Abstract
The author of this letter, while generally applauding a recent issue dealing with reuse (Journal AWWA, July, 1985), seeks to clarify several points that were presented in that issue. He emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between potable and nonpotable reuse, making the point that nonpotable reuse is widely accepted and is not considered to be as controversial as potable reuse. Furthermore, he contests the conclusion that nonpotable reuse is likely to be more costly than the potable supply and will need to be subsidized by it.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
