8 - Water demand for irrigation.

Area=2.3ha Area=1.1ha Area=2.3ha Area=1.1ha

Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Flow rate Flow rate
Month 3 3 3 3
(mm/month) (m /month) (m /month) (m /week) (m /week)
January 0 0 0 0 0
February 0 0 0 0 0
March 22 505 247 116 57
April 57.1 1312 640 302 147
May 84 1930 942 444 217
June 107.1 2 459 1 200 566 276
July 123.6 2 839 1 386 653 319
August 111.2 2 554 1 247 588 287
September 78.4 1 801 879 414 202
October 24.4 561 274 129 63
November 0 0 0 0 0
December 0 0 0 0 0
Total 608 13 962 6 814

Figure 28 represents the percentage distribution of water demand for irrigation per
month, according to water requirements for irrigation represented in column 2 of Table
8. As expected, water needs for the rainiest months is null, while for the hotter and
driest months water demand has the higher values.

81
 Water Demand for Irrigation
Percentage (%) 25,0
20,3
20,0 17,6 18,3

15,0 13,8 12,9

9,4
10,0

3,6 4,0
5,0
0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 28 - Percentage distribution of water demand for irrigation of green areas.

3.3.3. Supply Management

For this case study, the considered catchment surfaces are the roofs of several
buildings located in the FCT Campus. Figure 29, Figure 30, Figure 31 and Figure 32
illustrate the roof materials of those buildings.

Figure 29 - Building I roof, consisting of tile cement. Building II roof is identical.

82
Figure 30 - Building X roof, covered with gravel. Buildings VII, VIII and IX roofs are identical.

Figure 31 - View of the DB roof. As seen, the surface material is cement.

83
 Figure 32 - Aerial view of Buildings III, IV and V. All three are tar screen coated.

Table 9 characterizes all the contemplated roofs, as well as the respective

affluences. As illustrated above, all the roofing materials were identified in order to
determine the runoff coefficient to be considered for each situation. The affluence
values were determined taking into account the precipitation data for the reporting
period of 25 years.

Table 9 - Characteristics of all the roofs contemplated in the case study.

2 Runoff Average Affluences

Roof Area (m ) Material 3
Coefficient (m /year)
Building I 2 870 Cement Tile 0.82 1 470
Building II 2 713 Cement Tile 0.82 1 390
Building III, IV, V 2 790 Tar Screen 0.9 1 568
DB 4 881 Cement 0.82 2 500
Building VII 3 334 Gravel 0.8 1 666
Building VIII 1 793 Gravel 0.8 896
Building IX 1 768 Gravel 0.8 883
Building X 1 365 Gravel 0.8 682
Total 21 514 11 056

Analyzing all data collected and all the available information, the next step was to
compare water supply with water demand, in order to produce several or the most
viable solution for the implementation of a RHS on the FCT university campus. With
this goal, several scenarios of water balance were examined.

84
 3.4. Water balance

Five possible scenarios were studied to determine which one best suits the
application of the concept according to the objectives and requirements of the RHS.

3.4.1. Null Hypothesis

A null hypothesis is the basic assumption that will operate as a starting point to
develop other scenarios. This would be the most viable solution in terms of logistics
and infrastructures existing on campus, since the catchment surfaces that fall under
this hypothesis are the roofs of buildings VII, VIII, IX, X and DB (see section 3.3.1.1).
The irrigation area considered for this hypothesis is equivalent to the active and
inactive watering sectors of the campus, namely 2.3 ha. Figure 33 represents all the
irrigation sectors (green) of the FCT campus.

Figure 33 - Green sectors of the FCT Campus.

85
 Table 10 presents the figures of total water runoff for each building per year, as well
as the value of total irrigation water consumption per year, considering average annual
values.

Table 10 - Average annual volume of affluences by building and total irrigation water consumption.

3
Affluence – DB (m ) 2 500
3
Affluence – Building VII (m ) 1 666
3
Affluence – Building VIII (m ) 896
3
Affluence – Building IX (m ) 883
3
Affluence – Building X (m ) 683
3
Total Affluence (m ) 6 628
3
Irrigation Water Consumption (m ) 13 962

As seen by the analysis of Table 10, the volume of average water consumption is
well above the volume of average inflow, which means that supply of rainwater will not
be sufficient to meet all demand. According to the calculations for this scenario the
RHS would require a 193 054 m3 reservoir. Technically, for these conditions, it‟s not
rational to dimension a RHS where the average inflow is lower than the average
outflow. Not only would the reservoir be of monumental dimensions, as it would be an
unaffordable investment.

The reliability and efficiency of RHS are linked directly to a proper sizing of the
storage tank, requiring an optimum combination between the storage volume and the
volume of demand to be met, resulting in higher reliability with lower possible
expenditure.

Table 11 introduces an estimate of the total volume of water consumed for irrigation
per year in FCT Campus, as well as the corresponding economic value, for the null
hypothesis.

Table 11 - Estimated annual volume of irrigation water and respective economic value, for the considered
irrigation area of 2.3 ha.

3
Average weekly flow of water consumed for irrigation in FCT (m ) 827.1
3
Average annual flow of water consumed for irrigation (m ) 28 750
3
Cost of 1 m of water charged by SMAS (€) 1.44
Amount spent per year in irrigation water (€) 41 343

Note: The average annual flow of water consumed for irrigation is regarding to the current volume of water
consumed per week for the considered time period of 8 months, as mentioned in section 3.3.2.1.

86
 In Annex VI is provided a recent water bill paid to Serviços Municipalizados de Água
e Saneamento (SMAS – Municipal Services of Water and Sanitation) of Almada by the
FCT. Through this document, it can be observed the value paid for 1 m3 of mains water
supply, as well as all the fees charged for 1 m3 of water consumption. Table 12
presents an assessment of the economic value on the fees charged for water
consumption by the SMAS, which in this case corresponds to the average annual flow
of water consumed for irrigation – 28 750 m3.

Table 12 - Assessment of the economic value associated to the fees charged for water consumption by
the SMAS.

Tax Unit Value (€) Value (€year)

i
Drainage Utilization Fee 1.44 16 537
Treatment Utilization Fee 0.3 8 613
Solid Waste Fee 0.21 6 029
Water Resources Fee 0.0264 758
VAT of 6% 1 723
Amount spent per year related to the charging
33 661
fees (€)
1
The drainage utilization fee corresponds to 40% of the total water consumed for irrigation, namely 40% of 28 750
m3 per year.

By examining Table 11 and Table 12, the economic amount saved in water by the
FCT would be of 75 004 € per year. Although being a substantial value, taking into
account the size of the reservoir, the expected Return on Investment Period (ROI) will
make a project of this size unfeasible.

Concluding, for the given reasons and figures presented, this hypothesis is
completely impractical. Thus, new scenarios were developed with better economic and
constructive solutions, which may enable the application of this concept in the future.

3.4.2. 1st Scenario

The 1st scenario conceived is similar in almost everything to the null hypothesis,
except this will include the affluences of buildings I and II. Figure 34 represents the
blueprint of the FCT buildings, where all the catchment surfaces are properly identified.

87
 Figure 34 - Blueprint of all the FCT buildings and the considered catchment surfaces.

Table 13 displays the figures of total water runoff for each building, as well as the
value of total water consumption for the period under review, considering average
annual values.

Table 13 - Average annual volume of affluences by building and total irrigation water consumption, for the
1st scenario.

3
Affluence – Building I (m ) 1 470
3
Affluence – Building II (m ) 1 390
3
Affluence – DB (m ) 2 500
3
Affluence – Building VII (m ) 1 666
3
Affluence – Building VIII (m ) 896
3
Affluence – Building IX (m ) 883
3
Affluence – Building X (m ) 683
3
Total Affluence (m ) 9 487
3
Irrigation Water Consumption (m ) 13 962

88
 Analyzing Table 13, the value of average inflow is still below the average
consumption, which means that supply is not yet sufficient to meet all water demand.
According to the calculations for this scenario, to ensure annual watering for irrigation
of the campus, the RHS would require a 124 949 m3 reservoir. Technically, for these
conditions, it‟s not rational to dimension a RHS where the average inflow is lower than
the average outflow. For the given reasons, the storage volume is still totally
impractical, both constructive and economically.

The economic savings related to water consumption regarding this scenario are the
same presented in Table 10 and Table 11, since the considered irrigated area is also
2.3 ha.

Concluding, for the given reasons and figures presented, this hypothesis is still
completely impractical. Thus, new scenarios were developed with better economic and
constructive solutions, which may enable the application of this concept in the future.

3.4.3. 2nd Scenario

The catchment surfaces considered for this scenario include the buildings VII, VIII,
IX, X and the DB‟s roofs, same as the null hypothesis. The main assumption of this
scenario lies in the area susceptible to be watered. The irrigation area considered for
the sizing of the RHS corresponds to the current active irrigation sectors (see Section
3.3.2.) – 1.1 ha (Figure 35). Thus, based on the values presented in Table 8, all
calculations of water supply and demand were redone, in order to come up with a new
storage volume.

89
 Figure 35 - Blueprint of the campus green areas with active irrigation.

Comparing Figure 33 - Green sectors of the FCT Campus. with Figure 35, it is
noticeable the differences between the 2 plants. Table 14 presents the figures of total
water runoff for each building, as well as the value of total water consumption for the
period under review, considering average annual values.

Table 14 - Average annual volume of affluences by building and total irrigation water consumption, for the
2nd scenario.

3
Affluence – DB (m ) 2 500
3
Affluence – Building VII (m ) 1 666
3
Affluence – Building VIII (m ) 896
3
Affluence – Building IX (m ) 883
3
Affluence – Building X (m ) 683
3
Total Affluence (m ) 6 628
3
Irrigation Water Consumption (m ) 6 814

90
 Analyzing Table 14, the values of average inflow and average consumption are
quite similar. However, water supply is not yet sufficient to meet all water demand.
According to the calculations for this scenario the RHS would require a 13 408 m3
reservoir to ensure annual watering of the campus. This volume is still quite significant.
However, there is a substantial difference between this and the previous scenarios
regarding to the project feasibility. However, once again, technically, it‟s not rational to
dimension a RHS where the average inflow is lower than the average outflow. Not to
mention that this solution was designed only to consider the current active irrigation
area of 1.1 ha. Considering that the inactive sectors may resume activity in the future,
or assuming that new green zones may arise in the coming years, the system designed
for this scenario is unable to meet their water requirements.

Table 15 introduces an estimate of the total volume of water consumed for irrigation
per year in FCT Campus, as well as the corresponding economic value, for the 2nd
scenario.

Table 15 - Estimated annual volume of irrigation water and respective economic value, for the considered
irrigation area of 1.1 ha.

3
Average weekly flow of water consumed for irrigation in FCT (m ) 403.7
3
Average annual flow of water consumed for irrigation (m ) 13 750
3
Cost of 1 m of water charged by SMAS (€) 1.44
Amount spent per year in irrigation water (€) 20 177

Note: The average annual flow of water consumed for irrigation is regarding to the current volume of water
consumed per week for the considered time period of 8 months, as mentioned in section 3.3.2.1.

Table 16 presents an assessment of the economic value on the fees charged for
water consumption by the SMAS, which in this case corresponds to the average annual
flow of water consumed for irrigation – 13 750 m3.

Table 16 - Assessment of the economic value associated to the fees charged for water consumption by
the SMAS.

Tax Unit Value (€) Value (€year)

ii
Drainage Utilization Fee 1.44 8 071
Treatment Utilization Fee 0.3 4 204
Solid Waste Fee 0.21 2 943
Water Resources Fee 0.0264 370
VAT of 6% 841
Amount spent per year related to the
16 428
charging fees (€)
1
The drainage utilization fee corresponds to 40% of the total water consumed for irrigation, namely 40% of 13 750
m3 per year.

91
 By examining Table 15 and Table 16, the economic amount saved in water by the
FCT would be of 36 605 € per year. Although being a substantial value, taking into
account the size of the reservoir, the expected Return on Investment Period (ROI) will
make a project of this size unfeasible.

Concluding, for the given reasons and figures presented, this hypothesis is still
irrational. Thus, new scenarios were developed with better economic and constructive
solutions, which may enable the application of this concept in the future.

3.4.4. 3rd Scenario

The 3rd scenario is similar to the 2nd scenario except that also includes the affluences of
buildings I and II (see Figure 34). Thus, based on the values presented in Table 8, all
calculations of water supply and demand were redone, in order to come up with a new
storage volume.

Table 17 displays the figures of total water runoff for each building, as well as the
value of total water consumption for the period under review, considering average
annual values.

Table 17 - Average annual volume of affluences by building and total irrigation water consumption, for the
3rd scenario.

3
Affluence – Building I (m ) 1 470
3
Affluence – Building II (m ) 1 390
3
Affluence – DB (m ) 2 500
3
Affluence – Building VII (m ) 1 666
3
Affluence – Building VIII (m ) 896
3
Affluence – Building IX (m ) 883
3
Affluence – Building X (m ) 683
3
Total Affluence (m ) 9 487
3
Irrigation Water Consumption (m ) 6 814

As seen in Table 17, the value of average consumption is below the average
rainwater inflow, which means that supply is sufficient to cover water demand. The
economic savings related to water consumption regarding this scenario are the same
for the previous scenario, demonstrated in Table 15 and Table 16.

92
 According to the calculations for this scenario the RHS would require a 4 161 m3
reservoir. The reservoir volume is quite acceptable in size, making the system in terms
of construction, a feasible project and the most interesting of all scenarios previously
evaluated. However, as the 2nd scenario, this solution was designed only to consider
the current active irrigation area of 1.1 ha. Considering that the inactive sectors may
resume activity in the future or, assuming that new green zones may arise in the
coming years, the system designed for this scenario is unable to meet their potential
water requirements.

3.4.5. 4th Scenario

For this 4th and final solution proposed, the considered catchment surfaces include
the roofs of buildings I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X, and the DB roof. The
irrigation area considered is equivalent to the campus active and inactive watering
sectors, namely 2.3 ha (see Figure 33). According to the mentioned assumptions,
Table 18 shows the figures of total water runoff for each building, as well as the value
of total water consumption for the period under review, considering average annual
values.

Table 18 - Average annual volume of affluences by building and total irrigation water consumption, for the
4th scenario.

3
Affluence – Building I (m ) 1 470
3
Affluence – Building II (m ) 1 390
3
Affluence – Building III, IV and V (m ) 1 568
3
Affluence – DB (m ) 2 500
3
Affluence – Building VII (m ) 1 666
3
Affluence – Building VIII (m ) 896
3
Affluence – Building IX (m ) 883
3
Affluence – Building X (m ) 683
3
Total Affluence (m ) 11 056
3
Irrigation Water Consumption (m ) 13 962

As seen by the analysis of Table 18, the volume of average water consumption is
above the volume of average inflow, which means that supply will be insufficient to
meet all water demand. According to the calculations for this scenario, to ensure the
annual watering of the campus, the RHS would require an 87 595 m3 reservoir. Despite
93
the difference between supply and demand is not as acute as the one presented in the
null hypothesis, this scenario is still unfeasible, since it is technically irrational to
dimension a RHS where the average inflow is lower than the average outflow.

The economic savings related to water consumption regarding this scenario are the
same for the null hypothesis and for the 1st scenario, demonstrated in Table 11 and
Table 12.

Despite the monumental dimensions of this reservoir, as well as the unaffordable

investment, this scenario provides the best numbers regarding the volume of harvested
rainwater and considers the total area of the campus green sectors. Therefore, it was
decided to consider this scenario as a starting point to develop several new solutions
for different system efficiencies, according to the assumption that the average inflow
must cover the average outflow, in order to assure the system feasibility. A detailed
analysis of all these scenarios is presented below in section 3.5. Table 19 summarizes
the main characteristics associated to each of the presented solutions presented
above.

Table 19 - Summary of the characteristics associated to each scenario.

st nd rd th
Null Hypothesis 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario
DB; Buildings I, DB; Buildings DB; Buildings I, II,
Catchment DB; Buildings DB; Buildings
II, VII, VIII, IX, I, II, VII, VIII, III, IV, V, VII, VIII,
Surface VII, VIII, IX, X VII, VIII, IX, X
X IX, X IX, X
Total
Catchment 13 141 18 724 13 141 18 724 21 514
2
Area (m )
Irrigation
2.3 2.3 1.1 1.1 2.3
Area (ha)
Water
Savings 75 004 75 004 36 605 36 605 75 004
(€/year)
Tank
3 193 054 124 949 13 408 4 161 87 595
Volume (m )

As it can be seen, the difference of the tank size is quite significant between similar
circumstances where the only change is the area to be watered.

3.5. Determination of the Optimum Tank Size

As mentioned, since the RHS evaluated for all scenarios are completely unfeasible,
except for the 3rd scenario, new alternatives were developed for different system

94
efficiencies, based on results obtained with 4th scenario. For the same assumptions,
the 4th scenario provided as the cornerstone to present several solutions for future
potential investors and/or decision makers, according to the desired purpose. Table 20
presents new scenarios according to the irrigation efficiency.

Table 20 - Characteristics of proposed RHS for different percentage of irrigated area.

RHS Efficiency Tank Volume Irrigated Area Water Savings Water Savings
3 2 3
(%) (m ) (m ) (m /year) (€/year)
90% 52 505 20 672 25 840 67 503
80% 17 416 18 375 22 969 60 003
75% 8 182 17 226 21 533 56 253
70% 6 867 16 078 20 097 52 503
60% 5 290 13 781 17 226 45 002
50% 3 880 11 484 14 355 37 502
40% 2 469 9 187 11 484 30 001
30% 1 058 6 891 8 613 22 501
20% 36 4 594 5 742 15 001
10% 13 2 297 2 871 7 500

As seen, the characteristics of each system, with the exception of the storage
volume, do not show a marked variation from case to case. However, for the tank size,
there is a remarkable difference when the percentage of irrigated drops from 90% to
80% and from 80% to 75%. Figure 36 presents the evolution of each tank size
according to the percentage of irrigated area.

% of Irrigated Area Vs Tank Volume

100%
90%
RHS Efficiency (%)

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Tank Volume (m3)

Figure 36 - Tank volume according to the percentage of irrigated area.

95
 Figure 36 corroborates the difference between the RHS designed to irrigate 80%
and 90% of area from the other studied solutions. It is expected that the economic
viability of such systems will be reduced or even null, being the reservoir the most
expensive component of a RHS. Therefore, the exponential increase of the tank size
does not compensate an increase of 5 to 10% of irrigated area. Decision making
should be based in choosing a tank size that is appropriate in terms of costs, resources
and construction methods; even if it means that the tanks have to be limited to lower
capacities than would otherwise be justified by roof areas or likely needs of consumers.
This way optimization of tank size will be achieved, according to water demand and
water supply, with a lower Return on Investment (ROI) period.

To assist in decision making, it is necessary to complement the presented scenarios

with a preliminary economic assessment for each RHS.

3.5.1. Economic Analysis of the Rainwater Harvesting Systems

The installation of a RHS presumes the existence of a preliminary economic

analysis, to provide a more rational judgment by the decision-maker.

The total cost of a RHS must take into account all expenditures associated to the
systems installation and operation (water supply systems and electrical and
electromechanical equipment), and construction costs. Though, in order to simplify the
calculations, only the construction costs associated to the water reservoir were
considered, since it is the most expensive component of a RHS, varying significantly
with its size.

As stated previously in section 2.6.4.3., there are several tanks available in the
market for RWH, made from many different materials. However, for this particular case
study, the most viable option is the construction in situ of reinforced concrete reservoirs
or the design of an artificial pond.

After consulting with certain companies that provide this service, it was conclusive
that most of them only provide tanks for small projects, mainly made of high-density
polyethylene (HDPE), fibreglass or inox steel. Only construction companies provide
services of in situ construction of large capacity reinforced concrete reservoirs. A
specific construction company was contacted and asked for information and advice on
a suitable approach. Information provided by Engineer Carlos Schmidt, concerning
workload prices for each constructive component, was essential to estimate the cost of

96
each reservoir presented in Table 20. The following data was considered for the
economic assessment of each RHS.

 Reinforced concrete walls, including shuttering: 271 € / m3;

 Reinforced concrete groundsill: 157 € / m3;
 Concrete slab coverage: 30 € / m3;
 Plaster: 10.5 € / m2;
 Excavation and transport: 7.5 € / m3;

Information regarding the development of artificial ponds was provided by Engineer

João Fonseca. For certain tank volumes, it is reasonable to consider such possibility,
since it is more economically efficient. Specific price of construction of an underground
storage reservoir, geomembrane coated, with surface and bottom outlet, fence and
access, all included – 40 €/m3.

Through the estimated workloads and respective costs, it was possible to produce
Table 21.

Table 21 - Estimated workloads and respective costs of construction for reinforce concrete tanks,
according to each dimension.

Tank Volume (m3)

52 505 17 416 8 182 6 867 5 290 3 880 2 469 1 058

Dimensions (m) 103*103*5 60*60*5 41*41*5 38*38*5 33*33*5 29*29*5 23*23*5 15*15*5

wall thickness
0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
(m)

Walls (271€/m3) 835 650€ 279 950€ 132 940€ 111 925€ 86 675€ 64 000€ 41 250€ 18 250€

Groundsill (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Groundsill
9 500€ 17 600€ 34 600€ 66 000€ 131 950€ 131 950€ 131 950€ 131 950€
(157€/m3)
Excavation
443 375€ 149 575€ 71 575€ 60 375€ 46 925€ 34 825€ 22 630€ 10 230€
(7.5€/m3)
Plaster
133 440€ 49 985€ 26 425€ 22 900€ 18 570€ 14 560€ 10 330€ 5 645€
(10.5€/m2)
Coverage
321 520€ 108 245€ 51 675€ 43 570€ 33 825€ 25 070€ 16 250€ 7 300€
(30€/m2)
Total
(reinforced
1 929 690€ 701 050€ 360 670€ 310 410€ 249 030€ 192 630€ 133 935€ 70 360€
concrete,
buried)
Total
(reinforced
1 608 170€ 592 800€ 308 990€ 266 840€ 215 200€ 167 565€ 117 690€ 63 060€
concrete, semi-
buried)
Total (artificial
2 100 215€ 696 630€ 327 275€ 274 680€ 211 615€ 155 190€ 98 765€ 42 340€
lake)

97
 As expected, systems with irrigation capability of 90% and 80% of the total area, are
much more expensive than the other. Technically, since water supply is not sufficient to
meet water demand, these options are both economically and constructive unfeasible.
Systems with 10% and 20% of irrigation capability were not considered, since they are
extremely small to meet the primary goal of this case study.

Comparing the system costs with the system economic benefits for every tank sizes
presented in Table 20 and Table 21Table 21 - Estimated workloads and respective
costs of construction for reinforce concrete tanks, according to each dimension., it can
be objectively evaluated the best economic solution to adopt. It is also important to
assess the most cost-effective solution, through the ROI period. The ROI period is
easily achieved since the water update rate was not considered:

Bi
ROI = (Years)
Ci
 ROI – Return On Investment Period (years);
 Bi – Benefit per year i (€);
 Ci – Cost per year i (€);

3.6. Summary and Discussion of Results

This chapter examines the results for all the possibilities presented, in accordance
with their tank volume and respective RHS capability of irrigation, express in terms of
percentage of total potential irrigated area.

Table 22 presents the system details essential for a supported and sustained
decision making. For the reasons mentioned above, systems with a 90%, 80%, 20%
and 10% capability were not considered.

98
 Table 22 - Characteristics of proposed RHS and respective ROI period

% of Irrigated Area
75% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

Tank Volume (m3) 8 182 6 867 5 290 3 880 2 469 1 058

Irrigated Area (m2) 17 226 16 078 13 781 11 484 9 187 6 891

Water Savings (m3/year) 21 533 20 097 17 226 14 355 11 484 8 613

Water Savings (€/year) 56 253 52 503 45 002 37 502 30 001 22 501

System Cost* (€) 360 670€ 310 410€ 249 030€ 192 630€ 133 935€ 70 360€

ROI* (years) 6 6 6 5 4 3

System Cost** (€) 308 990€ 266 840€ 215 200€ 167 565€ 117 690€ 63 060€

ROI** (years) 5 5 5 4 4 3

System Cost*** (€) 327 275€ 274 680€ 211 615€ 155 190€ 98 765€ 42 340€

ROI*** (years) 6 5 5 4 3 2

* For reinforced concrete tanks, buried;

** For reinforced concrete tanks, semi-buried;

*** For artificial lake;

As seen, it is important to mention that for the system with 50% capability, the
assured irrigation area is around 1.1 ha, equivalent to the current active irrigation area
of the FCT. In other words, this may be a viable solution if the RHS is considered to be
sufficient to meet the future needs of the FCT watering sectors.

According to Table 22, it was possible to evaluate all scenarios and to compare all
the associated features. Figure 37 analyzes the cost evolution according to each
reservoir capacity, for the three construction approaches.

99
 Cost Evolution
400.000 €
Construction Costs (€) 350.000 €
300.000 €
250.000 €
200.000 €
150.000 €
100.000 €
50.000 €
0€
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Tank Volume (m3)

buried, reinforced concrete tanks semi-buried, reinforced tanks Artificial pond

Figure 37 - Construction costs for each RHS according to the reservoir capacity.

Figure 38 analyzes the ROI period according to each reservoir capacity, for the
three construction approaches.

PRI Evolution
7
ROI Period (Years)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Tank Volume (m3)
Buried, reinforced tanks Semi-buried, reinforced tanks Artificial Pond

Figure 38 - ROI period for each RHS according to the reservoir capacity.

Analyzing Figure 37 and Figure 38, the construction of the RHS based in a buried,
reinforced concrete reservoir is the most expensive solution. Between the two other
possibilities, for a tank size inferior to 5 290 m3, the most viable solution is the
construction of an artificial pond. For tank sizes superior to 5 290 m3, corresponding to
a system capability of 60%, the most viable option is the construction of a semi-buried,
reinforced concrete reservoir. However, the economic differences between the three
presented solutions, for the same irrigation capability, are minimal. The ROI period is a
100
very important factor for decision making, but one cannot forget other elements such as
location or visual impact of the storage tank. Therefore, despite being the most
expensive solution, the implementation of a RHS with buried reservoirs has the major
advantage of not being visible to people and to not occupy space on the surface.

From Table 22 and Figure 38, it can be seen that the ROI period has a similar
behaviour for all three construction options. As expected, the ROI period increases
proportionally with the tank volume, due to the higher costs of construction.

Finally, analyzing all the provided information, it is conclusive that this case study
presents a prominent feasibility and reliability rate, not only economically as well as
environmentally, being water a more and more important and increasingly scarce
resource. One might even say that for a project of this importance and dimension, the
ROI period for all scenarios presented, with capabilities between 30% and 75%, is
quite reasonable and should not hinder its implementation.

101
102
4. Conclusions

Traditionally, water was a cheap, safe and abundant resource, accessible to all,
without any economic cost. However, this situation changed dramatically and the
traditional approaches may not be sustainable due to increased pressures from climate
change, population growth and intense urbanization, making water a scarce and a
valuable resource, economically, strategically and environmentally.

Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) is an important strategy for better management of

water resources and a way to contribute to mitigate catastrophic natural events such as
floods and droughts. It has the potential to reduce reliance on mains water supply,
especially for non-potable uses such as toilet flushing, irrigation, washing and fire
fighting. There are also economic benefits for the general consumer, related to savings
on water bills. Despite the lack of public awareness and acceptance, there is a great
potential for RWH to become more widespread in Portugal. However, the absence of
information regarding Rainwater Harvesting Systems (RHS) costs and maintenance
requirements, associated to the current low prices of mains water supply, raises
scepticism regarding its long-term financial effectiveness.

Worldwide legislation was also presented as well as the Portuguese legal

framework, regarding rainwater utilization. In many countries RWH is being practised
outside the legal framework without too much government involvement. Portugal is no
different, since there is no specific legislation regarding this subject. However, the
Associação Nacional para a Qualidade nas Instalações Prediais (ANQIP) developed
technical specifications regarding hydric certification for the installation of RHS. Several
success stories all over the world are reported, which could function as a starting point
for other countries to adopt this strategy.

In the research work a detailed characterization of all Rainwater Harvesting Systems

components was presented: the catchment surface (usually building roof tops),
conveyance system, filtration system and first flush diverters, storage facility, delivery
system (pumping system) and all treatment techniques. A range of key elements were
also identified related to the runoff coefficients associated to every roof materials and to
the tank installation: rainwater inlet to the tank, overflow device and backup water
supply.

A case study was introduced, which main goal is to assess the feasibility of RWH for
irrigation of green areas in the FCT/UNL campus. The followed methodology consisted
103
in gathering information on six key variables: Rainfall Data; Determination of Irrigation
Water Consumption; Water Demand; Determination of Green Areas with Active and
Inactive Irrigation; Determination of the Roof Areas and Roofing Material. Methods for
modelling these variables were discussed and suitable approaches selected.
Regarding tank sizing, there are a number of different methods suitable for a proper
dimensioning. For this particular case, the Rippl Method was selected, since it is the
most commonly used in RWH.

A thorough characterization of the FCT irrigation system is also presented, allowing

an accurate estimation of the weekly flow rate of potable water consumed during this
process. In order to determine the rainwater supply all roof areas and roof materials
were identified through a direct field survey. Comparing water demand with water
supply, several scenarios were developed in order to present viable solutions for the
implementation of a RHS in the FCT. The majority of them clearly evidence a
significant reduction in the reliance of mains water supply.

Currently, in Portugal, few companies already provide these services. However, all
the developed scenarios predict the installation of considerable size tanks and
therefore only reinforced concrete and pre-fabricated concrete materials were
considered.

A financial assessment was then produced, where only the construction costs
associated to the water reservoir were considered, since it is the most expensive
component of a RHS. The cost benefit analysis for every solution was essential to
determine the ROI period and therefore to assist in a more rational judgement by the
decision-maker. The system details and the provided information presented viable
solutions to reduce consumption of potable water from the mains water supply.

This research work seeks to make aware for the importance of RWH and to
encourage the implementation of RHS to reduce the use of drinking water for non-
potable uses, and thus contributing to address water scarcity problems all over the
world. Regarding the presented case study, the main conclusion is that there is a
considerable inefficiency in water consumption, currently carried out by the FCT green
area watering system. Too much water is being spent for the existing irrigation sectors
and therefore, may the presented figures contribute to better management and
programming of the irrigation system. Besides the economic inefficiency, one cannot
ignore the involved environmental component, when using significant amounts of
drinking water unnecessarily.
104
 There is still much to do regarding this research area development. However, the
first step concerning the implementation of a RHS is taken and now only future will tell
if the FCT will be the first Portuguese University to give the example and to adopt an
important strategy towards resources preservation and sustainability.

105
106
References

3P Technik . (n.d.). 3P Calmed Inlet. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from 3P Technik:
http://www.3ptechnik.com/en/calmedinlet.html

3P Technik. (n.d.). 3P Floating Pump Intake with hose. Retrieved April 23, 2010,
from 3P Technik: http://www.3ptechnik.com/en/floatingpumpintakewithhose.html

3P Technik. (n.d.). 3P Overflow Siphon mono. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from 3P
Technik: http://www.3ptechnik.com/en/overflowsiphomono.html

3P Technik. (n.d.). 3P Pump base. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from 3P Technik:
http://www.3ptechnik.com/en/pumpbase.html

3P Technik. (n.d.). 3P Volume Filter with telescopic extension. Retrieved April 13,
2010, from http://www.3ptechnik.com/en/volumefilterwithtelescopicextension.html

Amazing Projects. (2010, March). Retrieved May 6, 2010, from

http://amazingprojects.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/alentejo-com-herdade-eco-friendly/

Annecchini, K. (2005). Aproveitamento da Água da Chuva Para Fins Não Potáveis

na Cidade de Vitória (ES). Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade Federal do Espírito
Santo, Centro Tecnológico, Vitória.

ANQIP. (2008). SISTEMAS DE APROVEITAMENTO DE ÁGUAS PLUVIAIS EM

EDIFÍCIOS (SAAP). ESPECIFICAÇÃO TÉCNICA ANQIP.

Ashley, R., & Roebuck, R. (n.d.). RainCycle Presentation. Retrieved July 13, 2010,
from Sudsolutions: http://sudsolutions.co.uk/website_dls/RainCycle_Presentation.ppt

Assembleia da República. (2005, December). Retrieved March 20, 2010, from

Diário da República Electrónico:
http://www.dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2005/12/249A00/72807310.PDF

Bailey Tanks. (2010). First Flush Diverter. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from Bailey
Tanks:
http://www.baileytanks.com.au/product_info_tank.php?manufacturers_id=&products_id
=86

107
 Balmoral Tanks. (2008). Retrieved July 13, 2010, from Balmoral Group:
http://www.balmoral-group.com/tnk/rwh-microsite/rwh-whatsize.aspx

Baptista, J., Almeida, M., Vieira, P., Moura e Silva, A., Ribeiro, R., Fernando, R., et
al. (2001). Programa Nacional para o uso Eficiente da Água. Ministério do Ambiente e
do Ordenamento do Território, Lisboa.

Barry, B., Olaleye, A., Zougmoré, R., & Fatondji, D. (2008). Rainwater harvesting
technologies in the Sahelian zone of West Africa and the potential for outscaling. IWMI
Working Paper 126, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Bertolo, E. (2006). Aproveitamento da Água da Chuva em Edificações. Dissertação

para a obtenção do Grau de Mestre em: Engenharia do Ambiente . Porto, Portugal.

Bixio, D.; Thoeye, C.; De Koning, J.; Joksimovic, D.; Savic, D.; Wintgens, T.; Melin,
T. (2006). Wastewater reuse in Europe. Desalination , 187 (1-3), pp. 89-101.

Bouygues Imobiliária. (2007, September). Edifício Mar Mediterrâneo foi concluído.

Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.bouygues-
imobiliaria.pt/index.php?page=2&view=documents:View&id=19

BSI Group. (2009, January). BS 8515:2009 - Rainwater harvesting systems. Code

of practice . Retrieved March 26, 2010, from BSI Group:
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030171876

Calado, A., & Fouto, A. (2000). Levantamento Ambiental 2000 ao Campus da

Caparica. Resumo Executivo, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade
Nova de Lisboa, Centro Excelência para o Ambiente.

CECOR. (2008, December 9). P1MC. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from Centro de
Educação Comunitária Rural: http://www.cecor.org.br/uploads/2008/12/cisterna-1.jpg

Centgraf, S., & Schmidt, M. (2005). Water management to save energy, a

decentralized approach to an integrated sustainable urban development. Report for the
Rio5 – World Climate & Energy Event. Rio de Janeiro.

Chang, M., McBroom, M., & Beasley, R. (2004). Roofing as a source of nonpoint
water pollution. Journal of Environmental Management , 73 (4), pp. 307-315.

108
 Che-Ani, A., Shaari, N., Sairi, A., Zain, M., & Tahir, M. (2009). Rainwater Harvesting
as an Alternative Water Supply in the Future. European Journal of Scientific Research ,
34 (1), pp. 132-140.

Coca-Cola Brasil. (2009, August). Coca-Cola Brasil apresenta embalagem com 25%
de vidro a menos no sustentável 2009. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from Coca-Cola
Brasil: http://www.fantalaranja.com.br/release_detalhe.asp?release=180&Categoria=30

Coca-Cola Brasil. (2006, November). Coca-Cola Brasil faz balanço de recursos

hídricos. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from Coca-Cola Brasil:
http://www.premiopemberton.com.br/release_detalhe.asp?release=53&Categoria=35

Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. (2007). Water for

Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture. London: Earthscan, and Colombo: International Water Management
Institute.

Coombes, P., Dunstan, H., Spinks, A., Evans, C., & Harrison, T. (2006). Key
messages from a decade of water quality research into roof collected rainwater
supplies. 1st National HYDROPOLIS Conference 2006. Perth, Western Australia.

Cosch. (2007). Jogos Pan Americanos 2007. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from Cosch
- Soluções Ambientais Sustentáveis: http://www.cosch.com.br/

Cosentino, G. (2009). Aproveitamento de Águas Pluviais em Projectos de Grande

Dimensão: A Experiência Brasileira. Água para a Sustentabilidade. Workshop "O
Aproveitamento de Águas Pluviais". Sessão A, (pp. 55-80). Lisboa.

Davis, A., Shokouhian, M., & Ni, S. (2001). Loading estimates of lead, copper,
cadmium, and zinc in urban runoff from specific sources. Chemosphere , 44 (5), pp.
997-1009.

Despins, C., Farahbakhsh, K., & Leidl, C. (2009). Assessment of rainwater quality
from rainwater harvesting systems in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Water Supply:
Research and Technology — AQUA , 58 (2), pp. 117-135.

Diario Oficial de Galicia. (2008, January 17). Retrieved May 12, 2010, from Xunta de
Galicia: http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog2008.nsf/FichaContenido/3B8E?OpenDocument

109
 Dierkes, C. (2009). Innovative Stormwater Harvesting - Concepts and Systems.
Água para a Sustentabilidade – O Aproveitamento de Águas Pluviais, (pp. 28-54).
Lisboa.

Downey, N. (2009). Roof-Reliant Landscaping - Rainwater Harvesting with Cistern

Systems in New Mexico. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, New Mexico, USA.

Downspout Disconnection. (n.d.). Retrieved 15 March, 2010, from Canada Mortgage

and Housing Corporation: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/su/waho/waho_014.cfm

Efland, C., Eberle, K., & Knight, E. (2008, November/December). Stormwater.

Retrieved March 30, 2010, from Campus Innovation - The UNC Chapel Hill Bell Tower
project: http://www.stormh2o.com/november-december-2008/unc-sustainable-projects-
4.aspx

Eletta, O., & Oyeyipo, J. (2008). Rain Water Harvesting: Effect of Age of Roof on
Water Quality. International Journal of Applied Chemistry , 4 (2), pp. 157-162.

enHealth Council. (2004). Guidance on use of rainwater tanks. Retrieved April 3,

2010, from enHealth Council, National Public Health Partnership:
http://enhealth.nphp.gov.au/council/pubs/pdf/rainwater_tanks.pdf

Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia - Universidade Nova de Lisboa. (2010).

Retrieved May 20, 2010, from http://www.fct.unl.pt/faculdade

Farahbakhsh, K., Despins, C., & Leidl, C. (2009). Developing Capacity for Large-
Scale Rainwater Harvesting in Canada. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada ,
44 (1), pp. 92-102.

Faustino, A. (2008). Contribuição para uma melhoria na gestão de águas residuais

de campi universitários – Caso de estudo da FCT-UNL. Dissertação de Mestrado,
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia - Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Departamento de
Ciências e Engenharia do Ambiente, Lisboa.

Fewkes, A. (2006). The technology, design and utility of rainwater catchment

systems. In D. Butler, & F. Memon, Water Demand Management (pp. 27-61). London:
IWA Publishing.

GutterSupply Company. (n.d.). Gutter Guards & Gutter Leaf Guards. Retrieved April
10, 2010, from GutterSupply Company:

110
http://www.guttersupply.com/file_area/public/file/gutter%20guard%20-
%20debris%20stopper(1).jpg

Hamdan, S. (2009). A literature based study of stormwater harvesting as a new

water resource. Water Science & Technology — WST , 60 (5), pp. 1327-1340.

Han, M., & Mun, J. (2008). Particle behaviour consideration to maximize the settling
capacity of rainwater storage tanks. Water Science & Technology , 56 (11), pp. 73–79.

Harmer Kessel. (2009). Rainwater Management Systems. Retrieved March 27,

2010, from Alumasc: http://www.alumascrainwater.co.uk/pdf/rwsBrochure.pdf

HarvestH2o. (2010). REGULATIONS & STATUES. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from
HarvestH2o: http://www.harvesth2o.com/statues_regulations.shtml#il

HEEPI&SUST (Ed.). (2008, March). High Performance Buildings: The Business

Case for Universities and Colleges. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from HEEPI - Higher
Education: Environmental Performance Improvement:
http://www.heepi.org.uk/hpb/hpb_benefits.pdf

Hunter Industries Incorporated. (2010). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from

http://www.hunterindustries.com/Resources/PDFs/Brochures/Portuguese/INT167w.pdf

Huntington, T. (2006). Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review
and synthesis. Journal of Hydrology , 319 (1-4), pp. 83-95.

International Technology - Urban Case Studies. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2010,
from rainwaterharvesting.org:
http://www.rainwaterharvesting.org/international/tokyo.htm

International Water Harvesting and Related Financial Incentives. (n.d.). Retrieved

March 24, 2010, from rainwaterharvesting.org:
http://www.rainwaterharvesting.org/policy/Legislation_international.htm

Kahinda, J.-M., Taigbenu, A., & Boroto, J. (2007). Domestic rainwater harvesting to
improve water supply in rural South Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts
A/B/C , 32 (15-18), pp. 1050-1057.

Khoury-Nolde, N. (n.d.). Rainwater Harvesting. Fbr - Fachvereinigung Betriebs- und

Regenwassernutzung e.V., Germany.

111
 Kloss, C. (2008). Managing wet weather through green infrastructure. Municipal
handbook: Rainwater harvesting. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.

König, K. (2001). The Rainwater Technology Handbook (First ed.). Dortmund,

Germany: Wilo-Brain.

Kus, B., Kandasamy, J., Vigneswaran, S., & Shon, H. (2010). Analysis of first flush
to improve the water quality in rainwater tanks. Water Science & Technology , 61 (2),
pp. 421-428.

Lei Estadual nº 4.393. (2004, September 16). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Lye, D. (2002). Health risks associated with consumption of untreated water from
household roof catchment systems. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association , 38 (5), pp. 1301-1306.

Lye, D. (2009, October 15). Rooftop runoff as a source of contamination: A review.

Science of The Total Environment , 407 (21), pp. 5429-5434.

May, S., & Prado, R. T. (2006). Experimental evaluation of rainwater quality for non-
potable applications in the city of São Paulo, BrazilExperimental evaluation of rainwater
quality for non-potable applications in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Urban Water
Journal , 3 (3), 145 – 151.

Meera, V., & Ahammed, M. (2006). Water quality of rooftop rainwater harvesting
systems: a review. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA , 55
(4), pp. 257-269.

Metre, P., & Mahler, B. (2003). The contribution of particles washed from rooftops to
contaminant loading to urban streams. Chemosphere , 52 (10), pp. 1727-1741.

Ministério das Obras Públicas, Transportes e Comunicações. (1995, August).

DR23_95. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from ANET - Associação Nacional dos
Engenheiros Técnicos: http://www.anet.pt/downloads/Decl/DL/DR23_95.PDF

Ministério do Ambiente. (1998, August 1). Decreto Lei nº 236/98. Retrieved March
22, 2010, from Quadro de Referência Estratégico Nacional:
http://www.povt.qren.pt/tempfiles/20080213150349moptc.pdf

112
 Ministério do Ambiente. (2007, August 27). Decreto Lei nº 306/2007. Retrieved May
3, 2010, from Diário da República Electrónico:
http://digestoconvidados.dre.pt/digesto/(S(s2dscw55kjesdz45vlnga3fh))/Paginas/Diplo
maDetalhado.aspx?claint=219980

Mitchell, V., Deletic, A., Fletcher, T., Hatt, B., & McCarthy, T. (2007). Achieving
multiple benefits from stormwater harvesting. Water Science and Technology , 55 (4),
pp. 135-144.

Moilleron, R., Gonzalez, A., Chebbo, G., & Thévenot, D. (2002). Determination of
aliphatic hydrocarbons in urban runoff samples from the “Le Marais” experimental
catchment in Paris centre. Water Research , 36 (5), pp. 1275-1285.

Mosley, L. (2005). Water Quality of Rainwater Harvesting Systems. SOPAC

Miscellaneous Report 579.

MSF TUR.IM. (2009). Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://naturatowers.msf-turim.pt/

Niemczynowicz, J. (1999). Urban hydrology and water management - present and

future challenges. Urban Water , 1 (1), pp. 1-14.

OECD. (2005). Water: the Experience in OECD Countries. Retrieved February 25,
2010, from OECD.org: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/47/36225960.pdf

Oliveira, F. (2008). Aproveitamento de água pluvial em usos urbanos em Portugal

Continental - Simulador para avaliação da viabilidade. Dissertação para a obtenção do
Grau de Mestre em: Engenharia do Ambiente . Lisboa, Portugal.

P1MC. (n.d.). Retrieved March 24, 2010, from ASA Brasil:

http://www.asabrasil.org.br/Portal/Informacoes.asp?COD_MENU=1150

Pedro, F. (2010). Alentejo Recebe Herdade Eco-Friendly. BPI Expresso , 7.

People & Planet. (2006). Retrieved March 31, 2010, from Going Green Report -
How UK universities can improve their environmental performance and help stop
climate chaos: http://peopleandplanet.org/dl/gogreen/goinggreenreport.pdf

Pereira, L., Silva, A., Dias, F., Matos, C., & Bentes, I. (2010). Utilização de Água
Pluvial - Caso de estudo numa urbanização em Vila Real - Portugal. 9º SILUSBA

113
(Simpósio de Hidráulica e Recursos Hídricos dos Países de Língua Oficial
Portuguesa), (p. 11).

PLUMBING-RAINWATER SYSTEMS. (2010, Abril). Retrieved September 29, 2010,

from Illinois General Assembly:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2549&GAID=10&GA=96&DocTy
peID=SB&LegID=49269&SessionID=76

Pojecto de Lei N° 317/2006. (2006). Retrieved March 24, 2010, from Assembleia
Legislativa do Estado do Espírito Santo:
http://www.al.es.gov.br/images/documento_spl/3468.html

Polkowska, Z., Gorecki, T., & Namiesnik, J. (2002). Quality of roof runoff waters
from an urban region. Chemosphere , 49 (10), pp. 1275-1283.

Prinzs, D. (2000). Global and European Water Challenges in the 21st Century. 3rd
Inter-Regional Conference on Environment-Water ―Wate rResources Management in
the 21st Century‖, (pp. 247 – 254). Budapest.

Rain Bird Corporation. (2010). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Rain Bird:
http://www.rainbird.com/documents/turf/TurfCatalog2010-2011.pdf

Rain Harvesting. (n.d.). First Flush Water Diverters. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from
Rain Harvesting: http://www.rainharvesting.com.au/first_flush_water_diverters.asp

Rainwater Tanks. (2009, April 22). Retrieved March 24, 2010, from Planning in
South Australia: http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/rainwater-tanks

Rashid, A., & Darus, Z. (2009). The Conceptual Utilization of Rainwater Harvesting
System for Sustainable Campus Development at the Faculty of Science and
Technology, University Kebangsaan Malaysia. 3rd WSEAS International Conference
on Energy Planning, Energy Saving, Environmental Education, (pp. 206-211). Tenerife,
Spain.

Rijsberman, F. (2006). Water scarcity: Fact or fiction? Agricultural Water

Management , 80 (1-3 SPEC. ISS.), pp. 5-22.

RMS. (n.d.). Rainwater Management Solutions. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from
Rainwater Management:
http://www.rainwatermanagement.com/blsubdwp%20press.pdf

114
 Roebuck, R. (2007). A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting
Systems. University of Bradford, School of Engineering, Design and Technology,
United Kingdom.

Samaddar, S., & Okada, N. (2007). The Process of Community's Coping Capacity
Development in the Sumida ward, Tokyo - A Case Study of Rainfall Harvesting
Movement. Annuals of Disas. Prev. Res. Inst., Kyoto Univ. , 50 B, pp. 205-215.

Saúde & Lazer. (2009, June 2). Coca-Cola Brasil apresenta balanço de ações de
Sustentabilidade na Semana do Meio Ambiente. Saúde & Lazer .

Sazakli, E., Alexopoulos, A., & Leotsinidis, M. (2007). Rainwater harvesting, quality
assessment and utilization in Kefalonia Island, Greece. Water Research , 41 (9), pp.
2039 – 2047.

SETH Engineering. (2009, April). NewsletterAbr09. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from

http://209.161.103.23/dsnewsletter/Newsletter.aspx?id=690&idLang=1&idCategoria=69
3

Sharma, S. K. (2007). Roof – top rainwater harvesting technique in an urban area –

a case study from India. NOVATECH, (pp. 197-203).

Smakhtin, V., Revenga, C., & Döll, P. (2004). Taking into account environmental
water. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Research
Report 2, IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Still, G., & Thomas, T. (2002). The optimum sizing of gutters for domestic roofwater
harvesting. School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Development Technology
Unit: WP56.

Sustainable Cities™. (2008). Berlin: Water creates a vibrant cityscape. Retrieved

March 29, 2010, from Sustainable Cities: http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-
projects/cases/berlin-water-creates-a-vibrant-cityscape

The Schumacher Centre for Technology & Development. (2008). Rainwater

Harvesting - Technical Brief. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from Practical Action:
http://practicalaction.org/practicalanswers/product_info.php?products_id=376

The Toro Company. (2010). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from

http://www.toro.com/irrigation/literature/2009_intlrescom_irrigation_en.pdf

115
 Tomaz, P. (2009). Aproveitamento de água de chuva em áreas urbanas para fins
não potáveis.

Travel Lynx. (2010). Retrieved March 29, 2010, from Lynx travel: http://lynx-
travel.com/Vacations/Berlin%20Jul05/Air%20Service%20Berlin/images/The-Sony-
Center-From-Balloon.jpg

TWDB. (2005). Texas Water Development Board in Cooperation with Chris Brown,
Jan Gerston e Stephen Colley. The Texas Manual on Rainwater Harvesting , Third, 88.
Austin, Texas.

UNEP. (2002, March). Rainwater Harvesting And Utilisation. An Environmentally

Sound Approach for Sustainable Urban Water Management: An Introductory Guide for
Decision-Makers . Retrieved March 28, 2010, from
http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/Urban/UrbanEnv-2/index.asp

UNEP. (2009). Rainwater Harvesting: A Lifeline for Human Well-Being. United

Nations Environment Programme. Stockholm Environment Institute.

United Nations Population Fund Report. (2007). The State of World Population
2007. New York, USA: UNFPA.

V 8 - Rainwater Harvesting Systems. (n.d.). DIN1989. Retrieved March 12, 2010,

from ecoagua: http://www.ecoagua.pt/sbo/files/DIN1989.pdf

Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual. (2009). Salem, Virginia: The Cabell Brand
Center.

Wallace, J. (2000). Increasing agricultural water use efficiency to meet future food
production. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , 82 (1-3), pp. 105-119.

Wallinder, I., Verbiest, P., He, W., & Leygraf, C. (2000, August). Effects of exposure
direction and inclination on the runoff rates of zinc and copper roofs. Corrosion Science
, 42 (8), pp. 1471-1487.

World Health Organization. (2007). The world health report 2007 - A safer future:
global public health security in the 21st century. WHO.

116
 World Water Assessment Programme. (2009). The United Nations World Water
Development Report 3: Water in a Changing World. Paris: UNESCO, and London:
Earthscan.

Yaziz, M., Gunting, H., Sapiari, N., & Ghazali, A. (1989). Variation in rainwater
quality from roof catchments. Water Research , 23 (6), pp. 761-765.

Zhu, K., Zhang, L., Hart, W., Liu, M., & Chen, H. (2004). Quality issues in harvested
rainwater in arid and semi-arid Loess Plateau of northern China. Journal of Arid
Environments , 57 (4), pp. 487-505.

Zobrist, J., Müller, S., Ammann, A., Bucheli, T., Mottier, V., Ochs, M., et al. (2000).
Quality of roof runoff for groundwater infiltration. Water Research , 34 (5), pp. 1455-
1462.

117
118
ANNEXES

1
2
 Annex I – Water Quality Parameters for Irrigation (Adapted from Decreto-
Lei nº 236/98).

(1) The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is explained by the following equation (concentrations are expressed in meq/l):
SAR=Na/ [(Ca+Mg)/2] ½

3
4
ANNEX II – Map of the Active and Inactive Irrigation Sectors (green) of the
FCT Campus.

5
6
ANNEX III – Blueprint of the FCT Buildings.

7
8
ANNEX IV – Water Drainage System of the FCT Campus.

9
10
ANNEX V – Water Supply Network of the FCT Campus.

11
12
ANNEX VI – Water Bill Paid to Serviços Municipalizados de Água e
Saneamento of Almada by FCT.

13
14
15
16