Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee amends, forwards expanded non‑potable water ordinance aimed at steep potable‑water savings
Summary
Supervisors amended and recommended to the full Board an ordinance to lower the square‑foot threshold for on‑site water reuse from 250,000 to 100,000, require black‑water reuse in many commercial buildings and direct the PUC to report on expanded recycled‑water supply; labor and environmental groups urged adoption.
The Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee on Sept. 9 amended and recommended an ordinance that would expand San Francisco’s non‑potable water requirements for new construction and direct utility planning for a broader recycled‑water supply.
Introduced by Supervisor Mandelmann (presented by Jacob Bentliff), the ordinance would lower the current threshold for mandatory on‑site reuse from 250,000 gross square feet to 100,000 and require large commercial developments to treat and reuse black water (toilets and kitchen sinks) for non‑potable applications such as toilet flushing and irrigation. The measure would add laundry‑to‑landscape as a required reuse source for residential/mixed‑use projects, require reuse of air‑conditioning condensate and exempt 100% affordable and permanent supportive housing as well as certain health‑care facilities and industrial uses.
PUC staff said the changes could substantially increase potable‑water offsets in new buildings: under current rules, many projects reuse only graywater; the proposed expansion could raise residential reuse up to 30% of potable demand and offset as much as 75% or more of commercial indoor demand in some buildings. PUC estimates the ordinance plus planned projects could save potable water equivalent to more than 31,000 San Francisco residents' daily use by 2040 (about 26,200 under current rules plus an additional roughly 5,500 from these amendments).
An amendment circulated at the hearing clarifies that the ordinance is not intended to impair existing contract rights in development agreements; the PUC would consult the City Attorney on how the ordinance applies to projects governed by development agreements. Committee members accepted that amendment and then voted to send the ordinance, as amended, to the Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation (roll calls recorded three ayes).
Public commenters included labor representatives (UA Local 38 and the building trades), environmental organizations (Sierra Club, RMI) and industry providers; union speakers framed the change as a 'just transition' that will create plumbing and water‑system jobs as natural‑gas piping declines. Housing advocates urged mitigation for increased construction costs and asked that projects already in an advanced pipeline receive clear grandfathering guidance.
The ordinance will next be considered by the full Board of Supervisors. Committee members said they expect continued coordination among PUC, DPH, DBI and Public Works to ensure technical feasibility, oversight and funding support for implementation.
