Commission asks city attorney to research charter amendment after concerns about 'toilet‑to‑tap' and water reuse

Commissioner Ken Strickland reopened a commission discussion about 'toilet‑to‑tap' and water reuse, saying he wanted the city to state its opposition and asked the city attorney to prepare a document—either a resolution of opposition or a draft charter amendment—that could be considered at a future meeting. The commission discussed two alternatives: a nonbinding resolution (easier to adopt, not binding on future commissions) and a charter amendment subject to voter approval and potential state preemption.

City Attorney Ben explained the legal differences and said he would research whether a charter amendment or ordinance could legally prohibit injection of treated wastewater (sometimes referred to in the meeting as 'black water') into the potable system or aquifer, and how state preemption might affect such a local measure. Commissioners debated timing and whether the city should encourage a referendum; a motion and second were made directing staff/attorney to draft language and return to the commission.

Public commenters addressed the scope of 'toilet‑to‑tap' terminology and urged the city to protect residents (one commenter recommended custom definitions in a charter amendment to reduce preemption risk), while others noted distinctions between treated river/ocean reuse and direct wastewater injection. Commissioners and residents expressed concern about aquifer protection and the potential downstream effects on wholesale customers such as South Daytona.

Next steps: the city attorney will prepare proposed language and legal analysis for the commission to consider at a future meeting. The commission did not place a binding charter amendment on the ballot at this meeting; it instead authorized further research and drafting.