Recycled Water.
Why Recycled Water and PFAS Should Be Part of the 2026 LACSD Election Conversation.
One example of why voter accountability matters is LACSD’s long-running recycled-water program.
Years ago, LACSD pursued approval to deliver recycled wastewater to the Lake Arrowhead Country Club for golf-course irrigation. That approval required special regulatory treatment because the project involved applying recycled water in the Lake Arrowhead watershed, above the 3,200-foot elevation line, where the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board had historically restricted certain discharges to protect sensitive mountain watersheds.
At the time, the recycled-water approval appears to have been evaluated primarily through the lens of conventional recycled-water concerns: treatment standards, bacteria, runoff, overspray, groundwater protection, operational controls, and compliance with recycled-water rules.
But the water-quality landscape has changed.
LACSD now publicly acknowledges that PFAS has been found in wastewater and that, because of this, recycled water also contains PFAS. PFAS chemicals are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they are persistent, difficult to remove, and increasingly regulated at very low levels. This raises a basic public question: if PFAS was not part of the original recycled-water approval analysis, should the community simply assume the old approval still answers today’s concerns?
That question matters because the recycled water is not being used for a broad public park system or for general community benefit. It is being delivered primarily to the Lake Arrowhead Country Club for golf-course irrigation. Ratepayers, meanwhile, are being asked to absorb the costs and long-term infrastructure consequences of maintaining this program, including future treatment and compliance issues.
This is not about making accusations. It is about asking responsible questions.
When recycled water was first approved, did regulators evaluate PFAS? Has LACSD performed a modern PFAS-specific analysis of recycled-water irrigation at the golf course? Has the District evaluated whether PFAS-bearing recycled water can migrate through runoff, soil, groundwater, storm events, Grass Valley Lake, or other connected water systems? Has the District compared the cost of continuing recycled water against less expensive alternatives, including use of existing well water or other non-recycled sources for irrigation?
These are exactly the kinds of questions an accountable elected board should be asking in public.
LACSD’s recycled-water program may have been justified under the assumptions that existed years ago. But public agencies do not get to freeze their analysis in the past. When new contaminants, new costs, and new treatment obligations emerge, the District has a duty to revisit old decisions and explain who benefits, who pays, and whether the arrangement still makes sense.
That is why the 2026 LACSD election matters.
Ratepayers need board members who will independently examine the recycled-water program, PFAS risks, long-term infrastructure costs, and alternatives before asking the public to continue paying for a system that primarily benefits one private golf course.
1992: LACSD UCLA Wastewater Reclamation at Lake Arrowhead, CA - Experimental Pilot Plant.
In 1992, a demonstration pilot plant was constructed in Lake Arrowhead to determine the feasibility of reclaiming municipal secondary effluent for indirect potable reuse and stabilizing the lake level during periods of extended drought. A 12 000-L/d pilot plant was constructed and tested for nearly 3 years. The project was undertaken to explore indirect potable reuse to provide for additional drinking water supplies in Lake Arrowhead. Secondary effluent from the Grass Valley plant was used as the influent to the pilot plant. The entire plant was placed on line in June 1994, and intense data collection proceeded through October 1994. Data collection resumed in March 1995 and proceeded until June 1995, during which period special studies including challenge testing, metals removal analysis, and ozone DBP formation analysis were undertaken.
Presently, there are no regulatory standards in California for surface water discharge when the receiving body of water is a
potable source. The Department of Health Services (DOHS) has historically opposed the discharge of treated wastewaters
into such sources. Recognizing this, it was decided to demonstrate that a pilot-scale reclamation plant could produce water
equal to or better than the quality of water in the lake. It was estimated that Lake Papoose with 1 year of detention time and
Lake Arrowhead with 8 years of detention time would give adequate time for natural treatment of the reclaimed water equivalent or better than present groundwater recharge projects.
