Wastewater and $6 million

<p>The good news is that the city might get as much as $6 million toward constructing the proposed wastewater distribution system. This would allow the city to cut over 10 percent from the amount that ratepayers would have to pay for the planned $55 million system.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>The bad news is that it’s not going to transport treated wastewater to our parks. It’s scheduled to pay for part of a tank/ reservoir storage system.</p><p>This makes no sense to me. The whole purpose of using wastewater to irrigate playing fields is to use less Sonoma County Water Agency water. We’ve already paid for the installation of underground pipes from the wastewater plant to Rooster Run golf course on East Washington Street. </p><p>These pipes also go right by the Casa Grande High School playing fields, Wiseman Park (adjacent to the airport) and to within yards of Prince Park. Each of these facilities have soccer and ball fields that could save a lot of money by using this wastewater rather than having to pay water agency rates for drinking quality water.</p><p>The major reason I see for this proposed use of these funds is to delay actually using the water on playing fields and possibly getting a backlash from parents who might object to treated wastewater being used on fields where their children play. So, instead, we’ll keep paying for expensive county water to water these fields.</p><p>Another reason is that as the water currently being used on these fields is paid for by the ratepayers now and substitution of treated wastewater would not add to the city’s revenue. It’s convoluted, but it might be more to the city’s advantage to dump the highly treated wastewater into the river than to substitute it for expensive drinking quality water.</p><p>Why isn’t use of this wastewater better than using county water agency drinking water on fields?</p><p>This gets me to thinking about another item: Why don’t we have a water commission? Water is the most expensive relationship we have with the city. (The condition of our roads and streets is the most frustrating one.) Water and streets are things we deal with every day, yet there is no public forum or oversight of either of these two areas.</p><p>There will be an item on the November 2010 ballot relating to reducing water rates. Pretty much the referendum will be a vote of confidence that the City Council is managing water-related items in a prudent way. </p><p>It might behoove the council to shine some sunlight on the plans for water. A map showing the proposed pipelines, a schedule for the construction of each segment, estimated costs, and revenue sources for the construction at the least, could be distributed with a future water bill.</p><p>As I noted in a previous column, the whole issue of using the wastewater was approved without much, if any, public awareness. Because so much focus was on approval of the new wastewater plant, I don’t believe the City Council was even aware of the significance of this project.</p><p>Perhaps, because the water department runs as what’s called an enterprise fund, it didn’t matter to the council. Enterprise operations have to set their own rates and fees to break even. As money for operating the water department doesn’t come out of the city’s General Fund, nobody seems to care what it costs.</p><p>The current fiscal problems have caused the city to consider innovative use of various funds. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there should be some transparency so the public is aware and doesn’t continually feel left out. </p><p><i>(Jack Balshaw is a retired transportation planner and former Petaluma City Council member. His e-mail address is jbcolumn@sbcglobal.net. His blog is jacksblog.balshaw.com)</i></p>