: Decades of research on multifunctional Green Infrastructure (GI) has yet to translate into holistic implementation in the built environment. This oversight stems from assumptions that many ecosystem services occur passively and thus potential synergies are overlooked during planning and design. This study offers specific guidance for coordinating GI planning, design, and construction by examining the current state of academic literature on these aspects. It identifies 15 GI elements (e.g., green roofs) and 15 objectives (e.g., biodiversity) to collectively consider before implementation. The literature tends to isolate discussions of “engineered” GI elements with water-related objectives, while more “natural” GI are linked to biodiversity and human well-being. Coordinating across GI objectives and elements remains imperative, but evaluating too many options risks a paradox of choice. This study recommends short-term adherence to principles of adaptive design and, in the long-term, reemphasizes multifunctionality assessments, inter and transdisciplinary collaboration, and political will.

Coal-fired power plants equipped with wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems have been implicated in increasing bromide levels and subsequent increases in disinfection byproducts at downstream drinking water plants. Bromide was not included as a regulated constituent in the recent steam electric effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) since the U.S. EPA analysis suggested few drinking water facilities would be affected by bromide discharges from power plants. The present analysis uses a watershed approach to identify Pennsylvania drinking water intakes downstream of wet FGD discharges and to assess the potential for bromide discharge effects. Twenty-two (22) public drinking water systems serving 2.5 million people were identified as being downstream of at least one wet FGD discharge. During mean August conditions (generally low-flow, minimal dilution) in receiving rivers, the median predicted bromide concentrations contributed by wet FGD at Pennsylvania intake locations ranged from 5.2 to 62 μg/L for the Base scenario (including only natural bromide in coal) and from 16 to 190 μg/L for the Bromide Addition scenario (natural plus added bromide for mercury control); ranges depend on bromide loads and receiving stream dilution capacity.

Wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater discharges from coal-fired power plants may increase bromide concentrations at downstream drinking water intakes, leading to increased formation of toxic disinfection byproducts (DBPs). Despite this, bromide was not regulated in FGD wastewater in the 2015 Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs). Case-by-case management was recommended instead, depending on downstream drinking water effects. The present work seeks to identify U.S. regions where power plant discharges could affect drinking water. Bromide loads were evaluated for all coal-fired power plants operating wet FGD, and flow paths were used to identify downstream surface water sources. A population-concentration metric was used to evaluate the effect of wet FGD on downstream drinking water and the vulnerability of drinking water to upstream discharges. On a hydrologic region level, results indicate the Ohio, South Atlantic Gulf, and Missouri Regions are the most likely to see effects of power plant bromide discharges on populations served by surface water. Increased refined coal use, which may be treated with bromide, contributes to uncertainty in potential bromide effects on drinking water. Measurement of bromide concentrations in wet FGD discharges would reduce this uncertainty, and control of bromide discharges may be needed in some watersheds.

Over the past several decades numerous studies have shown the value of community engagement in global water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programs. Engaging and collaborating with communities through the design process enables wider community acceptance and ownership of WASH interventions, ensures a more functional and impactful design, and opens the door for co-benefits of these systems. Accounting for a range of dimensions within a community is critical to creating WASH designs that provide the most benefits. Undergraduate engineering curriculums focus on design, but often do not explicitly account for the social, environmental, and economic elements that affect the success, efficacy, and sustainability of a design. There is increasing emphasis on educating engineers on sustainability and systems thinking so they are equipped to solve complex, multidisciplinary problems. To understand how social, environmental, and economic elements fit into engineering design and how to create sustainable WASH interventions, undergraduate engineering students benefit from participating in WASH design projects that engage and collaborate with communities. This perspective highlights the value of community engagement with partners in Uganda in teaching water resources and environmental engineering design to undergraduate civil engineering students.