Volusia County advisory committee presses for study of reclaimed-water irrigation’s role in flooding and readies stormwater-standard review

Volusia County advisory committee members asked staff and outside experts to analyze whether reclaimed-water irrigation practices are contributing to localized flooding, and agreed to move forward with reviewing countywide minimum stormwater standards and associated implementing ordinances.

The discussion, prompted by committee member Tyler Malmberg, focused on whether pumping reclaimed water into neighborhood ponds or irrigation systems could meaningfully raise groundwater or basin levels in closed or semi-closed basins. Malmberg, identified in the meeting as a committee member, said, "We need to actually research a little bit ourselves into the topic of, is pumping water within our basins contributing to our flooding problem? And I don't have enough information to have an informed position. I'm pretty ignorant on this, to be perfectly blunt, in terms of scale."

Why it matters: the committee is drafting minimum countywide standards that, if adopted, would be applied in all 16 Volusia County municipalities. Clay, a county staff member who briefed the committee, said the county intends to take coordinated LID (low-impact development) and stormwater standards to the County Council together rather than in separate meetings. He explained that chapter 72 (subdivision standards) and chapter 122 (utilities) contain the county's current reclaimed-water and connection requirements, while chapter 50 contains countywide minimum standards that would be applied in cities.

County staff and committee members repeatedly stressed the conversation is evidence-seeking rather than policy-setting at this meeting. Ginger (county staff) framed reuse as a long-standing beneficial practice: "Reuse is not a bad thing. Reuse is critical to the permitting of wastewater treatment plants," she said, noting reuse reduces pressure on potable supplies and supports spring protection objectives.

Several speakers described local, site-specific issues. Wendy, who identified herself from the Victoria Park/Victoria Trails area, told the committee that Victoria Trails purchases between "59,000,000 to about a 130,000,000 gallons a year" of reclaimed water for irrigation, mostly in the March–May period. She said most of that irrigation is focused on lawns and common areas and argued that irrigation volume alone does not prove it is the cause of flooding in her neighborhood.

Technical context and data requests: committee members asked staff to gather or present the following at upcoming meetings: a matrix comparing proposed county standards with each city's existing standards; basin study findings staff plans to deliver to County Council; and technical briefings from regional bodies or regulators such as the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and St. Johns River Water Management District. Clay said staff can prepare a matrix of municipal standards for the committee’s February meeting so the group can identify differences and coordinate outreach to the cities.

Several technical points were offered during debate. Tyler gave a quick order-of-magnitude conversion: "1 inch of rain is per acre equals 27,000 gallons of water," and used that figure to show how reclaimed volumes compare to annual rainfall over an area. Others described geology for a specific neighborhood (a clay confining layer that forms a semi-closed basin) and stressed that causes of flooding are often site-specific and may include legacy infrastructure, inadequate maintenance, septic-system failures, and higher groundwater tables in addition to any irrigation inputs.

Next steps and staff direction: committee members endorsed asking staff to: - prepare a comparative matrix of chapter 50 (minimum standards) changes against municipal codes and circulate it to the 16 cities for comment; - invite regional technical experts (Regional Planning Council, St. Johns River Water Management District) or other counties with relevant experience to brief the committee on rainfall projections, groundwater trends and consumptive-use/permit implications; and - ensure basin-study work and Council deliberations account for irrigation and reuse as potential inputs when appropriate.

Votes at a glance: the committee took several procedural votes during the meeting. Members approved allowing one member to participate remotely (motion by Donna Brosmer, seconded by Tyler Malmberg); approved the November 6 minutes (motion recorded earlier in the meeting); approved amended minutes for December (motion by John Geronimo, seconded by Tyler Malmberg); and approved the committee’s 2025 work plan (motion by Donna Brosmer, seconded by Michelle Wittig). Bliss Jamieson confirmed she voted in favor of the work plan.

The meeting closed with general agreement to begin the chapter 50 review in February, grounded in staff-provided comparisons to municipal standards and with invitations to regional technical experts. Committee members emphasized the need to distinguish discussion from formal policy change and to preserve site-specificity where the science indicates it is relevant.

The committee also noted that many existing flood problems occur in older subdivisions that predate current stormwater standards and that solving those problems often requires capital projects or buyouts funded separately from new-development requirements.