Centralized Treatment Versus Decentralized

August 9, 2023

4 Min Read

When it comes to water and wastewater treatment, the advantages of centralized and decentralized approaches don’t have to be mutually exclusive

In the water and wastewater industries, there has been more and more buzz about decentralized treatment as an alternative to traditional, centralized treatment. What sets the two apart, and what is “distributed” treatment?

Throughout the 20th century, water and wastewater treatment was primarily delivered with the construction of large, central treatment plants connected by long pipelines to localized collection and distribution pipe networks.

Although this model requires a large investment and years to construct, the high volume of central systems allows for economies of scale in treatment, as well as management and control. It is in large part responsible for the high quality of water and sanitation the United States throughout the previous century and into this one.

Centralized treatment is still dominant, but as we seek out options for more sustainable water management, decentralized treatment is starting to be recognized as a more efficient alternative in a number of scenarios. Decentralized treatment is characterized by smaller plants located and scaled as closely as possible to demand, which creates a number of advantages.

Decentralization and Pipe Expenses

When it comes to centralized treatment, the large-gauge pipelines that support large plants generally cost more than the plants themselves, sometimes significantly more.

Decentralization allows strategic installation of an array of smaller plants in a service area to handle a load equivalent to that of one large plant, but without the capital expense of long pipe runs and lift stations. Smaller plants can get by with standard pipe at more manageable costs and sizes, both initially and in terms of ongoing maintenance.

Furthermore, decentralized treatment systems often offer enhanced environmental benefits. Smaller plants can be strategically located nearer to the sources of wastewater generation, minimizing energy consumption associated with long-distance pumping. This localized approach can also facilitate the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation or other non-potable purposes, promoting sustainable water management practices and reducing overall water demand.

Increased Flexibility

Additionally, decentralization offers increased flexibility and adaptability in wastewater treatment systems. With centralized treatment plants, upgrades and expansions can be complex and costly, often requiring major modifications to existing infrastructure. On the other hand, decentralization allows for a modular approach, where additional smaller plants can be easily added or upgraded based on the evolving needs of the service area. This scalability not only minimizes disruption to the existing system but also enables wastewater utilities to respond quickly to population growth, changes in regulatory requirements, or advancements in treatment technologies.

Moreover, in decentralized systems, the risk of system-wide failures is reduced compared to centralized plants. If a large centralized plant experiences a breakdown, the entire service area could be affected, potentially leading to significant environmental and public health concerns. By distributing the treatment load across multiple smaller plants, the impact of any single plant failure is localized, mitigating risks and improving overall system resilience.

Local Autonomy and Distributed Treatment

Construction of large-scale, centralized systems often requires complex negotiations across jurisdictions. This complexity tends to make planning and negotiations difficult and drives up costs. Conversely, smaller-scale, decentralized projects in limited areas tend to require less effort to generate necessary support.

Decentralized treatment also allows small areas to take control of their water destinies without waiting for a regional consensus. When central control of water by a water authority is desired, however, decentralization may still have an advantage.

One subset of decentralized treatment, distributed treatment, takes advantage of the best of both worlds, incorporating central control into the operation of a series of decentralized plants. Remote electronic operation of plants makes distributed treatment more of an increasingly practical option.

Blending Centralization and Decentralization

While the rise of decentralization poses a perceived challenge to the dominance of centralization, it is important to note that the older model continues to hold sway in the market. However, forward-thinking water managers propose a more integrated approach, blending the two strategies on a seamless gradient. By combining both centralization and decentralization, water systems can achieve maximum resilience in the face of extreme weather events or seismic disruptions. This hybrid approach ensures that the failure of one plant does not halt operations across an entire region, thereby mitigating risks and enhancing overall system reliability.

As decentralization gains momentum in implementation, centralization shows no signs of diminishing in significance. Instead, these two models can harmoniously dovetail, capitalizing on their respective strengths and advantages. The collaborative utilization of centralization and decentralization enables water management systems to optimize efficiency, adaptability, and sustainability in a rapidly changing landscape, ultimately benefiting both water providers and the communities they serve.