DWP Must Be Accountable on Recycling

Recently, the Los Angeles Times editorialized that I objected to the Department of Water and Power’s water reclamation project and that I was an “amnesiac” because I voted to support the project in 1995 while on the City Council.

The editorial followed a hearing I convened of the state Senate Select Committee on Environmental Justice. The Times erroneously assumed that because I held a hearing, I was opposed to the East Valley Water Reclamation Project. The vote the paper referred to was simply a vote on a contract for the Department of Water and Power to lay pipes for the project.

I have always supported water recycling. Although I continue to do so, disturbing allegations regarding this project and possible bias against minority communities came to light several months ago. As chair of the select committee, I was obligated to investigate to determine whether the claims were accurate and to ensure that the East San Fernando Valley would not be a dumping ground for Los Angeles.

The first issue to arise was who was going to receive this water. In the DWP’s environmental impact report, issued in 1990, there was no specific mention of who would be drinking the recycled water. The only reference was a map showing the east side of Los Angeles. Now the DWP says the Westside would also eventually get the water. The public has a right to know.

Which brings us to the second issue: Although this project has been around for 10 years, why has there been no public outcry until now? Before my hearing, my staff surveyed about 1,280 residents in the East Valley. About 71% of those asked said they did not approve of the use of treated toilet water for drinking, although 79% said they approved of using it for industrial purposes and irrigation.

In addition, almost all of those who knew about the project said they had heard about it within the past few months. Although the DWP did issue notices about public meetings regarding the project in 1990 and 1991, the notices said that the meetings were to discuss a proposed project to utilize reclaimed municipal waste water for ground water recharge, irrigation and industrial applications. The use of reclaimed water for selected irrigation and industrial applications would make more drinking water available for other uses.

The notices were technically accurate but did not make clear that people would be drinking treated toilet water. And although The Times wrote an article on the project in 1995, it cannot be assumed that the millions who will receive the water read the story and understood the project. Even DWP General Manager Dave Freeman admitted at my hearing that the department could have done a better job of informing the community.

I have not concluded that this project is a case of environmental injustice, but I cannot ignore all of the other controversial issues that have come to light. That’s why I plan to introduce legislation next year that will require any agency planning to use reclaimed water for drinking to send notices to every single household scheduled to received the water. The notices would have to be in simple, easy to understand language. I am also considering legislation to require the DWP to use granular activated carbon or membrane treatment technologies to protect those drinking the water against dangers posed by synthetic organic chemicals. So far, the DWP has declined to do this in the East Valley Project even though it is well aware of the added safety factor these technologies provide.

The DWP has shown little willingness to share information, and that’s not what a democracy is all about. I will continue to call upon agencies to answer to the public. That’s my job.