Bainbridge takes up heavy water use and wastewater reuse, without imposing new limits

Bainbridge Island council members advanced two approaches to conserving water on October 27: examining unusually high residential demand and returning to the question of whether treated wastewater could serve useful purposes instead of being discharged.

The decisions came during the 2027–2028 budget hearing. Neither imposes a new limit on household water use, and neither approves construction of a wastewater-reuse system.

A closer look at high-volume customers

Deputy Mayor Kirsten Hytopoulos proposed a public works budget item to assess disproportionately high consumption within the city’s water utility, focusing particularly on seasonal demand and discretionary outdoor use.

The work would identify the number of high-volume users, their relative consumption, and their effect on system capacity. Staff would also evaluate the city’s authority to use measures such as tiered rates, surcharges, consumption limits, or flow restrictions, then recommend policies for council consideration.

Council approved the direction unanimously. The cost remains for staff to recommend; the amended motion asks staff to find funding within existing budget resources rather than pull the cost from the general fund balance.

The proposal drew questions about fairness between neighbors served by different utilities. Councilmember Ashley Mathews raised the possibility that city customers could eventually face consequences that KPUD customers would not.

“I think the purpose of this motion is to do what we can within our sphere of power,” Councilmember Mike Nelson said, supporting work within the city’s utility while encouraging cooperation with KPUD.

The motion requests analysis of possible tools; it does not decide which, if any, to use. Any new appropriation must still be incorporated into the final budget ordinance; the council’s second budget hearing and anticipated adoption are scheduled for November 10.

Wastewater reuse returns for another look

Councilmember Mike Nelson initially proposed a budget line for beneficial wastewater reuse and a staff funding recommendation. He withdrew that motion after colleagues said council needed to review the options before assigning money.

His replacement motion, approved unanimously, directs City Manager John Mauro to bring a recommendation on wastewater beneficial reuse back to council.

The discussion included the possibility of using treated wastewater for irrigation to reduce groundwater withdrawals. Nelson recalled an earlier option involving the Wing Point neighborhood and golf course, but council did not choose a project, confirm a cost estimate, or approve a financing method.

Councilmember Leslie Schneider supported returning to the work and reviewing where the city had left off. Councilmember Ashley Mathews suggested that the Environmental Technical Advisory Committee could help develop recommendations. The adopted motion directed the city manager; it did not explicitly assign the work to that committee.

Mauro said beneficial reuse is already an action in the groundwater management plan. The next useful milestone will be a recommendation explaining the available options, their water-saving potential, and what further study or investment each would require.

Other groundwater proposals did not advance

Council rejected a separate request for a recommendation on obtaining hydrology or hydrogeology expertise to implement the groundwater plan. Nelson had revised that motion to remove an explicit request for an additional full-time position.

Members also rejected a proposed recommendation on incentives for voluntary monitoring of individual wells. Discussion centered in part on whether these requests belonged in the budget hearing or in a broader review of the groundwater plan’s implementation priorities.

The decisions follow the water-conservation investments outlined in our earlier budget report article. They are also separate from the urgent pump-replacement work at the Winslow Wastewater Treatment Plant; the reuse vote does not establish the status of that equipment work.