Public input meeting held on Columbia’s proposed irrigation ordinance
Mitchell Kaminski
COLUMBIA, Mo. (KMIZ)
Columbia residents had an opportunity to weigh in on a proposed irrigation ordinance Wednesday night, that city officials say is necessary to manage growing water demands.
A public hearing was held at 6 p.m. at City Hall, where City of Columbia Utilities officials presented details of the ordinance to 13 residents in attendance, including Ward 6 Councilwoman Betsy Peters.
Under the ordinance, lawn watering would be restricted to designated days and times. If approved, even-numbered addresses would be allowed to water their lawns on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday, while odd-numbered addresses would have irrigation days on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
The ordinance would apply to in-ground irrigation systems and unattended hose-end devices.
“The proposed schedule would permit irrigation on your scheduled day before 10 a.m. and after 7 p.m. for a maximum of 30 minutes per irrigation zone,” according to information from the city.
However, each irrigation zone would be given a 30-minute time limit.
The ordinance is designed to reduce the strain on the water system by limiting when outdoor irrigation can occur and requiring water-saving technology on certain irrigation systems.
City officials claim staggering irrigation schedules would reduce peak demand on the water system, improve the efficiency of irrigation systems and help extend the life of existing water treatment and distribution infrastructure.
The proposal comes as Columbia faces increasingly high summer water demands. According to city officials, daily peak water usage during the summer can exceed 170% of winter demand, while the highest hourly demand during summer months can reach roughly 240% of peak winter hourly use.
The proposal would also require moisture-sensing technology on new irrigation systems to prevent watering during periods when sufficient rainfall has occurred.
However, the proposal has drawn criticism from the COMO Safe Water Coalition, who says the ordinance leaves several important questions unanswered.
In a public information graphic distributed ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, the coalition argued the proposal “misses the mark in multiple areas” and called for a greater focus on education, voluntary conservation practices and drought-based restrictions rather than permanent watering regulations.
Among the coalition’s concerns is the proposed use of dedicated irrigation water meters. Coalition members question the purpose of requiring separate irrigation meters and whether the requirement could lead to higher utility costs for homeowners.
The group also criticized language requiring water meters or smart irrigation sensors when significant repairs, upgrades, or changes are made to irrigation systems. Coalition members questioned who would determine when those requirements apply and how the rules would be enforced consistently.
Enforcement remains another major concern. Residents at Wednesday’s meeting questioned how the ordinance would be enforced and whether the city would follow through with enforcement.
Under the ordinance, violations would be identified by city staff, public reports and water meter data. Penalties could include a $50 fine for a first offense, a $250 fine for a second offense and a $350 fine and water service disconnection for a third offense.
However, city officials said Wednesday that no fines would be issued in 2026. Instead, the city would use that period to educate the public and issue warnings.
Another concerned raised by a resident was what the city would do if the population expands, and whether another chance to the ordinance would be necessary.
Questions were also raised about exemptions included in the ordinance.
According to the coalition, commercial agricultural operations are specifically exempted under portions of the proposal, while residential gardens and community gardens may not receive the same treatment unless watering is done by hand.
The group also wants more clarity regarding an exemption allowing irrigation to preserve turf subjects to heavy public use, including how that determination would be made and who would establish the criteria.
Additionally, coalition members argue that the ordinance focuses on irrigation while overlooking broader issues affecting Columbia’s water infrastructure.
The group points to aging infrastructure and continued community growth as larger contributors to water system challenges, arguing those issues should be addressed alongside conservation efforts.
Instead of the current proposal, the coalition is urging city leaders to consider a drought-stage approach similar to policies used in other communities. Under that framework, watering restrictions would become more stringent during periods of drought and relax when water supplies are adequate.
City officials maintain that reducing peak water demand is critical to maintaining reliable service and avoiding costly future infrastructure needs.
A second public input meeting is scheduled for June 17 at the Activity and Recreation Center.
Wednesday’s hearing is expected to provide residents their first opportunity to directly question city officials and discuss the potential impacts of the ordinance before any final action is considered.