Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consolidation Recycled Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates consolidation and recycled water; MOU with water district tabled for next meeting
Summary
Directors spent hours debating whether to reorganize with the Montecito Water District — largely hinging on whether recycled water projects are financially feasible — and ultimately tabled the MOU for further work; public commenters urged caution and counsel clarified recycled‑water statutory rules.
The Montecito Sanitary District spent the largest portion of its March 25 meeting discussing potential reorganization with neighboring agencies and whether consolidation would help deliver recycled water. Staff framed the agenda item as seeking direction on governance options; public comment and multiple directors focused on whether recycled water is financially feasible and whether consolidation should be pursued before that question is resolved.
Noah Bollins, programs manager at Build the Ocean, told the board he opposed consolidation in the form described by the draft MOU and said contractual coordination can often achieve operational benefits without structural reorganization. Directors offered differing views: some argued consolidation could create a single governing body better positioned to pursue large regional grants; others argued the principal barrier to recycled water is cost, not governance.
Legal counsel read the relevant Health and Safety Code provisions and told the board that a sanitary district may provide recycled water and does not need a water district’s permission to provide recycled water — although the statute requires consultation and notification before constructing facilities that would serve territory of a water district. That clarification shaped later debate about sequencing: several directors argued the board should determine whether recycled water is feasible before undertaking reorganization steps.
The board took motions to pause or suspend reorganization efforts tied to a recycled‑water feasibility determination (including requests for staff to return with steps or a 45‑day plan); those motions were debated and put to roll‑call votes earlier in the discussion but did not carry. Later in the meeting the board voted to table the MOU (agenda item 5d) to the next regular meeting to allow more work and clearer staff recommendations.
The exchange included multiple requests for staff to gather prior studies and to produce a clear steps/timeline to evaluate recycled‑water feasibility. Directors also underscored operational priorities — repairing aging collection and treatment infrastructure and finishing engineering studies — as competing demands for staff bandwidth.
