Lacey staff brief planning commission: reclaimed water set aside for water-rights mitigation; no new capital projects recommended

Lacey — City of Lacey public works staff and consultants told the Planning Commission on April 9 that most of the city’s reclaimed water is already committed to groundwater recharge required under water‑rights mitigation, and that the city is not recommending new capital investments now to expand reclaimed‑water delivery for irrigation or industrial customers.

The briefing, presented by Gagan Brar of Public Works and consulting engineers from Kurlo/Carlow Engineers, summarized existing facilities and the city’s current allotment from the regional reclaimed‑water system. “The city of Lacey’s allotment is 0.68 MGD,” the presentation said, referring to the city’s current share of reclaimed water from the regional plant. Staff described the Woodland Creek Groundwater Recharge Facility — a long‑running infiltration site the city operates jointly with Olympia — as the primary use for that allotment.

Why it matters: Lacey must meet mitigation conditions tied to the Department of Ecology’s approvals for groundwater pumping. Staff said the reclaimed flows Lacey receives are being used to replace groundwater the city pumps so that surface streams and other users are not harmed. Because those mitigation obligations grow as the city’s water use increases, staff said there is little unused reclaimed water available now to supply irrigation or industrial customers without larger regional changes.

Details from the briefing and staff Q&A

- Current allotment and near‑term outlook: Staff said the city’s current allotment is about 0.68 million gallons per day (MGD). After projecting growth, staff estimated Lacey’s allotment could reach about 1.6 MGD by 2040 and that mitigation needs may be roughly 0.9–1.2 MGD by that date, leaving limited margin for other uses.

- Use today: The majority of the city’s reclaimed water allotment is used at the Woodland Creek Groundwater Recharge Facility to meet water‑rights mitigation requirements; smaller volumes go to Hawkes Prairie ponds for disposal, staff said.

- Capital and financial recommendation: Consultants and staff recommended no additional near‑term capital projects for reclaimed water distribution in Lacey. The presentation said, in effect, that because most available reclaimed supply is required for mitigation and because building distribution, surge storage and pumping for new customers would be costly, the city should not add an irrigation distribution capital program now. Instead staff recommended encouraging the regional plant that produces reclaimed water to expand production capacity so more reclaimed water could become available in the future.

- Possible future demand: Staff estimated hypothetical irrigation demand could be on the order of 1.4–2.5 MGD if reclaimed production and distribution capacity were increased, but that would require “significant infrastructure” including pumps and storage and would be expensive.

Public questions and staff responses

During public comment and the commission Q&A, residents pressed staff on rates, drought claims and alternatives. A resident who identified himself as a ratepayer challenged drought‑based rate increases and questioned whether reclaimed water was the most effective use of funds; the resident said his water bill was “a hundred and $20 a month.” Public Works Director Scott Edgar replied that the utility sets rates to cover system costs and compliance obligations, and explained the regional hydrogeologic modeling and mitigation work required by the Department of Ecology to secure additional groundwater rights. “We don’t run for profit, we just cover our costs,” Edgar said. In response to questions about reusing reclaimed water for industrial users, staff said the current allotment is committed to mitigation and cannot be redirected without additional reclaimed production.

What the briefing did not change

Staff said no formal action was required from the Planning Commission; the reclaimed‑water plan will be attached to a future wastewater comprehensive‑plan update and considered for adoption later. The immediate staff recommendation was procedural — to document the city’s reclaimed‑water strategy now and to advocate for more regional production capacity, not to authorize city capital spending.

Next steps

Staff said the reclaimed water plan will be incorporated as an appendix to the wastewater comprehensive plan and updated if the regional plant’s production capacity grows or if the allotment/migration of mitigation obligations changes. If the city identifies available reclaimed supply later, staff said the city would revisit capital and financial planning to consider distribution, storage and customer programs.

Ending

Commissioners thanked staff for the briefing and requested continued information about potential future opportunities if the regional plant expands production. Staff also encouraged public engagement and said they would post the presentation materials online.