Flagstaff Water Commission moves to study reclaimed-water conservation, form stakeholder work group

The Flagstaff City Water Commission on April 17 opened a multi-month effort to reassess reclaimed-water conservation and prepare for future rate changes, directing staff to form a stakeholder work group and to report back with legal and technical information.

The discussion followed a presentation from Water Services staffer Aaron (last name not specified), who said he was “here to take direction on how to proceed,” and reviewed guidance from a reclaimed-water work group that recommended establishing a reclaimed-water stakeholder group and pursuing water-conservation initiatives now while planning for a future cost-of-service rate study.

The commission framed the topic as preparation for changes in state law that make advanced water purification permissible and for possible future indirect or direct potable reuse. Commissioners said the immediate priority should be reducing summertime peak demand so any future treatment or reuse infrastructure could be used efficiently.

“There was not a tangible target or goal for reclaimed-water usage in terms of acre feet,” said Don (last name not specified), a participant in the prior work group, adding that the group recommended expanding Flagstaff Water Services’ conservation scope to include reclaimed uses and to aim for reclaimed-water usage “as good as or better than the standards defined by the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the fifth management plan work group.”

Commissioners and staff identified three near-term priorities: 1) check whether the city can legally receive more granular reclaimed-water usage data from customers and, if so, under what confidentiality constraints; 2) ask Water Services conservation staff to inventory major reclaimed-water users’ conservation plans and existing measures (for example, gallons-per-acre metrics and on-site storage capacity); and 3) open conversations with golf courses, parks and other large users about demand-smoothing opportunities.

Commissioner Ron Dovan said demand smoothing — reducing the summer peak — should be the commission’s top conservation priority. Commissioner John Naumann said comparisons to golf-course irrigation metrics used in Arizona’s Fifth Management Plan and to peers in similar (cooler) climates could help set realistic goals.

Staff provided technical and budget context. Aaron and other staff said reclaimed-water projects were included in the city’s capital improvement program (CIP), but most remain unfunded. One staff member summarized the work-group findings that the reclaimed-water CIP at the time totaled on the order of $50 million to $60 million and that revenues then forecast would cover roughly $10 million to $11 million, leaving a funding shortfall.

Staff also told the commission that reclaimed-water rates currently track potable rates and are increasing about 8.5% per year as potable rates rise; the work group recommended moving to a cost-of-service approach for reclaimed water after a transition period so customers can absorb near-term increases. The group noted that the prior practice of using a flat percentage (historically cited as about 35% of potable) lacked a defensible analytical basis.

On data sharing, staff said Arizona law now limits disclosure of an individual customer’s water use; aggregated or anonymized metrics can be published, and individual customers could present or share data voluntarily. Commissioners asked staff to check with the city attorney whether reclaimed-water customers could provide usage metrics to a work group on a confidential basis or whether the work group must rely on aggregated data.

The commission discussed the work-group format: some members favored reopening the prior stakeholder group (which included major reclaimed-water users), while others suggested two parallel threads — commission-level presentations on technical and policy issues and smaller, potentially confidential, staff-led meetings with large users. Deputy City Manager Shannon Anderson told the commission that, in her experience, most rate- and policy-related conversations should be public, but limited preparatory meetings with a subset of participants (without creating a quorum) are a common way to gather candid information before public deliberations.

Commissioners asked staff to pursue a short list of follow-ups to present at the next meeting: a legal check on data-sharing constraints; a summary of how Arizona’s Fifth Management Plan treats golf-course and turf irrigation standards; outreach to major reclaimed-water users to inventory existing conservation measures and demand-smoothing options; and invitations to technical experts (examples mentioned: a representative from the Arizona Department of Water Resources and a consultant called Westwater Research) to brief the commission on peer practice and pricing models.

The commission also agreed informally to form a new stakeholder work group (open to major users and city staff) and to return with a proposed engagement statement, participant list and timeline for roughly the next five to six months. Staff said they would circulate candidate members and that the commission chair and commissioners would nominate representatives, taking care to avoid creating a quorum at subgroup meetings.

Separately, the commission approved the March 20, 2025 minutes at the start of the meeting. The session continued with informational items after the reclaimed-water discussion.

What’s next: staff will ask the city attorney about data-sharing limits for reclaimed-water customers, prepare comparisons of gallons-per-acre and related metrics for peer communities and for Flagstaff-area customers, contact major reclaimed-water users for a voluntary inventory of conservation and storage measures, and schedule technical briefings for the commission. The commission indicated it expects work-group recommendations on conservation and possible policy changes to emerge over the coming months.