A comparative feasibility study of potable reuse strategies for Dodge City, Kansas — placing the land-application system, the planned managed aquifer recharge project, and direct potable reuse side by side within one geospatial and present-worth framework.
Dodge City draws its municipal supply from the Ogallala aquifer — down an average of 15.8 feet across the High Plains since predevelopment, with parts of southwest Kansas holding less than 40% of original saturated thickness. The city reported using roughly 95% of available water capacity in 2025, and demand is projected to grow over the coming decades. How the city reuses its treated wastewater is a meaningful part of its long-term water picture.
One distinction shapes this study. The South WWTP treats more than 2 billion gallons a year — but that is not one municipal stream. Per figures from the city's Director of Engineering Services, it's roughly 2 MGD municipal, ~4.5 MGD from National Beef, and ~1.5 MGD from the Hilmar cheese plant. The two industrial streams are high-strength and consistent year-round. So any look at reclaimed water as a drinking-water source has to separate the municipal fraction — the part most plausibly suited to potable reuse — from the larger industrial fraction, rather than treating the whole plant volume as available.
The purpose here is not to second-guess the city's engineers, who understand this system far better than an outside study can. It's to place the three pathways side by side, transparently, so the trade-offs can be examined.
For more than four decades, the South WWTP has reused effluent through lagoon treatment and land application, currently supplying about 2,800 acres under 26 pivots. The nutrient load has been enough that the operator has applied no commercial fertilizer for years. This is a working reuse system, not a disposal method the city is abandoning.
A point clarified in discussion with the city matters here: the recharge project is understood to be additive, not a replacement. The city intends to keep supplying the full irrigated acreage — it has signed a new agreement providing the farm operation more water — with recharge drawing on incremental supply. That resolves a question earlier drafts of this study raised (whether redirecting effluent would push those acres back onto groundwater) and instead raises a subtler one: how incremental water is balanced across land application and recharge within a stream of roughly fixed volume.
Land-applied effluent benefits private acreage; recharge near municipal wells could return part of it to city supply. Federal review documents a projected recovery efficiency; the city separately describes an informal "put in 10, take out 9" expectation discussed with state agencies.
Prior study documented nitrate above the 10 mg/L standard in groundwater beneath the irrigated fields (Sophocleous et al. 2007). The city also notes recharge may build a hydraulic mound that helps hold back contaminants migrating down the Ark valley — a possible benefit this study weighs alongside the risks.
The city has publicly described the recharge project as a step toward eventual direct water reuse, a characterization confirmed in discussion with engineering staff.
Kansas has no MAR or DPR regulations yet. HB 2462 (signed April 2026) requires KDHE to write them by mid-2028; comparable states took six to ten years. The project is advancing alongside the framework that will govern it.
Whether these considerations point toward recharge or toward more direct reuse of the municipal fraction is not something this study presumes to answer in advance — it's what the comparison is designed to explore.
Considering the municipal fraction of Dodge City's reclaimed wastewater alongside the city's long-term supply outlook, how do continued land application, managed aquifer recharge for indirect reuse, and direct potable reuse (potentially supported by co-located solar and storage) compare in geospatial feasibility, energy demand, human-health risk, and 25-year present-worth cost? The aim is a transparent side-by-side comparison — not a verdict on decisions the city has already made with information this study does not fully share.
| Scenario | Pathway | Analytical role |
|---|---|---|
| A | Land application — lagoon treatment, irrigation of ~2,800 acres (current system) | Reference case; the established, working baseline |
| B | MAR / IPR — streambed infiltration and aquifer recharge (in development) | The pathway the city is pursuing; evaluated on its own terms |
| C | DPR + grid — advanced treatment to direct municipal supply | Municipal fraction as direct supply; a comparison case |
| D | DPR + co-located solar + storage | Explores whether on-site generation changes the picture |
Aquifer depletion mapping, infrastructure overlay, WWTP-to-wellfield proximity, and solar irradiance suitability. Builds on the published Ford County solar siting analysis.
Prior work: solar-sitingEPA four-step framework comparing exposure pathways across all four scenarios — including the existing pathway from effluent-irrigated fields to municipal supply wells.
LRES 507 · Fall 2026RO energy intensity, PV sizing via NREL PVWatts, and storage scenarios, accounting for the plant’s existing biogas-to-RNG operation and the city’s note that on-site solar faces a real land-footprint constraint, rather than modeling solar in isolation.
NREL PVWattsFour-scenario, 25-year present-worth comparison following Herman (2017), which found conveyance and pumping — not treatment — to be the dominant cost drivers.
Herman 2017Infrastructure data assembled for this project identify several municipal raw-water supply wells (Well IDs 22-28; drilled 2004; depths 194-272 ft; yields 500-800 GPM) within and adjacent to the WWTP's effluent-irrigation area - the same area where prior study documented nitrate above the drinking-water standard (Sophocleous et al. 2007). The proximity of supply wells to long-term effluent irrigation is an exposure pathway worth characterizing carefully. It underscores a theme of this study: each pathway carries its own risk profile, and the comparison is among real alternatives with real trade-offs, none risk-free. This is a starting point for analysis - the significance of these wells will be developed with care and, where possible, in consultation with those who manage the system.
Under verification: EPA Potable Reuse Compendium (edition TBD) · KDHE DPR/IPR regulatory minimums · EPA Disinfection Profiling & Benchmarking Manual (815-R-20-003) · J. Responsible Innovation 2024 public-acceptance study (author confirmation pending).