Flagstaff commission reviews reclaimed‑water code redline; members ask for clearer definitions and limits on amenity lakes
Loading...
Summary
The commission discussed proposed code edits to govern reclaimed water use, requested clearer definitions for “smart irrigation equipment” and “amenity lakes,” suggested updates to older water policy language on reclaimed water pricing, and asked staff to return with cleaned‑up language and legal review.
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — The Water Commission on Oct. 16 reviewed a proposed redline to Flagstaff city code addressing reclaimed water use and asked staff to clarify language, define terms and consider limits on future amenity (scenic) lakes.
Erin Young, a city staff member, opened the item and said staff provided a proposed redline and sought commission feedback before a formal recommendation to City Council. "I don't have a formal presentation for the commission today," she said, and asked for discussion on the draft.
Commissioners raised several recurring concerns. Commissioner Karen said she found a paragraph in the draft confusing: "I found that entire sentence very confusing," she said, referring to a provision that blends a watering schedule with an exception for parks, schools and golf courses and a separate exception for properties using moisture‑monitoring smart irrigation equipment.
Staff and commissioners agreed the draft should explicitly define key terms (for example, "smart irrigation equipment") and separate clauses so the code reads clearly. Erin Young and staff member Aaron said they would clean up the phrasing and return with a clearer redline and suggested definitions.
Amenity lakes: Several commissioners urged the city to consider prohibiting future amenity lakes that exist only for scenic purposes and consume potable or reclaimed water through evaporation or leakage. One commissioner referenced the long‑running issues with Lake Elaine at the Continental Country Club as an example of an amenity lake with persistent leakage and maintenance problems. Commissioners asked staff to draft language defining "amenity lake" (size thresholds and intended function) and to specify that any new amenity lakes should provide an operational water management benefit (for example, detention or irrigation storage) to be allowed.
Rate‑setting policy and contracts: Commissioner Rob raised the city’s 2014 water policies, noting language (policy C1.1) that suggested reclaimed water pricing should be adjusted if it discouraged use and that reclaimed water cost overruns could be covered by potable water. Commissioners said that phrasing conflicts with a modern enterprise fund approach and with recent council direction toward cost‑of‑service pricing for reclaimed water. Staff agreed to bring suggested edits to the 2014 policies and to confirm whether current reclaimed water contracts include emergency/prioritization clauses (for example, language that would allow advanced water treatment or direct potable reuse to take precedence in an emergency).
Process and next steps: Staff said they will clean up the redline, add definitions (smart irrigation equipment, amenity lake), coordinate proposed language with commissioners Ron and others, run a legal review, and return to the commission with a revised draft before any council submittal. Young said staff plans to consult reclaimed‑water users and legal counsel before formalizing a recommendation.
No formal code changes were adopted at the meeting; commissioners provided direction for revised draft language and a legal review prior to returning the item for possible formal recommendation to City Council.
