Daytona Beach hears utilities data and public opposition before charter amendment vote on reclaimed-water reuse

The Daytona Beach City Commission on March 4 heard a technical presentation from the utilities department and extensive public comment about a proposed charter amendment that would prohibit using reclaimed (so-called “black”) water for underground injection or direct introduction into the city's potable system.

Eric Smith, deputy utilities director (Speaker 16), summarized the city's reclaimed-water profile and regulatory drivers: in fiscal year 2025 the utility produced roughly 14,000,000 gallons per day of reclaimed water; about 8,400,000 gpd on average was discharged to the Halifax River under the city's permit, and about 5,700,000 gpd was beneficially reused (≈40%). Smith said statewide Senate Bill 64 requires municipalities to eliminate non-beneficial surface discharges by Jan. 1, 2032, and the city's consumptive-use permit sets progressively higher beneficial-reuse targets (60% by 2030, 70% by 2035, 80% by 2040). Smith listed options under study — including salinity barrier wells, aquifer storage and recovery, and class I deep-well injection — and noted those highlighted options would be prohibited by the proposed charter amendment. He said a cost comparison and ranking of alternatives is expected in June 2026 and that staff is prioritizing public health, safety and cost-effectiveness.

Several members of the public urged commissioners to adopt the charter amendment and to put the question to voters. Rich Yost (Speaker 13) urged commissioners to “vote in favor of this ordinance” and said, “I certainly don't want my children or grandchildren drinking treated sewage water.” Sandra Snodgrass (Speaker 19) likewise urged a charter vote and asserted health harms she attributed to drinking treated sewage; her specific health claims were not backed by citations during public comment.

Staff and commissioners noted the trade-off that prohibiting certain technical options could increase costs if those options prove to be the most cost-effective compliance path. Smith warned that eliminating underground-injection alternatives might require choosing costlier reuse solutions or lead to future rate increases if cheaper options are disallowed. The city’s memorandum and presentation make clear the evaluation is ongoing; Smith said cost and ranking information should be available in June.

Commissioners set the public hearing and final action for March 18 (the ordinance as introduced would place the prohibition into the city charter and — if adopted after required readings — the question would be decided by voters). The utilities evaluation and the upcoming cost-comparison report are the primary pieces of technical evidence staff said the commission will consider before final action.