The City Council voted to overturn Mayor Jerry Sanders’ veto of the indirect potable water reuse pilot, or “Toilet to Tap” program, reaffirming their earlier action in October. Councilmembers approved the action in a 5-3 vote Monday, Dec. 3.
Councilmembers Scott Peters, Toni Atkins, Donna Frye, Jim Madaffer and Ben Hueso voted to approve studying the water reuse program on Oct. 29 ” and again Monday ” while councilmembers Kevin Faulconer and Tony Young voted against it. Following the Oct. 29 vote, Sanders announced Nov. 14 he would veto the program. The council’s decision to override the mayor’s veto and launch the estimated $10 million to $15 million pilot program follows the advice of an Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) Office memo supporting the pilot program.
The November memo to the City Council notes that a study associated with the pilot program would provide more precise information about costs and procedures but would not commit the city to implement a full-scale water reuse program. If the city wants to move forward with the potable reuse program, getting the correct information is the first step, according to Tom Haynes, independent budget analyst for the city.
Although city officials have said ratepayers would end up footing the bill for a water reuse program, Haynes said there may be some “flexibility” within city budgets ” including possible money left over from capital improvement projects ” that would help pay for it. The IBA recommends that the Water Department work with the Department of Public Health to study the issue and report back to council in three months with updated cost estimates, according to the memo. While the recommendation may be a first step toward a comprehensive water reuse project, Marco Gonzalez, a lawyer representing environmental groups, said it isn’t enough.
“Simply going ahead with the IPR [indirect potable reuse] with no commitment, that’s not what we’re looking for,” Gonzalez said.
Gonzalez represented San Diego Coastkeeper and the San Diego chapter of the Surfrider Foundation in a 7-year litigation with the city over eroding sewer pipes. The lawsuit resulted in the city having to pay about $650 million through 2011 for sewer pipes and pump upgrades, said officials with the Metropolitan Wastewater Department. Gonzalez said he wants the city to implement a comprehensive water-recycling program that includes maximizing capacity at the North City and South Bay water reclamation plants, including upgrades to the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. According to city officials, the North City reclamation plant operates at about 75 percent capacity, treating about 22.5 million gallons a day. The South Bay plant operates at 60 percent capacity, treating about 9 million gallons a day. But even if the plants reclaim water at full capacity, it wouldn’t be enough to supply all the future water needs of the region, said Jim Barret, director of the city’s Water Department. About 32 percent of potable water in the region is recycled through the “purple pipe” program, he said.
The reclaimed water flows through purple-colored pipes and is primarily used for irrigation and industrial purposes. While the Water Department has been working to expand the purple pipe program for nonpotable uses, Barret said the council’s action would push the department in a new direction by reclaiming water for potable uses.
According to city officials, San Diego imports about 90 percent of its water supply from the Colorado River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in Northern California. Because of a recent federal court decision that would affect how much water comes from the delta, city officials have been pushing for more conservation and water recycling programs.
For more information on water rates and conservation efforts, visit www.sandiego.gov/water.