Rebuttal to Candidates' Mailers

By Dennis J. Hoffmeyer

Making the comparison, safe water and recycled water.

Safe Water: Income generated by the QHWD is the form of water rates are used to reinvest in the District's infrastructure to ensure that the community receives clean, healthy, potable water. Water treatment and maintaining the system are an integral part of public health and attracting businesses, jobs, and residents to our community. All water agencies, including the QHWD, follow strict guidelines set forth by Cal EPA and are monitored by the California Department of Health and Safety (DHS) through the local water agency. Any water quality complaints from the community are always logged and compiled for submission to DHS monthly. Additionally, the QHWD is required to produce an annual water quality report stating exactly what has been tested for and to what levels were found, if any, within the system. All water agencies take this very seriously.

Recycled Water: Recycled water would be of value for any water agency if it is viable. Reclaimed water or recycled water, is former wastewater (sewage) that is treated to remove solids and certain impurities, and used in sustainable landscaping irrigation or to recharge groundwater aquifers. However, the cost to install the infrastructure can be cost prohibited for smaller agencies.

Here are some of the questions and facts that determine the value of recycled water to an agency.
1. Do they have an area that is heavily landscaped by parks, median landscaping and schools?
2. Are they near or do they run their own wastewater treatment facility?
3. Can they partner with an existing sanitation districts?
4. Where is the closest trunk feeder line located?
5. Where will the funding come from to do a secondary water system and how are the customers going to be charged for this service?
6. Do they have an active area that could be used for groundwater recharging?

In looking at these six questions we now need to look at the Quartz Hill Water District (QHWD) as a whole. Our District covers approximately eight square miles over four separate regions. Most of which does not contain park areas and only a couple schools. If we look at the schools alone most will not support the switch over to recycled water only from the system conversion costs. This makes it cost ineffective for the conversion of their irrigation systems unless they can get the funding from other sources then their general funds.

The final one, large landscape areas are medians located in and around housing tracts. Since a significant majority of Quartz Hill is still rural in nature, only the areas where large housing tracts have went in could benefit from recycled water.

Question two is pretty easy to answer with a resounding `No'. Our District only serves potable water and the Sanitation District of Los Angeles County does the wastewater side. However, it would be a great benefit to partner (Question 3) with the Sanitation District and Antelope Valley East Kern (AVEK) Water Agency to do some form of water banking of recycled water. This would be more viable then trying to provide recycled water to each and every customer of QHWD. It would also buffer lost pumping rights when the ground water adjudication case is settled and move to the target allocation after ramp down occurs.

Question four has been one asked of me a couple times this election season. It is something that everyone is thinking about now we are in the fourth year of the state drought and water restrictions are being required by all water agencies. Since being involved with Palmdale Water District I have seen what can happen with recycle water and the better viewpoint is to trade potable sources (farmers) for the recycled sources (farmers and water banks). But for QHWD this most likely will be years into the future since the closest trunk feeder ends at the corner of 10th ST W and Avenue L. If the District decided to take on this herculean effort then they would need to do a recycled water main extension of approximately two miles to get the District's eastern boundary and another five and half miles to get to its western most boundary. This still would not get to the majority of the customers and feeders would need to be installed to the north and south on various streets to build the system backbone.

This would be quite costly to say the least and leads into the next question. Charging customers for the use of the recycled water. For each customer, if made available, the cost for the water would be similar to a regular water service with a fixed service charge and a cost for the water used. But the real cost comes for the installation of the service and related connection fees. As a customer you would need to pay for this additional service and then you would be required to isolate your potable water system from the irrigation system so there is no chance of cross-contamination. This is where the State of California, Department of Health Services would come in and more than likely there would be some form of annual or bi-annual certification would come in to make sure the potable water system is protected.

The final question is something that I need to ask if elected to the QHWD Board. I do know the District has partnered with AVEK to bank water from the State Water Project (California Aqueduct). To date they have purchased and banked approximately 3,000 acre foot of water. This will be important in the future if the current drought condition continues as well as after the valley adjudication is complete. As for District owned banking facilities I'm not aware of any within the District boundaries at this time.