132
Water Ideation Workshop Event Report 2015.02.02
| Date post: | 15-Apr-2017 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | russ-drinker |
| View: | 105 times |
| Download: | 1 times |
WaterIdeation Workshop
Event Report2015.02.02
HOK Water Workshop
2
Contents
Preface - Conversation with Russ .........................................................................................................3
Event Summary ............................................................................................................................................5
Agenda for the Day .....................................................................................................................................6
Event Layout .................................................................................................................................................7
Event Process ............................................................................................................................................10
Water Workshop Observations ............................................................................................................11
Report Out ..................................................................................................................................................13
Table 1 ..........................................................................................................................................................14
Table 2 ..........................................................................................................................................................17
Table 3 ..........................................................................................................................................................21
Table 4 ..........................................................................................................................................................24
Post Script ..................................................................................................................................................28
Plus / Delta .................................................................................................................................................30
Create the Nexus: Our Mission Statement ....................................................................................32
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................32
Distinguished Guests ............................................................................................................................ 33
Water Workshop Information Package
Event Proceedings Output - Record Documents
Appendices
HOK Water Workshop
3
Preface - Conversation with Russ
Why was the Nexus group formed?
This is truly an extraordinary time to be living and working in the Bay Area. We are at the center of a community of business, academic and government enterprises that are driving profound changes in the way we live. This is a historically important movement enabled by advances in technology, communication, and the creation of wealth. This confluence of wealth and technology is complemented by a deeper appreciation of our global interdependence economically, environmentally, politically and educationally. The Bay Area is an interconnected brain trust that is a wellspring for new ideas and ways of looking at the world. We understand that really creative outcomes occur at the intersections between different disciplines, cultures, and generations. HOK strongly supports bringing this very broad and diverse approach to design thinking. It’s not just what’s happening between the four walls at our firm. We want to draw in the global brain trust, and look for ways to achieve new ground to build a better future together.
Why focus on water?
California is in the middle of a critical water shortage, of course, but managing this precious resource appropriately is really a major global issue. We have the technological ability to solve this problem, but not necessarily alignment on the best way to use those technologies or fund implementation. Policies and behaviors need to change too, but there is a combination of inertia and resistance that is difficult to overcome.Diamonds are formed under pressure. Being threatened with not having enough of the fresh water essential to our survival creates pressure! We are hoping to help apply that pressure to enable the social, political and behavioral transformations necessary for sustainable management of this precious resource. Ten years ago the social awareness and will to alter our patterns and beliefs just weren’t there. Right now we’re seeing all that shifting - the technological and financial capabilities are converging with an awakened public, ready to tackle this crisis. At HOK, we believe that we can be a catalyst for change. We can bring together the experts and the community to really focus on this challenge. We want to help chart the course to a sustainable water future both locally and globally.
HOK Water Workshop
4
Event Leader
Russ DrinkerHOK
Management Principal
H. Russell (Russ) Drinker is the Managing Director of the San Francisco office and brings over 30 years of experience in architecture and planning. He provides leadership on a broad range of large-scale, innovative, and technically challenging projects with an emphasis on sustainable design. His portfolio is notable for its globally recognized medical sciences, research and academic campuses, including the Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) project for the National Research Foundation in Singapore; the Princess Noura bint Abdulrahman University, a new 32 million square foot campus with a 300 bed hospital for 40,000 full-time female students, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; as well as projects throughout the University of California system and Stanford University. Russ has also led Master Planning projects for Chevron; United States Embassies in Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, and Damascus; and a new Medical Sciences campus for King Saud University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
How did you start down this road?
I read multiple articles in the national press about the water crisis in California – including stories about entire communities threatened with extinction from the lack of potable water. The articles focused on drilling new wells or piping water around, or the need for conservation, but completely ignored the potential of recycling waste water and it really made me mad! Recycling is one of the most fundamental, and most overlooked, methods we have to solve the global water crisis. To fail to understand such an important aspect of this precious resource was just unacceptable. We want to help put a spotlight on recycling and change the story being written.
HOK Water Workshop
5
Changing perceptions about water.
On November 21st, HOK Nexus sponsored a water workshop to begin a conversation about the current state of our water infrastructure and supply in Cali-fornia. Following a series of forums focusing on as-pects of the water crisis, the workshop was the first step in changing the perception of California’s water sector at our practice and beyond.
What happened?
The water workshop was conceived as a cross-disci-plinary one-day workshop tackling water scarcity in California. The goal of the event was to generate ac-tionable ideas for small communities seeking a more resilient water supply. Field-leading experts of sci-entific research, art, policy, engineering, and venture capital from public, private, non-profit, governmen-tal, and academic institutions gathered in one room, building on both common ground and differences.
After a general group discussion framing the context of the problem, attendees broke off into four groups to problem-solve the water crisis for two theoreti-cal small California towns - one in a riparian valley and one on the coast. The teams developed diverse responses to the complex problem, from practical decision charts to new conceptual models. Of par-ticular interest was the reclamation and advance treatment of wastewater as a reliable source of supply, a proven strategy where implementation is currently challenged by public misconceptions and a widespread lack of standards and policies. Select ideas are being refined, with the intent that they will be published, and, hopefully, implemented, copied and scaled.
Event Summary
Goals of the event
There were two primary goals for the water workshop. The first was to create a “water nexus”: to bring together a wide ranging panel of experts from the water sector – from policy and funding to social and technical aspects of the field, and kick-start a new conversation regarding the water crisis.
The second was to envision potential solutions for our water supply and infrastructure systems in Cal-ifornia, with a focus on small towns. This event was not seen as an end in itself, but rather the beginning of a conversation regarding our water future and how to make our water systems more resilient. Through this “water nexus”, we hope to focus diverse exper-tise on a complex problem, one that will influence the way we build in an increasingly resource-scarce world.
As a continuation of the water conversation, HOK San Francisco is planning a public open house to take place this spring. This event will feature the findings from the workshop and showcase innova-tive projects and programs from a curated group of organizations that are providing solutions to dif-ferent components of the water problem, including technical, policy, social, and funding.
We believe that truly creative outcomes occur at the intersections between differing disciplines, cultures, and generations. Through this event and similar events in the future, we intend to draw in the global brain trust, and look for ways to achieve new ground to build a better future together.
HOK Water Workshop
6
Agenda for the Day
AM
PM
8:30
12:00
1:00
5:00
Brainstorming
Please quickly introduce yourself – Name, Organization/Employer
LUNCH BREAK
9:30
Introduction
Brainstorming Report Out (Table to Table)
Develop an Action Plan and Report Out
What are the Big Ideas addressing the challenge!Is there a ‘mind map’ that links all of your ideas?Can you use lists, bullets, diagrams to convey your idea?
Select a Spokesperson to report out to your nearby table groupPresent 2-3 Ideas from your Brainstorming work (3 minutes each idea)Ask the nearby table group to rank or comment on your ideasShare the feedback with your ‘home base’ table and select your preferred ideas to go forward
Forward your Hypothesis Statement into an Action PlanReport out on your Action Plan to include: Required inputs Required stakeholders / participants Required timeline Anticipated outcomes / resultsNominate a spokes-person and report out to the larger room audience (10 minute presentation)
Advance your Idea and Report OutSelect a TWO ideas to move forwardWrite a ‘Statement of Work’ or ‘Hypothesis Statement’ about your ideaIdentify the ‘lenses’ that apply: Social, Financial, Policy, TechnologyTest the idea as: Scale-able, Profitable, Transferable, Implementable, etc.Refine your ‘Statement’ to present to othersNominate a spokes-person and report out to the larger room audience (4-5 minutes for each)
HOK Water Workshop
7
Event Layout
Head Moderator
Steve MortonHOK
Regional Leader of Planning
Event Leader
Management Principal
HOKRuss Drinker
projector screen / pin-up spaceprojector screen / pin-up space
proj
ecto
r scr
een
/ pin
-up
spac
e projector screen / pin-up space
Bluescape Screen
IT / scribestation
refr
eshm
ents
/ be
vera
ges
TABLE 1 TABLE 2
TABLE 3 TABLE 4
TM
S
S
HM
TM
S
S
S
S
S
S
TM
TMEL
EL
HM
TM
S
Event Leader
Event Organization
Head Moderator
Team Moderator
Scribes
Experts / Team Members
S
HOK Water Workshop
8
Table 1 Table 2
Josiah CainSherwood Design Engineers
Director of Innovation
Team Moderator
AJ WacaserBiomimicry NetworkPermaculturalist
Team Members
Kim SchneiderEcoconsultAssociate
Michael FlynnNASA Ames Research CenterLeader of Research and Development Technology
Newsha AjamiStanford UniversityReNUWItDirector of Urban Water Policy
Sonia DiermayerSierra ClubCo-Chair, Water Committee
FICTILISGraduate Student at UCSC Digital Arts & New Media Program
Andrea Steves
Team ModeratorBrian JencekHOK
Reg Design Ldr of Planning & Landscape
Chris Allen
Co-FounderBiomimicry Network
Justin MalanCA Conference Directors of Environmental HealthExecutive Director
Ken KortkampSFPUCManagement
Margot KenneySherwood Design EngineersMarketing and BD
Patricia GonzalesDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering Stanford UniversityGraduate Student
FICTILISGraduate Student at UCSC Digital Arts & New Media Program
Tim Furstnau
Scott BryanImagine H2ODirector of Innovation
Team Members
HOK Water Workshop
9
Table 4Table 3Team Moderator
Lynn FilarHOK
Technical Principal
Guy CarpenterCarollo EngineersVice President
Paula KehoeSF Public Utilities CommissionWater Resource Mgmt
Prentiss Darden
Engineer
Sherwood Design Engineers
Rowan Roderick-Jones
Water Associate
Jennifer ParkerUCSC Art DepartmentChair and Founding Director of OpenLab
Tracy QuinnNatural Resources Defense CouncilPolicy Analyst, Water Efficiency Team
ARUP
Marc ArnoldHOK
Director of Operations
Team Moderator
Bruce WolfeSF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officer
Dominique GomezWaterSmart SoftwareDirector of Market Development
David SedlakReNUWIt / Water 4.0Co-Director of Berkeley Water Center
Elizabeth DoughertyWholly H2OFounder and CEO
Jennifer ClaryCleanwater Action ProgramCentral Valley Program Director
Stephen BurgesARUPHydrology Leader
Team Members Team Members
HOK Water Workshop
10
Event Process
HOK Water Workshop
11
Water Workshop Observations
Infrastructure Status Quo
The status quo of our water infrastructure is becom-ing inadequate. To meet both increased demands of growing populations and decreased supply of pota-ble water will require modifications at many scales from individual to local to regional to federal. Our existing infrastructure will be difficult and extremely expensive to reconfigure.
Social Equity
Everyone uses water, but not all water users are equally represented in conversations regarding wa-ter systems.
Market Failure
The true value and cost of water are not currently represented in our water infrastructure systems pricing – supply or waste. This is the case through-out all the scales of water use: individual, district, regional and federal.
The water / energy nexus is precipitating many of our water issues. Much of our energy expenditure in-volves moving and treating water –likewise much of our water is used to produce energy. A clear under-standing of the interrelationship of these systems is an essential element part of any discussion about change in these vital systems.
The following ideas, concepts and observations have been collected from research leading up to and discus-sion that occurred during our recent workshop on November 21st, 2014. They frame broad parameters for, and define the current water landscape that our four teams wrestled with during the workshop.
Centralized / Decentralized Systems
A central issue with respect to redefining/ recon-structing our existing water infrastructure revolves around the various strengths and weaknesses of centralized versus decentralized systems. The cur-rent systems are generally centralized, but new de-centralized systems are receiving more and more interest.
The Three Waters
Understanding the relationships, both integration and non-integration of the three largest spheres of our water – supply, storm-water and wastewater is central to any water system innovation. Currently these three sectors operate individually and their goals are not in alignment. They are not integrated into an overall understanding of a complete water cycle system.
Diverse Interests
Representatives for the diverse aspects of the wa-ter industry: users, advocates, entrepreneurs and professionals have very different goals and perspec-tives that reflect the overall complexity of the dis-course.
HOK Water Workshop
12
The Geography of Water
Our current water infrastructure system is generally not based upon geographical watershed areas. This has set up overlapping and competing concerns. Any realignment of this configuration will also have a set of overlapping and competing concerns.
Leaky Pipes
Operations and maintenance are critical pieces of our overall water structure that are not currently in-corporated into our water system and its associated costs. Water waste, through inefficiencies and leak-age, is a systemic problem that is difficult to recog-nize, fund and ultimately to fix.
Let the Quality of the Water Meet the Need
Currently water is viewed as either clean (potable) or dirty (non-potable) but the reality is more complex. Not all of our uses require potable water. A regula-tory redefinition of the requirements for particular uses may be a beneficial step towards a use driven water system.
Unanticipated consequences of our actions with re-spect to water have been and continue to be a cen-tral issue in any conversation regarding innovation of our water systems.
HOK Water Workshop
13
Report Out
Executive Summary
The promise of bringing together disparate viewpoints on a difficult topic lies in the potential for non-obvious solutions that are “greater than the sum of the parts”. Yet it is impossible to generate the best possible synthesis of a diverse group of thinkers in a single day, and it is extremely difficult for a single table of people with different viewpoints to establish a common ground of terms,values and goals. Human dynamics can’t be foreseen in advance, and can help or hinder a common goal. With a shared belief in the promise of synergy, and despite the challenges of working across disciplines, 31 highly experienced professionals from a rich variety of backgrounds came together with the express purpose of working with others with skill sets very different from their own. Our goals were no less than to transform the public narrative on the wicked problem of water scarcity and to come up with creative solutions that could be enacted by small California towns.
The group was divided amongst four tables, with an eye to maintaining a full cross section of the larger group’s diversity at each table. Each table team spent the full day together, alternating between a tight inward focus and dialogue with the larger group. The way that each table filled in the blanks of the problem statement, how they worked, and what they produced, very quickly became unique expressions of the collection of people at each table. Starting with a common set of informational materials and media to work with, the end of the work day revealed four very distinct proposals in response to the water scarcity problem faced by small California towns, and two “model” towns in particular.
While the wicked problem was not solved this one day, the overarching frameworks and approaches formulated by the groups could be valuable for small town staff and politicians to start to come to terms with the need to provide clean, reliable water supplies, especially in times of drought. Not a small benefit of the day’s work was the new perspective that many people from different disciplines are engaging this problem--and working towards a common goal of a resilient, sustainable water future.
HOK Water Workshop
14
Table 1
Moderator Josiah Cain, Sherwood Design Engineers
Scribes Garam Hann, HOKGabrielle Saponara, HOK
Team Members Newsha Ajami, ReNEUWItMichael Flynn, NASA Ames Research CenterKim Schneider, EcoconsultSonia Diermayer, Sierra ClubAndrea Steves, FICTILIS/UCSCAJ Wacaser, Biomimicry Network
Approach/Typology:
Shift the Cultural Value of Water
HOK Water Workshop
15
Brain Storming
Our moderator, Josiah Cain (Sherwood Engineers) opened up conversation at Table 1 by inviting each participant to give an introduction including their interest and expertise in water. It was immediately clear that our table had a quite diverse set of opinions regarding solutions to our water crisis – many on divergent ends with respect to the social, technolical, funding and policy lenses that we were exploring.
The role of economic markets was central to most of our discussion, with solutions ranging from decentralized systems to centralized authorities. The single agreement around the table: the status quo is not working, and that water resources are not appropriately valued with respect to other commodities and resources. This premise that water is a fundamentally undervalued resource drove most of our discussion through the day.
Defining the Problem
Our thesis then became: If we were to help our small town re-value water relative to other resources - how would this impact the water sustainability of the town? This thesis led to multiple possible scenarios. A representative scenario was: A multi-faceted effort to Shift the Cultural Value of water would be pursued at all levels of community involvement with particular interest in neighborhood participation. As public perception of the value of the resource was increased, a corresponding rise in water rates might arise. This in turn would lead to an increased demand for new / revised water systems and services – creating a new configuration for the water market.
HOK Water Workshop
16
This new water market would drive innovation within each of the sectors: policy, funding, technology and social. Table 1’s Action Plan further delineated how these new innovations could be accomplished in each of those four subject sectors.
Statement of the Problem
The global, regional and local resource of water is and has been historically undervalued. What are appropriate changes to policies, funding sources, social and technical aspects of water that will lead to an appropriate and equitable revaluation of arguably our most precious resource?
Action Plan
1. Create a cultural shift using strategies that affect each of the four sectors –policy, funding, social and technical.
2. Allow revaluation to take place.
3. Revaluation of water will drive restructuring of the existing water market structure and this in turn will drive both demand and supply innovation in the water market.
Evaluating the Solution
+
A community awareness campaign for both Springfields regarding the true value of our water would be an effective tool to promote knowledge of the true cost (embodied cost) of water. This true cost of water would include maintenance and operations, water waste, as well as invisible (not yet recognized) use of water resources in our commercial, industrial and other sectors. The public’s understanding of this complexity is one of the first steps towards effective action.
∆The complexity of Springdale’s status quo water supply and waste distribution systems is not easily comprehensible and will require substantial analysis and effective outreach to educate the communi-ty. Resistance to change should be expected in all sectors from local water utilities to individual water customers.
HOK Water Workshop
17
Table 2
Moderator Brian Jencek, HOK
Scribes Fumiko Docker, HOKMathew Roush, HOK
Team Members Chris Allen, Biomimicry NetworkScott Bryan, Imagine H2OTim Furstnau, FICTILIS/UCSCPatricia Gonzales, Stanford UniversityMargot Kenney, Sherwood Design EngineersKen Kortkamp, SFPUCJustin Malan, CA Conf. Directors of Env. Health
Approach/Typology:
Creating a Community Water Network
HOK Water Workshop
18
Brain Storming
Our group started with a conversation about why the water problem is so difficult. To date, management of our water resources has escaped market solutions. On one hand, water is an irreplaceable molecule required by all life, and access to clean, reliable water is seen as, and should be, a human right. On the other hand, potable water is almost free, with few products or services including the full cost of delivering reliable, clean drinking water to a growing human population.
Our water sector must also manage competing water users including agriculture and industry, as well as the environment’s need for an uncontaminated water supply. California’s water sector is predicated upon an archaic system of water rights, drawn in a time when our population and our water needs were different from today, making political attempts to solve the problem divisive. Agricultural, ecological, and urban interests are perceived as mutually exclusive, with
each party fighting for what is now perceived as a diminishing natural resource.
Our current water infrastructure is inflexible and has limited ability to adjust to shock loading events like the drought faces by western states.
Defining the Problem
These symptoms point to a deeper systemic problem within the nature of our historic water infrastructure itself. Originally built around a single use strategy, it represents and reinforces an overly simplistic two level value system. Water is either clean (potable) or dirty (waste). Most water uses and sources fall in between these two ends of a spectrum. As a result, drinking water is used in applications where it is not needed, and water which has been lightly used is disposed outright even though it is still clean enough for many non-potable uses.
HOK Water Workshop
19
Our historic water infrastructure is resistant to modification. It’s vast, inflexible, it was expensive to build, and requires costly regular maintenance.
Defining a Solution
Next our group imagined a future state where our water infrastructure was not a single use system. In this future state water would be diverted to a secondary or tertiary use after each first use, rather than lost as waste. This system would tie all water users together into a network where blocks of users could trade water based on real-time input of demands, connecting residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural users, while also allocating for local habitat.
In this future state, the network would have real time monitors and controls so that it could adapt to the community’s changing needs and values, directing the flow of water of various levels of quality for specific uses based on availability and demand. It would use financial, social, and technical feedback loops like a smart-grid. The system would be flexible and resilient. This network would include advanced water conserving, irrigation, and treatment technologies, and a management system that all customers could access and monitor online.
A lagoon or green infrastructure would serve as surface storage and groundwater recharge, a storage “bank” that serves the entire network of water customers. Green infrastructure would be seen as an important symbolic, recreational, and ecological amenity for the community and local habitat. It would provide an important connection to the existing groundwater aquifer, from which the local community draws its water supplies, as well as
support and recharge the local hydrological cycle. As seasonal demand varies, water could be pulled from the lagoon for agricultural use and offset historic well use. Water from the lagoon and its connected groundwater could also be returned to the drinking water plant for direct or indirect reuse.
In this future state the embedded cost and value of water would be understood through the network, allowing market forces to take hold, including the rise and fall of water fees based on real-time supply and demand, and resource-sharing between customers, including a steady supply of recycled water from the town’s domestic water customers for agricultural users year-round.
HOK Water Workshop
20
Evaluating the Solution
+• The ability to monitor real time use of water,
one’s own, one’s neighbor, or even a local farm, would help educate the public on collective water consumption.
• Groundwater recharge in addition to surface reservoir (lagoon) would provide critical water resupply back to the environment.
• This networked system would enable the trading of water supplies, by connecting customers and their variable use..
ƥ This solution includes costly infrastructure
improvements that a small community might have difficulty funding without outside help.
• Network technologies that have not yet been applied to or developed for the water sector, but which have seen some application in the energy sector, would have to be tested and developed.
Action Plan
Any modification to our water infrastructure will be expensive, and time consuming. All water investments should step by step work towards a more flexible, resilient future.
To create the future state of a networked, accessible water system that enables the exchange of water of various levels of quality according to need and quality, a set of priorities determining the phasing of improvements would be developed.
Current technologies that could be used immediately should be evaluated for adaptation in a water system; the clean energy and smart grid sectors could pave the way for innovation in water conservation, monitoring, and controlled diversion or distribution technologies.
Each prioritized water project should be reviewed against this future state, with the goal of bringing “online” various customers to the network, to collectively, with real-time data, manage and trade their shared water resources.
HOK Water Workshop
21
Table 3
Moderator Lynn Filar, HOK
Scribes Ellen Fuson, HOKJustin Kelly, HOK
Team Members Guy Carpenter, Carollo EngineersPrentiss Darden, Sherwood Design EngineersPaula Kehoe, SF PUCJennifer Parker, UCSCTracy Quinn, NRDCRowan Roderick-Jones, ARUP
Approach/Typology:
A Flexible Tool for Water System Planning
HOK Water Workshop
22
Brain Storming
We began by brainstorming the objectives and questions to develop a problem statement, which proved surprisingly non-obvious. We used a diagram to relate systems of water: water supply, waste water, surface water, and ecosystems. This revealed synergies and dependencies that began to suggest specific strategies for improvement. We developed each strategy individually, examining each through the lenses of social, political, technical, and financial frameworks. With the goals of both local and global scalability and resilient supply as goals, we decided that a portfolio-based tool set would be our target.
Defining the Problem
Our hypothesis developed further to become, “A comprehensive portfolio-based solution to water scarcity, based on level of service needs, is the most valuable approach. Water recycling is an aspect of this portfolio and we are investigating barriers and solutions to its implementation.” Then, we defined a decision tree to determine the most appropriate implementation of recycled water - centralized (purple pipe, indirect potable reuse, direct potable reuse), on site, and de-centralized. These approaches were illuminated with the and methods and perspectives of the professionals at the table, and stakeholders and a timeline that we defined: we sought a decision tool that we could employ if we were approached by a town in need within three weeks of the workshop.
Perhaps the most helpful output that our team developed was a diagram connecting a series of questions with a kit of solutions, with the goal of articulating needs and identifying the most appropriate responses to those needs. The word “tree” led to a matrix, outlining a weighted chart to
HOK Water Workshop
23
reveal which reduction, augmentation, and recycling approaches would be the best fit for long or short term needs. By acknowledging opportunities for innovation, our team developed a process that could be used to find the best solutions for water resilience.
Statement of the Problem
A portfolio based solution to water scarcity will be the most comprehensive approach based on an established level of service, whether potable water intended for drinking, or recycled water intended for agricultural or other uses. Water recycling is an aspect of this portfolio and we will investigate barriers and solutions to its implementation.
Action Plan
Create a dynamic and flexible first-contact tool to establish a specific locality’s needs to prepare a plan to build its water portfolio appropriately.
Evaluating the Solution +• A systematic framing of the problem
• The group worked consistently to establish common ground amongst everyone at the table. This was reflected by the spokesperson position organically transferring from person to person as our ideas took shape.
• Final product was near our stated target
ƥ The one day format lends itself to quick, hard
statements - engineers ended up holding back to not unduly drive the discourse, and our conversations about art had long germination times.
• Our tool was not production ready, and while it may be useful to architects, it may not be of assistance to the other professions who contributed to it.
HOK Water Workshop
24
Table 4
Moderator Marc Arnold, HOK
ScribesChris Gardini, HOKMatthew Fulvio, HOK
Team MembersStephen Burges, ARUPJennifer Clary, Cleanwater Action ProgramElizabeth Dougherty, Wholly H2O Dominique Gomez, WaterSmart SoftwareDavid Sedlak, ReNUWit / Water 4.0 Bruce Wolfe, SF Bay Reg. Water Quality Control Board.
Approach/Typology:
Water-Centered Eco-Districts
HOK Water Workshop
25
Brain Storming
Our table focused immediately on the opportunities for using water recycling technology in Springfield Valley.
We started by making an inventory of the opportunities and constraints native to SV. Next, we examined the misalignments between technical possibilities and the regulatory vantage points. We explored several different configurations of water capture, storage and recycling and how those would fit in this setting. We were constrained by our small town’s lack of technical resources. We decided that a large centralized water treatment facility was likewise not feasible. Costs, maintenance and community support would be lacking to sustain that sort of infrastructure.
Defining the Problem
Unable to build a large water plant, we worked backwards looking at the smallest, most effective solutions. How could we match water sources with end uses? We decided that on site rainwater capture and storage would be beneficial at a residential scale. This presented the architectural challenge of whether and how these could fit onto existing home sites.
Conservation, greywater, and rainwater harvesting were not going to get us to our goal. And a centralized solution was already ruled out. So we developed a Mini District advanced treatment scheme and spent the remainder of the day refining that idea. The Mini Districts would be sized to a neighborhood scale, focused around a community center. The community center would be the public facing portion
of the district water recycling plant, occupying a former house, park, or small commercial building. The advantage of this scheme is that blackwater is reused without any need for storage, purple pipe, or additional new infrastructure. The Mini Districts could be deployed in an incremental manner, defraying upfront cost and allowing a transition for community buy-in. Even if only one or a few of the Mini Districts were developed, they would still reduce to the load on the existing infrastructure, benefiting the entire community. The local utility would manage and finance these Mini Districts. Finally, it is expected that State Regulations would be in line with this idea by 2016 making this a very viable option.
However our final conversation took a hard look at what implementing Mini Districts would really require and whether they would fit in a place like Springfield Valley. We felt the idea might work in other settings as well such as Mobile Home Parks, College Campuses, Military Bases, or Resort Communities.
HOK Water Workshop
26
Evaluating the Solution +• Concrete, implementable idea
• The mini plant can be implemented in isolation, and possibly with disregard to the ‘district’.
• Mixes Recycled Water into the existing water supply.
• Minimizes impact on existing infrastructure.
• Provides community interface with ‘water community centers’
∆• Long term use/value of ‘water community cen-
ters’ wasn’t really explored.
• The scheme ‘locks-in’ existing infrastructure, by extending it and stranding other future options via capital intensity.
• Requires special technical knowledge to develop and operate.
• May not be cost effective at scale provided.
Statement of the Problem
In small California towns where large scale implementation of recycled water plants is not feasible a mini district advanced treatment solution is the most appropriate. What is the best way to implement this strategy?
Action Plan
What is the implementation strategy for these mini district treatment plants with respect to the four lenses: policy, funding, social and technical? What are their feasibilities and constraints?
HOK Water Workshop
27
HOK Water Workshop
28
I was deeply heartened by the enthusiastic response to the HOK Water Workshop – we had a great turn out! We had a diverse cross-section of participants ranging from NASA and the EPA to the Sierra Club, the Biomimicry Network and top experts from University’s, NGO and professional design practices. The participants were organized into four different groups to brainstorm approaches to water self-sufficiency for two water distressed hypothetical communities, with an emphasis on water recycling.
Participants represented four aspects of water – policy, funding, technological and sociological. We wanted to explore strategies for water self-sufficiency that were creative, implementable, effective and scalable, and had the power to influence the social discourse and change people’s minds about their water usage.
There was broad acknowledgment that water management issues are complex and that more information about the communities and their resources, as well as time would be necessary to develop optimum solutions. Undeterred, each group developed a unique approach to the Problem Statement, creating a rich diversity of strategies that challenged everyone’s thinking. Table One focused on shifting the cultural value of water, Table Two created a community water network, Table Three devised a flexible tool for water system planning, and Table Four developed an approach to water-centered eco-districts.
Lessons Learned
California’s current water approach is rooted in an historical Gold Rush Era water rights system, with many of the participants interests entrenched in maintaining the status quo. Any change to this system is akin to changing the Constitution. A regulatory overhaul of how water is collected, distributed, and used will be an important step. In addition a full understanding of the true value and costs for water will be central to any effective change.
Our complex and overlapped system is primarily made of regional centralized systems, though there are many discussions ongoing regarding the possible benefits and resiliency of flexible decentralized systems. Key features of this discussion revolve around the amount of energy expended by our water systems as well as the amount of water used running our energy systems. One exciting development is interest in new technologies developed through a deep understanding of our natural water systems.
Effective change will be difficult within our highly interconnected system, yet big picture changes are already underway. California’s new groundwater legislation for the first time regulates the pumping of groundwater resources. In the last election voters overwhelmingly passed a state ballot measure that included $750 million for water recycling. Further efforts are underway to set standards and update policies for direct potable reuse- a strong first step towards water neutrality.
Post Script
HOK Water Workshop
29
Next Steps
So what are the next steps that can be taken to grow this important conversation? In late March HOK will host a Nexus Night open house that will focus on water issues. This will include a presentation recapping the Water Workshop. HOK will also moderate a panel discussion featuring key water issues, providing an opportunity for development of discourse and strategy exploration. We encourage everyone to join us at this event as there will be ample time for further discussion with your peers as well as opportunity to broaden our water network.
HOK’s role
Our most important next step is to involve as many of our industry partners and clients in this water conversation as we can, creating a groundswell of interest regarding sustainable water systems throughout our community. Next we will work to implement effective change. One of our strengths is in creating environments that support and even stimulate change. Our work intersects a broad and diverse base of professionals from all of the building engineering disciplines to the broader fabrication and production industries, as well as clients from all of the building sectors ranging from commercial to educational and institutional to industrial.
Eventually we will be in the position to help foster and implement developing technologies regarding water on every conceivable level – from individual use to industrial sized applications. For now, however, it is important that we immerse ourselves deeply in this exploration. Our goal is to lead by example and put a spotlight on water as a major global issue that we can positively impact.
Russ DrinkerHOK
Management Principal
HOK Water Workshop
30
Plus / Delta
+
∆
• Food
• Breaks
• People (great mix)
• Connections
• Happy Hour
• Cross-pollination between groups
• Allow individuals to self-select after introductions
• Introduction – What is the town’s water source and how much water is used daily?
• All the graphic information was pinned up but access to the metric data was limited during the workshop
• AM Session happened too quickly
Creating the Nexus: Workshop Structure Lessons Learned
Process for Nexus – because this was our first effort, we built the protocol for running a workshop of this scope. Modeled loosely after hackathons in the tech industry, but scheduled for only one day, the workshop attempted to tackle a difficult problem, in a short period of time, with a variety of subject matter experts. The following could be refined:
1. Topic Selection: the breadth (or depth) of the topic should have appropriately scheduled time for ideation, iteration, and implementation
2. Refinement of the idea: Within the water sector, recycled water was identified as an important focus for its availability as a solution, but with barriers to implementation that must be overcome. Focus on a specific subtopic within a larger topic is advantageous with time constraints.
3. Attendee Selection: a cross section of different disciplines brings multiple perspectives; enabling the self-selection of participants to work on particular themes may speed up the ideation process
4. Event Creation:5. Event Logistics:6. Compilation of supporting materials7. Distillation of the content of the workshop
requires a process enabling input and refinement.
In theory this process should become more refined as the team/office learns from this and future events. Our contacts list gets more robust, our experience gets more established, the Nexus group establishes a name for itself outside of our office.
HOK Water Workshop
31
Post-Event Feedback from participants
Table 1
• Host potlucks in the community. • Acknowledge self-constructed barriers of
ourselves.• Look for nature based / climate smart solutions –
make sense for people and the planet. • Consider the major influence of architecture on
design. • Develop components of water infrastructure –
interaction of culture and infrastructure. • Look for community based site scale options• Avid conversations with community members
to be encouraged. “Every person might want to be a steward. In another community you might need to go to a mayor. Some communities may not want to see a change.”
Table 2
• For these conversations to happen we need look at the quality of the demand. Bills will come forward that will reduce the quality of treatment.
• Put the right source with the right demand. • Get the communities to talk to and listen to each
other. • Be clear with town – come from a place of
learning – see how their progress can enhance our knowledge – be conscious of role as big city.
Table 3
• Who could be our potential partners? - Water Reuse Association, technology, regulations.
• Put together a bibliography of existing resources. Build network with existing groups.
• Recognize there are groups with different focused interest – finance vs technology.
• Share info/news, so all disparate sectors stay up to speed.
• New approaches to water: Collaboration with institutions.
• Assess the appropriate urban settings and expand.
• Identify barriers to implementation. • Develop technology or policy solutions to
overcome barriers.
Table 4
• Talk to managers of small water systems lacking water utility representation. There are economic and political barriers to consider.
• Hone our message. Determine what’s new here. • Take the conversation to a new place. Look for
pilot projects - lots of actions are underway. “Join in the fray. Time is now. It’s happening.“
• Understanding the value of water and how it’s perceived. Make the nexus between the value of water and reuse – how do we build the sustainability design in a way the public can understand.
• Funding - get people involved.
HOK Water Workshop
32
AcknowledgmentsEarlier this year, we started with the strategic goal to “work differently.” With this spirit, we embarked on an ambitious mission - to revolutionize the way we build our world. Inspired by The Medici Effect by Frans Johansson, the Nexus group was created to bring together thought leaders from diverse disciplines to cross-pollinate ideas and transform our practice. Our goal is to rethink major environmental problems and contribute positively to our community.
We would like to extend a special thank you to Paula Kehoe for her continued support, David Sedlak for taking the leap of faith with HOK and kick-starting this effort with us, Jennifer Clary for her early support and dedication, and Josiah Cain for working closely with us in developing the thesis and content for the workshop. We would like to thank the experts who have hosted forums, which helped build a base of understanding to spring-board collaboration: Miriam Gordon, Jennifer Clary, Paula Kehoe, David Sedlack, Brian Jencek, Josiah Cain, Gene A. Felice II, Jennifer Parker, Rowan Roderick-Jones, Lee Jaslow, and Mayor Jeff Gee.
This event wouldn’t have been possible without the leadership and clarity of vision of Russ Drinker and Steve Morton. Thank you to our Nexus Moderators: Lynn Filar, Marc Arnold, Brian Jencek, Josiah Cain. A special thanks to our collaborative partners at Sherwood Design Engineers for their focus: Margot Kenney and Prentiss Darden.
This event was facilitated by the organization and planning skills of Sandy Valentin and Jimmy Takagi and the design skills of Jordan Bruce. Thank you to our marketing advisors Tisha Tasaki and Stephanie VanDyke for keeping our jargon in check.
Finally, we would like to thank the Nexus Team: Tom Fortier, Mathew Roush, Justin Kelly, Brian Jencek, Marissa Bruce, Franco Marinaro, Gabrielle Saponara, Fumiko Docker, Matt Fulvio, Chris Gardini, Bart van Vliet, Jon Tai, Mara Baum, Ryan McBrayer, Garam Hann, Ellen Fuson, Art Morrisey, and Russ Drinker. Their commitment to the mission of Nexus will hopefully spark positive change in our built environment.
Create the Nexus: Our Mission Statement• Be the catalyst at the intersection of all disciplines touching the built environment. • Create a culture of critical thinkers incorporating new partners and ideas into our business model. • Embrace a steady stream of disruptive thought to challenge our thinking, test our comfort zone, and
enliven our discussions.
HOK Water Workshop
33
Distinguished Guests
WaterIdeation Workshop
Information Package
HOK Water Workshop
3
Contents
Preface .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
HOK NEXUS Mission ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Distinguished Guests ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Agenda .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Outcomes .................................................................................................................................................................10
Springfields - Why Two California Towns? ................................................................................................ 11
Springfield, CA - Valley Town ........................................................................................................................... 12
Springfield, CA - Coastal Town ....................................................................................................................... 14
Case Study - NEWater of Singapore ........................................................................................................... 16
Case Study - Cloudcroft, NM .......................................................................................................................... 18
Case Study - Big Spring, TX ............................................................................................................................ 20
Case Study - St. Petersburg, FL .................................................................................................................... 22
Conversation with Russ ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Participants List ....................................................................................................................................................26
HOK Water Workshop
4
The global shortage of potable water is a primary crisis of the 21st century.
The subject of water, and how we use it, manage it, and treat it is as varied and complex as the communities who rely on it. The problems we see across the globe are ones that will continue to get worse if unchecked. The status quo isn’t working, and something needs to change.
Growing populations are outgrowing safe water resources. Infrastructure is aging without proper funding for upgrades. Governmental policies and regulations are woefully behind the need to change our usage patterns and waste. We find ourselves at the point of not having enough of the safe water essential to our vitality and are on the verge on crisis.
Demand for potable/domestic water increasingly competes with the demands of industry, energy, agriculture and the broader ecosystem. Here in California, all of our communities are directly affected by these divergent needs. Many smaller towns are even threatened with extinction due to the verity of the drought and the lack of this essential resource.
95% of water used by the average American household is used once, then either discarded down our drains or lost to landscape irrigation. If we can re-imagine the recoverable portion of this waste-stream as a resource in a closed loop system mimicking the natural hydrological cycle, it could become one of our greatest water assets.
HOK comes to this forum interested in learning how we can contribute to rethinking water usage in a mean-ingful way. We hope to change the conversation about water for California communities, using recycled water as part of the solution.
Our focus is to generate actionable ideas for small communities seeking a more resilient water supply, which can then be scaled up to larger populations. We aim to facilitate the discussion to build on ideas and grow new connections through a multi-disciplinary workshop. This “hackathon” inspired approach will be centered on recycled and reused water as a means to mitigate the boom/bust cycle of drought. We hope to reframe the value and advantage of treating and reusing this valuable resource.
Assembling talented people from a variety of platforms and areas of expertise for this day-long workshop is a first step. Using our combined expertise, we will explore water reuse through social, technical, economic and policy lenses.
With oft-constrained budgets, limited clout at the state and federal government level, and stiff competition for resources, California’s small communities are increasingly finding themselves under duress to provide reliable sources for clean water. We believe there is opportunity in innovation, coordination and partnership to build a vanguard of early adopters leading the way to a more sustainable future.
Access to reliable supplies of healthy clean water is essential. The technology to treat greywater and black-water for safe potable and other uses is well established, but the standards and policies for usage are not well defined in the United States. Most importantly, recycling is a charged emotional and political issue. The re-use of water can help communities more effectively manage supply and demand, building long term water security.
Preface
HOK Water Workshop
5
We now have convincing data and countless places that would benefit from using recycled water to ensure water security. Yet recycling water is still gaining traction as the solution for water management, especial-ly for potable use. The public discourse on water currently focuses on conservation, identification of ‘new sources’ and resource management. Issues of source quality and available quantity often dominate the conversation. Recycling and re-use are often tossed to the wayside as a secondary approach, rather than a viable primary means to address shortage and quality of water. Among the challenges faced when proposing recycled water as a solution to water source mitigation:
Social Norms
Water has a long history of coming to users pumped straight from a natural source either to users directly, or in more recent history, to treatment plants for use by the public. The image of the pristine mountain stream or underground naturally filtered aquifer has a strong hold on the imagination. Conversely, the image of reused water, particularly those “toilet-to-tap” campaigns, conjures up negative public perception (the “yuck” factor and concern for safety). The connection must be made in people’s minds that post-treatment quality can be as safe as or safer than our traditional water sources.
Branding
Blackwater and even greywater, carries a stigma that needs to be overcome. We need to figure out how to make the image of blackwater and greywater more palatable. This shift requires a change in public percep-tion to overcome the “yuck” factor with a more appealing image.
Education
We recognize people’s concerns for safety and the need to change the pre-conceptions and misconceptions about the value and safety of recycled water. From the design, installation, and maintenance of these sys-tems to the education of policymakers and regulators, the subject of recycled water needs to become part of the public lexicon.
Incentives
Communities, individuals and possibly the utilities themselves need the incentive to incorporate recycled water as a key component to water resiliency. Much like the way the energy industry has piloted programs for solar and wind generated power, the push to incorporate water as a renewable resource can be effectively led by policy. Programs designed to offset startup costs and increase the competitiveness of these systems with the status quo could also lead the charge.
Infrastructure
Our water distribution systems are aging and need to be upgraded. Effort has been spent on “purple pipe” systems, which are considered by some to be redundant and unnecessary. Existing treatment plants are not geared toward treating used water to recirculate back to consumers. But opportunities do exist to change the way we use this valuable resource by installing replacements and initiating upgrade programs.
HOK Water Workshop
6
HOK NEXUS Mission
Earlier this year, we started with the strategic goal to “work differently.” With this spirit, we embarked on an ambitious mission - to revolutionize the way we build our world. Inspired by The Medici Effect by Frans Johansson, the Nexus group was created to bring together thought leaders from diverse disciplines to cross-pollinate ideas and transform our practice. Our goal is to rethink major environmental problems and contribute positively to our community.
We would like to extend a special thank you to Paula Kehoe for her continued support, David Sedlak for taking the leap of faith with HOK and kick-starting this effort with us, Jennifer Clary for her early support and dedication, and Josiah Cain for working closely with us in developing the thesis and content for the workshop. We would like to thank the experts who have hosted forums, which helped build a base of understanding to spring-board collaboration: Miriam Gordon, Jennifer Clary, Paula Kehoe, David Sedlack, Brian Jencek, Josiah Cain, Gene A. Felice II, Jennifer Parker, Rowan Roderick-Jones, Lee Jaslow, and Mayor Jeff Gee.
This event wouldn’t have been possible without the leadership and clarity of vision of Russ Drinker and Steve Morton. Thank you to our Nexus Moderators: Lynn Filar, Marc Arnold, Brian Jencek, Josiah Cain. A special thanks to our collaborative partners at Sherwood Design Engineers for their focus: Margot Kenney and Prentiss Darden.
This event was facilitated by the organization and planning skills of Sandy Valentin and Jimmy Takagi and the design skills of Jordan Bruce. Thank you to our marketing advisors Tisha Tasaki and Stephanie VanDyke for keeping our jargon in check.
Finally, we would like to thank the Nexus Team: Tom Fortier, Mathew Roush, Justin Kelly, Brian Jencek, Marissa Bruce, Franco Marinaro, Gabrielle Saponara, Fumiko Docker, Matt Fulvio, Chris Gardini, Bart van Vliet, Jon Tai, Mara Baum, Ryan McBrayer, Garam Hann, Ellen Fuson, Art Morrisey, and Russ Drinker. Their commitment to the mission of Nexus will hopefully spark positive change in our built environment.
Acknowledgments
The mission of the Nexus Group at HOK San Francisco is to:
• Be the catalyst at the intersection of all disciplines touching the built environment.
• Create a culture of critical thinkers incorporating new partners and ideas into our business model.
• Embrace a steady stream of disruptive thought to challenge our thinking, test our comfort zone, and enliven our discussions.
HOK Water Workshop
7
Distinguished Guests
HOK Water Workshop
8
Agenda
AM
PM
8:30
12:00
1:00
5:00
Kickoff
Scan
Focus
Act
Evaluation
We’re going to look around widely at water in the setting of small California towns.It’s a time to share knowledge, brainstorm and play with ideas, and ‘get out there.’As the morning proceeds we start to generate new ideas about recycling water.
We will take our work from the morning and start to frame the problem as we now understand it, putting together a bunch of different designs. We’ll assemble the criteria by which our schemes can be evaluated.
We’re going to test our designs. Would these really work? What are the barriers? What are the best ideas?
Welcome statement and event participant introductions will lead directly to a brief and informative overview of water issues affecting small California towns and situating the exploration of two idealized California towns – one in a valley and one on the coast. Team will work to create policies, programs, projects or products that solve a water demand shortage through the reuse of water and changing the conversation around water reuse.
Introductions, overview of the materials. Framing the context of the problem
Team brainstorms ideas and develops conceptual models.
Team ideas rigorously evaluated, top ideas selected for continued development.
Transform the conceptual idea into a viable system.
Team presentations, project evaluations and next steps.Teams will present their solutions and set up the next steps in the conversation.
LUNCH BREAK
9:30
* All meals, water, coffee, and tea will be provided throughout the event to properly fuel our collaboration.
HOK Nexus Water Workshop is aimed at brainstorming creative new proposals (Programs, Policies, Projects or Products) for water use and reuse that will redefine our regional conversation regarding water use and reuse in small California towns.
Currently that conversation revolves around water conservation and we would like to open it up with respect to reuse of our most valuable resource.
Evaluation Criteria is based on the following goals:
9
HOK Water Workshop
Evaluation Criteria
Creativity
Innovation is mission critical regarding the developing crisis
to our fresh water supply
Power to Change Minds
Proposals that change the conversation about water
Effective
Schemes that set a high bar for relative effort to impact
Scalable
Proposals that are scalable to a variety of town sizes and configurations are preferred
ImplementableProposals that have a
clear set of strategies for implementation required
(including changing cultural norms)
During this event there will be three opportunities for evaluation.
Scan Focus Act
The first will be evaluation by the team creating the proposals. The evaluation’s purpose will be to select the team’s top options for pre-sentation to the larger assembly.
The second will be after an elevator pitch to the group to determine which proposals from each team will move forward into the focus and act sections.
The third will be towards the end of the day to help wrap up the event. The purpose will be to select proposals that capture the group’s imagination and have potential legs to move forward.
evaluation evaluation evaluation
+ +
+
HOK Water Workshop
10
OutcomesWe fully expect to have four or more compelling elegant proposals at the end of this event. As will all creative thought –it is nothing without the appropriate follow up that is central to the success of any important endeavor.
Post the event HOK will lead a rigorous follow up program with the following steps:
Memorialized findings of both the event process and individual team product will be shared widely.
New partnerships and collaboration channels will be coalesced and nurtured.
Team proposals will be deeply evaluated, and appropriate collateral materials will be generated for the following possible next steps:
a. White papersb. Presentations at TED or like conferencesc. Funding and grant possibilities will be followed.
We look forward to the continuation of this important venture.
STAY TUNED!
HOK Water Workshop
Springfields - Why Two California Towns?
The water crisis effects California Small towns in a myriad of different ways, no two of which are exactly the same. There are however similarities and more importantly significant differences that need to be accounted for in any solution plan.
Similarities:Both towns are similar in size and land area.Springfield by the Sea is relatively dense and expects population growth.Springfield Valley has more open space and the population is steady.
Differences
Water Supply
Geography
Water Outfall
• Springfield Valley gets the bulk of its supply from surface water and seasonal precipitation.• Springfield by the Sea receives most of its water from ground sources.
• Springfield Valley sits by itself in a valley in the shadow of a coastal range.• Springfield by the Sea is a more suburban context in a coastal plain region.
• Springfield Valley’s outfall is primarily river and surface water.• Springfield by the Sea outfall goes primarily to the sea.
11
Industry • Tourism is important to both Springfields, providing for both retail and hospitality business.• Springfield Valley has more agriculture and light industry.• Springfield by the Sea resident are largely professionals many of whom commute work elsewhere.
HOK Water Workshop
12
• Total: 2.803 sq mi (7.260 km2) • Land: 2.798 sq mi (7.248 km2) • Water: 0.005 sq mi (0.013 km2)
Area
• Total: 4,845 (2012) Population
Springfield, CA - Valley Town
Industry
Water System
Water Supply
Drinking Water Treatment Plant
• A city owned utility • Includes reservoirs, watersheds,
water treatment plant, distribution system, and storage tanks
• Water Resources Control Board over-sees their activity
• Water sourced from local and centen-nial reservoirs and their watersheds
• Built in 1989• Located in the watershed near reservoir • Capacity to produce 2.2 mil. gallons/day • Main transmission line 4000’ long • Powered 100% by solar PV system,
which has the capacity to generate 530,000 kilowatts annually
Water Quality
• Issue of contaminated groundwater from now closed hydraulics plant
Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Service area is within the city limits with special agreements with 3 adja-cent areas that send their untreated domestic wastewater to city
• Effluent is released to Outlet Creek (permitted, must be a 10:1 ratio from Oct 1 - May 15) during wet season and used to irrigate local pastures during dry months
• Maintains a gravity sewer collection system of over 20 linear miles
• Public Works Department maintains the city’s infrastructure
Emergency • Jan 2014: Water emergency de-clared, most stringent water conser-vation imposed
• Stage 5 emergency, limits use to 150 gallons per day per residence of up to 4 occupants; requires commer-cial and industrial users to reduce by 35% from last year’s levels
• Developing an emergency water treatment facility; uses 2 existing wells, pipes that water to a temp wa-ter treatment facility, and blends that water with reservoir water; system estimated to extend existing supplies by 3 months with continued water conservation measures
• Agriculture• Light Industry• Tourism
HOK Water Workshop
13
Land Use & Zoning
Information for the Springfields will be provided on the day of the event:
Topography Geomorphic Data & Landslides
Soil Type Watersheds
HOK Water Workshop
14
• Total: 4.598 sq mi (11.909 km2) • Land: 4.598 sq mi (11.909 km2) • Water: 0 sq mi (0 km2)
Area
• Total: 9,644 (2010) Population
Springfield, CA - Coastal Town
Industry
Water System
Water Supply
Drinking Water Treatment Plant
• District serves 50,000 through 14,500 connections in 4 service areas
• District spans seven miles of shoreline and extends three miles inland to local watershed in the mountains.
• Water sourced 100% from 2 groundwa-ter aquifers : Aquifer A, supplying 3,600 acre feet, and Aquifer B, supplying 1,800 acre feet; all within the local ba-sin, which is shared with other cities, the Central Water District, small mutual wa-ter companies, and private well owners.
• District operates 16 wells that ex-tract 4200 acre feet, approx 1.4 bil-lion gallons of water per year.
• 80 monitoring wells in 25 locations monitor quality and groundwater lev-els, measuring chlorides, general min-erals, total dissolved solids and static water level to indicate threat of salt water intrusion.
Water Quality
• Groundwater basin currently in state of overdraft (more being extracted than can be replenished by rainfall), which has led to seawater intrusion. If untreated, groundwater wells will be contaminated.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Regional facility• Outfall into ocean • Operating and disposing outfall to
the ocean since 1928, located near Neary Lagoon
• Currently designed to treat 17 MGD with average daily flow of 10 MGD; design for wet weather flow is 81 MGD
• Incorporates a 50 kW photovoltaic system
• Integrates a 1.3 megawatt cogene-ration system into facility power grid; has been using biogas to produce heat and electricity since 1989ish; expected to generate about 9.5 mil-lion kwH electric power a year, enough to power about 3,000 homes.
• Commuting Professionals• Tourism
HOK Water Workshop
15
Land Use & Zoning Topography Geomorphic Data & Landslides
Soil Type Watersheds
Information for the Springfields will be provided on the day of the event:
HOK Water Workshop
16
Case Study - NEWater of Singapore
Background
Singapore is the world’s second densest nation in the world, with a population density of 18,051 people per square mile (2012 census). Lacking enough domestic water supplies to support its population, Singapore relied heavily on water imports via a pipeline from the Johor region of Malaysia during the 20th century. This supply was augmented by dam and reservoir projects to expand local storage capacity, and modernization of the infrastructure to Johor.
Impact
Singapore’s Public Utility Board (PUB) developed a policy called the “Four Taps”: the first and second taps are local water catchments and water imports, the third is water reclamation, or NEWater, and the fourth is desalination. The first NEWater treatment plant was commissioned in 2000 and tested for two years for water quality. Since then the country has become a global water research and technology hub, actively supported and funded by the government, with a goal of 80% of water supply provided by NEWater or desalination in 2060.
Between 1998 and 2002 Singapore unsuccessfully tried to negotiate water agreements with Malaysia be-yond 2061. Singapore decided to achieve self-suffi-ciency in water supply before 2061 rather than rely on negotiating rates with Malaysia, and embarked on the NEWater Singapore Water Reclamation Study, exploring an integrated approach to water supply and sanitation to provide a reliable domestic water supply.
Challenges
While the Singapore government studied alternate water supplies as early as the 1970s, at that time they found recycling and desalination technology too costly and unreliable to implement at the time.
HOK Water Workshop
17
FundingTwo of Singapore’s operational NEWater plants are run by the PUB, and two more are owned and operated by private companies. Singapore devel-oped its reverse osmosis technology in a public private-partnership (PPP), and pursues some of its research and development in water technology through PPPs. Singapore has become a global hub for water research and development, with over 70 local and international water companies and 23 re-search and development centers working on 300 projects valued at $185 million.Singapore’s water rates are priced as the full cost of delivering water via NEWater reclamation or de-salination, including cost of infrastructure mainte-nance and capital. Tariffs include use fees for water and sewer and a conservation tax set at 30% with an increase to 45% should a household consume more than 40 cubic meters per month. An average household is charged $1.88/cubic meter, including taxes. Compare this to an average rate of $1.59/cubic meter charged for single family domestic wa-ter use by the San Francisco PUC.
Technical
The “Third Tap”, or NEWater, is highly treated reclaimed water produced today at one of four water reclamation plants. According to Singapore’s Public Utilities Board (PUB), NEWater supplies 30% of the total water de-mand, with 6% for indirect potable use and recharge of the nation’s reservoirs. The rest is used in non-po-table applications by industry including electronics manufacturing, and cooling towers. NEWater makes up 1% of Singapore’s potable water requirement of 380 million gallons per day, and consistently exceeds the quality requirements set out by the USEPA and WHO.
SocialIn order to promote public acceptance of NEWater, the Singapore government embarked on a public information campaign emphasizing the economic and national security benefits of water supply in-dependence. A NEWater Visitor Centre was built to provide outreach and promote understanding of the water purification process. The Visitor Centre has become a success, winning numerous awards, as well as the UN Water award in 2014 for “Best participatory, communication, awareness-raising and education practices”. The Visitor Center has welcomed 700,000 visitors in 10 years. In ad-dition to interactive exhibits explaining the NE-Water treatment process, PUB bottles and gives away NEWater for consumption at public events. In 2002, when the NEWater campaign was rolled out, top government officials drank and endorsed NEWater.
An independent survey by Forbes Research in 2002 confirmed that 82% of Singaporeans would drink NE-Water directly, and 16% would drink it if mixed with reservoir water.
Singapore FactsPopulation 5.5 million (2012)Land Area 277 square milesMedian Income $60,528 per household (2011)GDP $55,182 (2013)NEWater System FactsFour operational “factories” Bedok, Kranji (2002), operated by Singapore’s Public Utilities Board; Ulu Pandan, operated by Keppel Seghers (2007), Chan-gi, operated by Sembcorp Industries (2009)NEWater Capacity 115 million gallons per dayDesignMultiple Barrier waste reclamation
• Conventional wastewater treatment• Microfiltration/ultrafiltration• Reverse osmosis• UV disinfection
Average Total Precipitation 92”/yrHistoric Water Sources Local rivers and estuaries, dammed with reservoirs, for rainwater catchment. Imported water: Johor River Pipeline (Malaysia, 1927-2061) Average Demand Profile30% domestic, 70% industrial/commercialAlternatives Tried or Considered DesalinationFundingAnnual investment in water supply and sanitation $609million/year (2010); Funded by retained earnings, bond debt financing
HOK Water Workshop
18
Case Study - Cloudcroft, NM
Background
Cloudcroft, New Mexico was founded in the 1890’s as an excursion destination by a railroad company. Tour-ism remains its economic base today. Remote and sitting on a slope at 9,000 feet, it is at the top of the watershed and has no underground aquifer. The broader drought conditions of the US Southwest have hit particularly hard here. During a severe drought in 2004, Cloudcroft was forced to truck 20,000 gallons per day up the mountain, at considerable expense, during peak tourist season.Tree ring data from the area shows that drier conditions are the norm. The old potable water system was incapable of dealing with this anticipated long-term “drought”, and it prevented growth of the town. After exhausting simpler, smaller scale alternatives, Cloudcroft became the first town in the United States to start construction of a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) + Reverse Osmosis (RO) Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) system.
Challenges
“The village really doesn’t have any other choice if it wants to continue to grow economically”. Cloudcroft was founded on a site chosen for its beauty, not its resources. It relies on annual rain and snow to meet its water demands, yet precipitation is decreasing as the town is planning for continued moderate growth. Reservoirs, wells, and pipelines at the needed scale are simply impractical.Cloudcroft is a small town with modest infrastructure needs. Having little experience with large engineering projects, the Cloudcroft town council inadvertently found itself undertaking a cutting edge project that chal-lenged social, policy, and funding norms.
HOK Water Workshop
19
Policy
There is no state nor federal policy around direct potable reuse. This project required policy innova-tion in conjunction with technical innovation.
Funding
At least as impressive as the engineering of the DPR system, Cloudcroft managed to pay for nearly the entire project through State and Fed-eral sources. The town council displayed a savvy understanding of State and National grant pro-grams, beginning with documenting a clear need, a clear plan, and prior examples of successful use of grant money. The municipality applied an initial $600,000 from a state water conservation/inno-vation initiative towards the $3,000,000 waste water reuse system. Further funding was obtained from a New Mexico Water Trust Board grant and annual state legislature grants over several years. A photo-voltaic power system for the DPR system was enabled with a $200,000 federal grant.
Technical
Cloudcroft’s 1952 wastewater treatment plant was converted to a membrane bioreactor system. Effluent from this stage is further purified through reverse osmosis prior to combining it with natural water sources. Before distribution through the po-table water system, intermingled water is passed through an ultrafiltration membrane and then dis-infected with ultraviolet light (UV) and hydrogen peroxide advanced oxidation (AOP), then activat-ed carbon then chlorine. Reject water from each treatment stage is utilized for non-potable needs. For instance, the reject, or concentrate water from the RO process is retained for fire control in the area. All three of these membrane types, MBR, RO, and UF, require pressure differentials to oper-ate, typically provided with electricity-consuming pumps. In Cloudcroft, the elevation difference be-tween the MBR and RO is enough to eliminate the need for pumps at that stage.
Impact
The 2004 experience spurred Cloudcroft to seek se-curity in a solution that put them at the forefront of wastewater reuse in the United States. Cloudcroft was successfully because they solved technical, so-cial, and funding challenges. They are a relevant model for any town that is facing a shortage of potable water.
Cloudcroft FactsPopulation 674 (median age 49)Land Area 1.50 sq. miles (465 people/sq. mile)Median Income $38,690 per Household, $23,965 per capita, 1 2.9% in poverty (2012)Total Payroll $8,588,000 (2012)Average Total Precipitation 30”/yrHistoric Water Sources Spring and surface waterAverage Demand Profile Primarily domestic and small businessAlternatives Tried or Considered DesalinationWater Reuse StrategyDual water treatment - primary treatment with membrane bioreactor, then RO for direct potable reuse of 100,000 gpd (up to 50% of potable demand)System Capacity100,000 gpd, expandable to 200,000 Alternatives Tried or ConsideredMore wells and storage, which ultimately proved insufficient. Numerous per-sonal and small scale systems. Energy Supply Profile N/AFunding - State $636,000 from Innovative Fund $500,000 from the Water Trust Board$1.2 million attained over three years from annual legislative requestsOngoing operations and maintenance are anticipated to be lower than cur-rent system.Funding - Federal $200,000 for on-site photovoltaicTimeline Construction start: 2006Substantial Completion: 2008Expected Full Operation: 2015
Social
This treatment system was one of three parts of a broader long term water supply strategy that is cru-cial to the town’s survival. The other, equally important initiatives were fixing leaks and discouraging frivolous consumption, and securing alternate sources (which has yet be fully addressed). Identifying leaks relies on reporting by engaged citizens. Convincing water customers and regulators of the safety and reliability of the system has required testing and procedures in excess of what is required for a conventional system.
HOK Water Workshop
20
Case Study - Big Spring, TX
Background
With a population of 28,125, Big Spring is the biggest town in Howard County, Texas. The spring is named after a long dry aquifer that, though small in size, supplied a reputed daily discharge of over 100,000 gallons in the 1880. It was completely depleted by the 1920s.Water right holders, as everywhere in Texas, are still allowed to use and reuse 100% of their water prior to discharge; however, once discharged it becomes property of the state. The collected wastewater represents a significant, drought-proof source of water. Even with increased populations, the expected input will only increase.
Challenges
Big Spring gets fewer than 20 inches of rain a year. Due to dry air that is commonplace in west Texas, wa-ter evaporates from their reservoir at three times that rate. There is a need to diversify sources other than the existing reservoirs to augment the demand of 36 million gallons per day.
The community has been subjected to drought over the past nine years. The main water supply, from two reservoirs managed by the Colorado River Municipal Water District (CRMWD), was well below capacity, with one going below 1.4 % of capacity in recent years.
Alternate approaches including source locations were discarded due to:
• Strict requirements of inter-basin transfer authorizations • Complications due to physical distance or difference in elevation required infrastructure investment
without long term security• Without further study, much uncertainty prevailed regarding the quantity of groundwater sources
available
HOK Water Workshop
21
Policy
The state of Texas has no established regulations for blending reclaimed water with the raw water source. CRMWD had therefore required the aug-mented water supply to meet primary drinking wa-ter standards. Treatment must be very reliable to inspire public confidence.
Funding
Treated waste water, noted as the most promising source of supplemental supply, was investigated in a feasibility study. The study found the project-ed costs for Big Springs favorable, with the total for the plant at around $14 million. Funding was secured primarily from the state water board. The overall projected cost per gallon is similar to the CRMWD present cost to provide water.
Technical
To ensure safe and reliable drinking water, a mul-tiple-barrier approach needs to ensure removal of bacteria, as well as inactivate viruses and proto-zoa, which are more resistant to disinfection treat-ment. Other treatments must address endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals, fuels, additives, etc. Due to lack of regulation for some of these poten-tial threats, and lack of historic data on large-scale potable reuse projects, their approach was conser-vative.The treatment facility passed the water through various treatment steps. The steps are membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and UV oxidation. At each of these steps, residuals are diverted.
Impact
The Big Spring plant was the first of its kind in Texas, and contributes approximately 2 million gallons of wa-ter per day to the water supply. While this is a small part of the total demand of the 500,000 people that depend on the CRMWD for about 40 million gallons of water per day, the plant helps diversify the water sup-ply in an area where lakes and wells have been running dry.
Big Spring FactsPopulation 28,125Land Area 19.2 square milesMedian Income $40,797 (2012)Total Payroll $8,588,000 (2012)Average Total Precipitation 19.45 inches per year (lowest of 0.60 in Dec, highest of 2.69 in Jun)Historic Water Sources Spring originally, currently E.B. Spence Reservoir and Lake J.B. ThomasAverage Demand Profile 258 gpcd (gallons per capita per day)Housing Units 9,640
Water Reuse StrategyIndirect reuse for potable demand; treatment through membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation.System Capacity 2.1 MGD (million gallons per day)Alternatives Tried or ConsideredTapping from other reservoirs and wells (outside basin)Energy Supply Profile5.34 kWh/1000 gal. for reclamation versus 5.04 kWh/1000 gal. for pump-ing/diversion.Funding Colorado River Municipal Water District (CRMWD)Timeline Construction: Summer 2011Operation: Spring of 2013
Social
Big Spring’s outreach/education consisted of a public meeting and the development of informational fliers and website. The turn-out at some of these meetings was quite low, and the positive to neutral response may have to be interpreted that way.
HOK Water Workshop
22
Case Study - St. Petersburg, FL
Background
St. Petersburg, Florida resides on the south eastern tip of the Pinellas Peninsula, bound by the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay. The city receives an annual rainfall of approximately 51 inches per year. The rainy season comes in the hot summer months. Prior to the 1970s, St Petersburg primarily pulled its water from inland well fields to the north that tap into the Floridian Aquifer. St. Petersburg currently has a duel water system: A potable water system (from the regional utility, Tampa Bay Water) consisting of a blend of surface, ground, and desalinated water, and a non-potable, “purple pipe” reclaimed water distribution system for irrigation pur-poses. Excess reclaimed water is injected into a saline aquifer below the city. St. Petersburg runs the oldest reclaimed water systems in the United States. Today, the system treats the wastewater to advanced secondary standards and produces 37 MGD of waste water effluent. 21 MGD is reused while the remainder is injected into the non-potable aquifer. More than 290 miles of distribution lines send reclaimed water to more than 10,000 residences, 6 golf courses, 95 parks, 64 schools, 335 commercial areas for irrigation, and 316 reclaimed water fire hydrants. Backflow preven-tion assemblies were installed to safeguard the potable water supply.
Challenges
In the 1970s, extensive groundwater pumping result-ed in salt water intrusion into the potable aquifer. With the growth in population, less water and a growing de-mand, St. Petersburg needed a way to augment their water supply. The main purpose of the system was for waste water disposal and irrigation. In 1977 the four water reclamation facilities of the dual water system came online. During periods of extensive rain and low demand, the excess effluent is pumped into the saline aquifer under the city with the hope that this would create a freshwater bubble for later use. The city has had issues with the quality of the water that is pulled from the saline aquifer and above ground storage has been implemented.
HOK Water Workshop
23
Policy
In the 1970s, new regulations in Florida on the re-moval of nutrients prior to discharge into the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay were enacted. The cost of tertiary treatment, filtration, and chlorination, along with federal grants, made reclamation and reuse an economically viable choice.
Funding
As of 2006, residences not on the “purple pipe” system can pay the cost to extend distribution lines to serve them. This typically costs $500 to $1200 per customer. For the average consumer (with a property under an acre) the City charges a fixed rate of $19.68 a month for reclaimed water. For potable water, St. Petersburg uses tiered rates. An average household can save up to 17% in their water bill.
St. Petersburg FactsPopulation 249,688Population Density 3,967 people/sq mi Income Per Capita $28,742 (Pinellas County)Historical Supply Floridian aquifers via Inland well fieldsAverage Demand Profile Domestic, Commercial, Light Industry
System Duel Water System consisting of potable (managed by Tampa Bay Water) and reclaimed non-potable (managed by city of St. Petersburg)Water Reuse StrategyVolunteer Program for Irrigation, fire hydrants, public fountainsYear of Implementation 1977
Social
The city has done an extensive outreach and education program to inform the public of the safety of the “purple pipe” system and to promote better conservation. To educate the public, St. Petersburg has done the following:
• Held public forums that address water quality issues• Produced booklets and videos on conservation• Broadcast television messages weekly • Created a website with conservation information• Held annual public recognition awards and community events promoting reuse and conservation• Taught water conservation programs in their schools.
HOK Water Workshop
24
Conversation with Russ
Why was the Nexus group formed?
This is truly an extraordinary time to be living and working in the Bay Area. We are at the center of a com-munity of business, academic and government enterprises that are driving profound changes in the way we live. This is a historically important movement enabled by advances in technology, communication, and the creation of wealth.This confluence of wealth and technology is complemented by a deeper appreciation of our global interdepen-dence economically, environmentally, politically and educationally. The Bay Area is an interconnected brain trust that is a wellspring for new ideas and ways of looking at the world. We understand that really creative outcomes occur at the intersections between different disciplines, cultures, and generations. HOK strongly supports bringing this very broad and diverse approach to design thinking. It’s not just what’s happening be-tween the four walls at our firm. We want to draw in the global brain trust, and look for ways to achieve new ground to build a better future together.
Why focus on water?
California is in the middle of a critical water shortage, of course, but managing this precious resource appro-priately is really a major global issue. We have the technological ability to solve this problem, but not neces-sarily alignment on the best way to use those technologies or fund implementation. Policies and behaviors need to change too, but there is a combination of inertia and resistance that is difficult to overcome.Diamonds are formed under pressure. Being threatened with not having enough of the fresh water essential to our survival creates pressure! We are hoping to help apply that pressure to enable the social, political and behavioral transformations necessary for sustainable management of this precious resource. Ten years ago the social awareness and will to alter our patterns and beliefs just weren’t there. Right now we’re seeing all that shifting - the technological and financial capabilities are converging with an awakened public, ready to tackle this crisis. At HOK, we believe that we can be a catalyst for change. We can bring together the experts and the community to really focus on this challenge. We want to help chart the course to a sustainable water future both locally and globally.
HOK Water Workshop
24
HOK Water Workshop
25
Event Leader
Russ DrinkerHOK
Management Principal
H. Russell (Russ) Drinker is the Managing Director of the San Francisco office and brings over 30 years of experience in architecture and planning. He provides leadership on a broad range of large-scale, innovative, and technically challenging projects with an emphasis on sustainable design. His portfolio is notable for its globally recognized medical sciences, research and academic campuses, includ-ing the Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) project for the National Research Foundation in Singapore; the Princess Noura bint Abdulrahman University, a new 32 million square foot campus with a 300 bed hospital for 40,000 full-time female students, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; as well as projects throughout the University of California system and Stanford University. Russ has also led Master Planning projects for Chevron; United States Embassies in Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, and Damascus; and a new Medical Sciences campus for King Saud University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
How did you start down this road?
I read multiple articles in the national press about the water crisis in California – including stories about entire communities threatened with extinction from the lack of potable water. The articles focused on drilling new wells or piping water around, or the need for conservation, but completely ignored the potential of recycling waste water and it really made me mad! Recycling is one of the most fundamental, and most overlooked, methods we have to solve the global water crisis. To fail to understand such an important aspect of this precious resource was just unacceptable. We want to help put a spotlight on recycling and change the story being written.
25
HOK Water Workshop
HOK Water Workshop
26
Head Moderator
Josiah CainSherwood Design Engineers
Director of Innovation
Josiah Cain serves as Sherwood Design Engi-neers’ Director of Innovation. A student of de-sign, ecology, and technology, his deep sustain-able design experience and multi-disciplinary approach provide insight and opportunities for optimization of site and structure. Mr. Cain’s inherent drive for enhanced systems performance and integration has led to first of a kind permits in over a dozen jurisdictions; his work has provided advancement in the areas of rain harvesting, graywater, blackwater reuse, living roofs and walls, native plants, sustainable stormwater management, food systems, and sustainable materials.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Climate Change and Thermal Energy Production
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?Power Systems Engineer / Energy Commission; utilize 39% of fresh wa-ter withdrawals nationwide and 25% of the power they generate is used to power water infrastructure.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?Change to non-water consumptive energy infrastructure.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?Self managing innate geometry of movement.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.Earth is the only place in the known universe where it occurs in a state capable of human use.
• Share your water story.I grew up on land straddling an undammed California Wild & Scenic River that supported anadromous Salmon, Steelhead, and Pacific Lam-prey, otters, turtles, bald eagles, and a variety of other wildlife. It was in decline due to logging, agriculture, roads, and upstream impacts. The watershed has suffered tremendously as the result of dam diversions on the larger tributaries and the fishery has collapsed. Anadromous spe-cies are no longer in the river and political fights continue.
Steve MortonHOK
Regional Leader of Planning
Mr. Morton has over 30 years of experience involving comprehensive consulting assign-ment efforts for corporate, higher education, institutional, research and development, and private sector clients. These projects have fo-cused upon value-added strategic and physical planning solutions forming a basis for the iden-tification of scenario options, capital projects, asset utilization, and successful implementa-tion strategies. His role frequently focuses on leading participatory processes with complex client groups and technical consulting teams.
Guest Moderator
HOK Water Workshop
27
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Needless waste which can be addressed with broader implementation of various sustainable water-use practices.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?A large urban municipal water utility
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?Avail ourselves of more extensive & effective re-use and recycling
Marc earned his Bachelor of Architecture from Arizona State in 1984. While practicing as an architect in Arizona until 1992, he was convinced that his professional passion was geared more toward leading a firm’s business and operations. He earned his MBA with the Advanced Management Institute of Architec-ture and Engineering (AMI) in San Francisco in 1999. Marc’s career now focuses on project management and operations in the built envi-ronment. He is well known in the industry as a leader in management best practices.recipient of the prestigious 2013 Progressive Architecture Award.Marc is a member of the AIA, and involved with the Association of AE Business Leaders (AEBL) a local leadership organization which helps pro-mote business best practice in the natural and built environments.
Marc ArnoldHOK
Director of Operations
Brian JencekHOK
Reg Design Ldr of Planning & Landscape
Brian Jencek is the design leader of planning and landscape architecture for the global de-sign studio HOK. Prior to joining HOK, Brian served as the Managing and Design Principal of Hargreaves Associates. Brian’s experience spans numerous award-winning projects na-tionally and abroad, including Stanford Univer-sity’s leading-edge Science and Engineering Campus, Oklahoma City’s iconic American Indi-an Cultural Center Park, and visionary city plans along the waterfronts of Panama, Brazil, China, and India. Educated as a Landscape Architect and Architect, Brian is active professionally and academically with the ASLA, ULI, and Clinton Climate Initiative and teaches graduate level design studios on the topics of climate change and resiliency at UC Berkeley.
Lynn FilarHOK
Technical Principal
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Consistent adequacy and quality due to reliance on seasonal rainfall and aquifer.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?A hydrologist – I’ve never worked with one before, even on planning proj-ects, and I think the expertise would be transformative.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?Focusing locally on highest and best use in the water use cascade. In-vestment in infrastructure and systems to manage water at a district scale that are costly, and consequently slow to upgrade to more efficient strategies.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?The patterns and forms created by the movement of water shaping the landscape at all scales, from the patterns in the sand in a creek bed after a rainstorm, to the view of a river delta from a satellite.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.Access to fresh water used to be the driver for development and growth of cities.
• Share your water story.I have been drawn to water my whole life. Coincidentally, my name, Lynn, means “Dwells by the lake, or torrent”. My last two homes have been located adjacent to creeks, and I have been both soothed by the music of the water in the summer months, and awed by the roar in the winter in spring.
Lynn Filar has been with HOK for 28 years. She is the technical principal of HOK’s San Fran-cisco office and has led many of HOK’s most successful justice and non-justice projects – such as the award winning Richard E. Arnason Justice Center and the San Mateo Sheriff’s Forensic Lab and Coroner’s Office. As Princi-pal-in-Charge, she will be actively engaged in all aspects of project programming, planning, design, documentation and delivery. Lynn is renowned for timely and thorough responses and effective resolution of any client concerns. She has earned a reputation with her clients as a thoughtful listener, trusted partner, genuine collaborator and a true “win/win” problem solver.
HOK Moderators
HOK Water Workshop
28
AJ WacaserBiomimicry Network
Permaculturlist
AJ Wacaser is a biologist, sculptor and collab-oration social software entrepreneur who stud-ies and applies nature’s designs with bioswarm intelligence and leadership rotation structure to inspire teams to innovate and communicate more efficiently and effectively. The focus is on adaptive problem solving, interactive engage-ment, redundant resiliency, priority ranking and relevant messaging based on living system net-works to democratize decision making about direction and status bringing teams, organiza-tions and communities into cadence.
Participants
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?The greatest threat to our water supply is big agriculture using water at an unsustainable rate and diverting from natural systems.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?Ideally, I would like to partner with a species in nature that has already solved many of the water issues we face today. If I were to partner with a human being, I would probably say a built environment expert like an architect because hopefully they will want to set a goal and high stan-dard of restoring the relationship of the structure to its pre-development condition in the water cycle as a net zero requirement.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?I would re-imagine water collection and storage on site using life’s prin-ciples, low energy processes and biologize the question by asking how does nature store water and what would nature do and not do here.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?I believe that the most beautiful aspect of water is the recent discovery in the journal of Nature that nearly half of the water on the planet is esti-mated to be older than our sun and solar system.
• Share your water story.I grew up on a lake in central Illinois where I went fishing, swimming, sailing and exploring. Early on when our house and lake were new, the shoreline was filled with life. Over time, our sewer system dumped di-rectly into my play space. Nitrogen/Phosphorus farm runoff, soil erosion and non-point source pollution also diminished my space over time until most of the fish and wildlife were gone, the water became silted and un-healthy chemically. It was a great learning experience about how many, small, collective actions affect large, common, natural resource areas.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?The greatest threat is inaction or ineffective action in the face of multi-ple dynamics: climate change, obsolete infrastructure, outdated poli-cies and financing mechanisms, and unchecked inefficiencies.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?A Public Private Partnership (P3) developer in order to bring business rigor and private financing and ideas to a complicated, far-reaching sys-tems challenge that transcends the capacity of public agency response.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?Water, the Hub of Life.Water is its mater and matrix, mother and medium.Water is the most extraordinary substance!Practically all its properties are anomolous, which enabled life to use it as buildingmaterial for its machinery.Life is water dancing to the tune of solids.- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
• Share your water story.Born on the Gulf Coast of Texas, my childhood and love for water was forged in the Laguna Madre... a beautiful tidal estuary full of amazing sea creatures. Since then I’ve known in my heart and mind that great things can happen in and around water.
Chris Allen is the Co-Founder of Biomimicry 3.8, the global leader in biomimicry innovation training, consulting services, and education. He is a certified Biomimicry Professional, with an expertise in business strategy and develop-ment. Chris represents Biomimicry 3.8 through his firm, Chris Allen + Associates. Trained in In-ternational Business at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas (1985), Chris has over 20 years experience providing strategy and management consulting services related to sustainable development for a vari-ety of private sector clients as well as the US Department of Energy, the National Center for Appropriate Technology, the Northwest Area Foundation, and the United Nations Man and Biosphere Program.
Chris Allen
Co-Founder
Biomimicry Network
HOK Water Workshop
29
David SedlakReNUWIt / Water 4.0 David Sedlak’s is a professor at UC Berkeley
whose research focuses on fate of chemical contaminants. His research has addressed water reuse—the practice of using municipal wastewater effluent to sustain aquatic ecosys-tems and augment drinking water supplies—as well as the treatment and use of urban runoff to contaminated groundwater as water supplies.The long-term goal of Professor Sedlak’s re-search is to develop cost-effective, safe, and sustainable systems to manage water resourc-es. He also is the author of “Water 4.0”, a book that examines the ways in which we can gain in-sight into current water issues by understand-ing the history of urban water systems.
Co-Director of Berkeley Water Center
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Short term: a misunderstanding of the issue by members of the public and their representatives. Long term: climate change
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?I would partner with a futurist to learn about how to project the impacts of technology on our relationships with water and technology.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?I would overhaul the system of water rights that gives water away to farmers without consideration of the needs of cities and the environ-ment.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?Water creates and supports the wild places that make California beautiful.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.In some European cities there was once a technology for separating sol-ids from liquid as sewage left the home. It was a little like a coarse metal strainer. The accumulated solids were collected and used as fertilizer and the liquid was simply discharged to the nearest sewer or ditch. A technology like this might allow us to capture the solids for local ener-gy production and recycle the liquids more easily.
• Share your water story.I am fascinated by the taste of water. Water is the one thing that has al-ways and will always be consumed by all living things. The consumption of water is and always has been integral to civilization. Through the pro-cess of evolution we have come to expect water to taste a certain way. A specific balance of ions and dissolved gases makes for a satisfying drink of water. Get the balance wrong and the water in unpalatable. Contaminate the water with a few parts-per-trillion of a chemical pro-duced by algae or bacteria and it tastes awful. We experience the mil-lennia of civilization and the triumph of the evolution every time we take a drink of water.
Dominique GomezWaterSmart Software
Director of Market Development
Dominique advocates for policies that prioritize municipal water conservation as an important solution to drought, water scarcity, and popu-lation growth. She also helps spread the word about WaterSmart’s program and results in new markets. Prior to WaterSmart, Dominique focused on climate and environmental policy, first as a Governor’s Fellow for Governor Bill Richardson at the New Mexico Environment Department, then later as a consultant at Cas-cadia Consulting Group in Seattle. She has also spent time working on natural gas policy at the White House Council on Environmental Quality and on corporate sustainability at Hilton World-wide. Dominique is originally from Colorado and likes hiking 14ers and eating sandwiches.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Lack of centralized analysis and planning. I think local control has its benefits, but the downsides in terms of having not great data for the entire system is a major issue.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?I think the teams of people who have been able to push the huge jumps in policy supporting energy efficiency – decoupling, energy efficiency portfolio standards, incentives for energy efficiency, pricing that takes some account of costs, supply and demand, etc. We need these things in water.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?Not so much water infrastructure as water system: I would change the overall system of water rights using prior allocation. I no longer think it is working for us. We need to have a more progressive and fair system.
HOK Water Workshop
30
Elizabeth Dougherty is determined to make innovative approaches to localizing water sus-tainability all the rage in California. Since gain-ing her PhD in 2003, Elizabeth has delved into a wide range of work in permaculture, natural building, fair trade, agroecology and energy effi-ciency. In 2008, seeing a need to centralize wa-ter conservation and reuse information, Eliza-beth founded Wholly H2O, a water-progressive nonprofit that engages policy makers, business owners/developers and the public. Wholly H2O delivers interactive educational programs, con-sulting, and networking services to gear Cali-fornians to using conservation, rainwater, gray-water, stormwater and blackwater as primary water sources, whether in drought or high flow.
Elizabeth DoughertyWholly H2O
Founder and CEO
Eric’s work in EPA’s Pacific Southwest Region Sustainable Infrastructure Program is focused on helping water and wastewater utilities iden-tify and implement cost effective energy effi-ciency, water efficiency, and renewable energy projects. Since 2009, their Program has facil-itated dozens of energy audits that have iden-tified savings of over 80,000 megawatt hours and $14 million in energy costs per year. Eric is excited to continue helping water and waste-water utilities take advantage of the countless energy savings opportunities that exist today as technology and operational innovation con-tinues to advance.
Eric ByousEPA Region 9
Sustainable Infrastructure Program USEPA Region 9
HOK Water Workshop
31
Ivy Nguyen
Program Manager
Imagine H2O
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Over consumption and poorly thought out management of existing sup-ply.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?We need to stop pouring treated wastewater down our drains, because it’s such a cheap way to extend our water supply. Direct potable reuse all the way.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?It’s infinitely recoverable! The water you’re drinking today is the same water that was formed at the same time as Earth.
Ivy comes to Imagine H2O with a background of working to foster innovation in solutions for the developing world. She founded a clean-wa-ter project called BuRST to design low-cost, decentralized water filters for households in ru-ral Vietnam. Prior to joining IH2O, she interned for ReAllocate, a nonprofit technical consulting group. Ivy holds a BS in chemical engineering from Stanford University.
Guy CarpenterCarollo Engineers
Vice President
Guy Carpenter is a vice president and share-holder of Carollo Engineers and leads the firm’s water resources and water recycling practice groups, as well as the provision of water and wastewater services to the Power market. He oversees the research and development work Carollo does related to water reuse, including 7 groundbreaking studies that have contributed to the development of treatment technology, risk mitigation, and protection of public health recommendations for potable reuse. He has served on the WateReuse Association board of Directors for four years, and will become the Association’s President next September. Guy was one of 40 water leaders appointed to the Arizona Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Wa-ter Sustainability and is currently leading the Treatment Technology Subcommittee of the Steering Committee on Arizona Potable Reuse.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Mismanagement of it. We need to re-invent how we deploy water and wastewater services to become more cost-effective and efficient with it and the other resources it requires (chemicals, power, etc.).
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?Architecture and hydrogeology firms. Our focus is on engineering and planning. Increasingly, water is being managed in a decentralized way…at the building, subdivision, and city block scale. Also, the future of wa-ter management will rely significantly on the storage of water in aquifers (where they exist). Hydrogeologists understand the local aquifers and it makes sense to team with them rather than build in-house capabilities.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?We currently take the largest supplies of fresh water and treat all of it to drinking water standards, only for less than 1% of it to actually be con-sumed for drinking water purposes. We are treating to part per trillion levels of a wide range of parameters of concern. It’s time to produce the right water quality for particular uses, and to rethink how we use water in the future.
What is the most beautiful aspect of water?Clearly it is necessary for all plant an animal life, and is intrinsic to our daily existence.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.Another beautiful aspect that many people forget about it is its pollut-ant carrying capacity. It is a useful carrier of pollutants that nature has relied upon for millennia. Yet another is that it is the great modulator and controller, along with the sun, of our earth’s climate.
• Share your water story.My water story started growing up in Arizona and fishing with my family in the White Mountains on the streams that eventually became the Salt, Verde, and Colorado Rivers. I came to appreciate the fact that these wa-ter supplies were also the drinking water supplies for me and my family, and the farms near my house in Phoenix.
HOK Water Workshop
32
Jennifer ClaryCleanwater Action ProgramCentral Valley Program Director
Jennifer has served as a water policy and leg-islative analyst for Clean Water Action since 2003. She directs the Central Valley Program and serves on key state stakeholder commit-tees, advising state agencies on actions to improve groundwater quality and allocate state funding for water infrastructure. Prior to joining Clean Water Action, Jennifer worked in the pri-vate sector, including a stint as a San Francisco tour guide, and advocated on environmental is-sues in San Francisco. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from U.C. Berkeley.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Climate change and investor-owned agriculture
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?An economist – we really need to look at the larger (externalized) costs of our water decisions, such as disproportionate impacts on rural commu-nities and the environment.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?Creating more setback levees and bypasses along Central Valley rivers to slow down floodwaters and encourage groundwater recharge.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration. In the 19th century, cities sources their water locally; in the 20th cen-tury, they diverted distant rivers to supply their growing population; in the 21st century, we need to return to the local water resource model.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Dirty energy
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?Policymakers to improve global water governance
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?
Repair it. The aging infrastructure leaks about 7 billions gallons of water a day (enough to supply 70 million people a day)
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?It sustains life
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.Harness the movement of water for clean energy – water wheel.
• Share your water story.My family and I were exposed to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune - a Marine Corps Base in Lejeune, NC. In the early 1980s it was discovered that two on-base water-supply systems were contaminated with the volatile organic compounds trichloroethylene (TCE), a metal degreaser, and perchloroethylene (PCE), a dry cleaning agent. Benzene, vinyl chloride, and other compounds were also found to be contaminat-ing the water-supply systems. The water systems were contaminated from August 1953 through December 1987. There has been consider-able public controversy over the potential health consequences for for-mer residents who were exposed to the contaminated water. TCE and PCE are known to have toxic effects in animals and in humans, so it is important to understand the scale and extent of exposure that occurred at the base to assess effects on the health of former residents. Only a few studies have been performed specifically on former residents of the base: Birth Defects and Childhood Cancers Study including neural tube defects (NTD), consisting of anencephaly (absence of a major portion of the brain) and spina bifida, cleft lip and cleft palate, and childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a Mortality Study of Civilian Employees
Jennifer Parker is Associate Professor and Chair of the Art Department at the University of California Santa Cruz. Where she serves as founding Director of UCSC OpenLab Research Center and is an affiliate faculty of the Digital Arts & New Media program leading the Mecha-tronics Collaborative research cohort since 2009. She works on Art + Science research projects that include sculpture, interactive art, new media, sound art, and kinetic art. Her work has been presented nationally and interna-tionally. She is the recipient of several grants, awards, and fellowships including Artworks NEA, Art Matters, the New Forms Regional Grant administered by the Inter-Arts Program of the NEA, The New Jersey State Council of the Arts and the Kate Neal Kinely Memorial Fel-lowship Award.
Jennifer ParkerUCSC Art Department
Chair and Founding Director of OpenLab
HOK Water Workshop
33
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Waste and then overuse. We need to acknowledge the finite nature of water even if we use it judiciously.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?Expert on the nexus between energy and water
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?Promote resilience through decentralization
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?It represents the essence of life - tenacious yet vulnerable, abundant yet precious
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration. It is a resource of the commons and must be shared by all
• Share your water story.I have two: Africa: Almost 30 years ago three friends and I broke the rear axle of our LandRover in the middle of the Namib desert. The sand was baking with the temperature well over 100 degrees, no shade, at least a three hour repair and we were hundreds of miles from any town. We thought that we had a few liters of water left, but were shocked to learn that we had left the jug at our last campsite..... while two of us fixed the vehicle, the others had to dig in an old elephant water hole to find water. a few hours later and after digging four feet down we found mud that we strained through or bush hats...water never tasted so good.
South Pacific: After 15 days at sea, sailing the infamously long stretch between the Galapagos Islands and Marguesas Islands in French Polynesia, the trade winds died. We had less than 10 gallons of diesel onboard and that was being saved for emergencies. Two of our three water tanks were dry and the third was registering below 1/4. I decided to fire up the small desalination unit that would make about 2 gallons of water per hour. Because the pump drained so much electricity from our limited battery bank, desal water was always a last resort. The motor hummed, the first few drops of water started to fill the reserve tank then the high pressure hose burst. 5 of us on a small boat, 260 miles to go, less than 10 gallons of water, no wind, not enough diesel to go more than 50 miles. Rations, saltwater showers, lots of fluids from the canned fruit...the wind picked up and we made our landfall in two days will almost 8 gallons of water still onboard!!!
Justin has managed a large coastal resources grant program for the State, he served as a senior environmental consultant to the Legisla-ture for four years and from 1994 to present has been an environmental consultant - serving as Executive Director to several associations including the California Conference of Direc-tors of Environmental Health (CCDEH), the Cal-ifornia Ocean Science Trust and the California Aquaculture Association. In this capacity Jus-tin has worked extensively with the California Legislature, public interest groups and state regulatory agencies and has served on numer-ous state-wide committees and task-forces dealing with a wide array of resource manage-ment and environmental health issues.
Justin MalanCA Conference Directors of Environmental Health
Executive Director
Ken KortkampSFPUC
Management
With a background in Civil Engineering and masters in Water Resources Engineering, Ken applies over 18 years of system-based sus-tainable site design experience to help inform and create City of San Francisco policy on storm-water management. At the San Francis-co Public Utilities Commission, he oversees the review of green storm-water infrastructure for all private and public development, advances integrated water system design, and helped develop flexible storm-water design standards.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?Our water infrastructure systems have typically been perceived as two systems: water supply and waste collection; connecting the thinking and infrastructure for these systems would be a first step.
HOK Water Workshop
34
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Ourselves. As a society we drastically undervalue water. The bodies of water themselves, as well as the transport, treatment, use, and disposal of water.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?A specialist in the water-energy nexus. Honing in on this nexus and de-veloping protocols will be essential to obtaining Cap and Trade funding.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?To focus on and invest in decentralized water systems to help increase resiliency at the local and regional level.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?It is nature’s lifeline--and it’s ours too.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.We have a usufructuary right to water. We have the right to use it but can never own it
• Share your water story.I went to college in Santa Cruz and had the luxury of living two blocks from the beach. I used to love to go to the beach in between or after classes--especially during finals week--and just walk along the water and feel the waves’ energy come into me. It always rejuvenated me no matter how mentally or physically exhausted I was. I also happened to take a particular interest in water law and policy in school so it felt it was an appropriate way to connect physically with what I was studying in the classroom. The Santa Cruz coastline kept me relatively sane throughout my undergraduate career!
Kim SchneiderEcoconsult
Associate
Kim Schneider, Associate, joined Ecoconsult in December of 2012 and has been a tremen-dous addition to our team. As a recent college graduate, she has proven herself to be uniquely suited for our firm, having received a B.A in En-vironmental Studies and a minor Politics, with an emphasis in Environmental Policy at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Since join-ing the firm, Kim has provided assistance and advice in all environmental issue areas but has focused primarily on water law and policy for Ecoconsult’s clients.
Margot Kenney, LEED Green Associate, serves as the Marketing/Business Develop-ment Manager at Sherwood Design Engi-neers. She has a degree in Latin American Studies from the University of San Fran-cisco and specializes in business develop-ment, strategic planning, public relations, and special event management. She is pas-sionate about environmental stewardship, water conservation, and human rights. She is an active member of CREW SF, serves in a leadership position in the Outreach & Development Committee of SMPS, and is a member of the USGBC Special Programs working group for Greenbuild. She has an awesome dog named Baxter, who is a fre-quent visitor in the Sherwood office.
Margot KenneySherwood Design Engineers
Marketing and BD
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Humans and the way we misuse water. “Take the average amount of water flowing over Niagara Falls in a minute. Now triple it. That’s almost how much water power plants in the United States take in for cooling each minute, on average.”
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?Though I work for Sherwood Design Engineers, I am not a civil engineer. I run the marketing/business development department. I care deeply about water conserva-tion, and I see storytelling of the facts and data that we have in a compelling and personal way to be powerful. I would partner with an MEP to think through co-opti-mization of multiple systems and to zero in on the water/energy nexus. It is critical that water/landscape/civil engineers work closely with MEPs to figure out how to cut down on the mechanical usage of water. Similarly moving water around uses a ton of energy, it needs to be balanced. I want to tell those stories.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?I would opt for more emphasis on water reclamation and reuse.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?Water is life. Seeing communities thrive when they have access to safe, clean drink-ing water is beautiful. Seeing the stark fact that 780 Million people are endangered from lack of access to safe water is horrifying, knowing it is preventable yet not pre-vented is shameful. Seeing privileged communities waste water and not treat it as a precious resource is deeply troubling. Hmm, I guess I spoke more to the bad then the good sorry! I think that seeing how well handled water leads to thriving communities and people is very beautiful.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration. Civilization has always thrived near to water. When designing with water, there is usually too much or too little. New Orleans experienced devastation with Hurricane Katrina. Since Katrina New Orleans has been learning about “living with water and not fighting it” from the Dutch. Most of the world lives with water scarcity, and it takes innovative thinking to conserve this resource.
HOK Water Workshop
35
Newsha AjamiStanford UniversityReNUWItDirector of Urban Water Policy
Newsha Ajami, Ph.D., joined Stanford University as the Director of Urban Water Policy with the Water in the West and NSF-ReNUWIt initia-tive. She serves as a member of the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board. She is a hydrologist specializing in sustainable water resource management, flood and water supply forecasting, and advancing uncertainty as-sessment techniques impacting hydrological predictions. Her research throughout the years has been interdisciplinary and impact driven, fo-cusing on the improvement of the science-pol-icy-stakeholder interface by incorporating so-cial and economic measures and relevant and effective communication. She worked as a Se-nior Research Associate at the Pacific Institute from 2011-2013.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply? Source pollution. Water quality and water availability are directly related and correlated. To reach water sustainability under climate change, we have to rethink how we manage our water resources. More specifically • How to increase the profile of water in the society and enhance public appreciation for the water services that is being provided to them for cheap. • How to treat water system as one cycle and overcome regulatory and management fragmentation. • How to protect our water sources from contamination,• How to tailor quality to need• How to ensure the water sectors access to reliable and stable funding.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?Social or political scientists. Their expertise are essential in order to un-fold the role and impact of the social and political systems on managing water supply.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?
Would try to create more harmony between natural and engineering solu-tions. For the past century we have modified nature to meet human needs through very sophisticated engineering solutions with limited regard for their environmental impacts. While these solutions enabled us to grow and develop our great economy and enrich our social lives, they are more and more proving to be problematic in many ways: • They have modified the natural processes,• The assumptions that were used in designing them do not hold any more due to changing climate and subsequently altered water cycle, causing challenges in manag-ing our water supplies in the most effective way.• Most than 40% of the water infrastructure is 40 years or older. Their operation and maintenance, and potential replacement is costly.
Decentralized systems, green infrastructure and low impact development can partly move us toward the goal of bringing harmony between nature and engineering.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?How it brings livelihood and enriches life.
Mr. Flynn is the lead of Water Technology Devel-opment Laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center. He has over 23 years experience in the development of advanced life support system, astrobiology, and fundamental space biology. He has over 100 peer reviewed publications in the field. He has received two R&D 100 Awards, a Wright Brothers Medal, and an Arch T. Calwell Merit Award. He has received 6 NASA Spotlight awards and four of his papers have been selected by the Engineering Society For the Advancing Mobility of Land, Sea, Air, and Space International’s Transactions. He has re-ceived an AIAA best space architecture paper award. He has been involved in the start up of three companies in the water and power indus-try. Mr. Flynn has a BS in mechanical engineer-ing from San Francisco State University.
Michael FlynnNASA Ames Research CenterLeader of Research and Development Technology
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Current models rely heavily on infrastructure that is not cost effective and can not be supported in the long term. We need a new more efficient and sustainable solution. To do that we need to create a market place for water.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?An architect because they define the future.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?Accommodate decentralized water recycling. It is much more efficient, resilient, and sustainable.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?It is a human right.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.Personal accountability.
HOK Water Workshop
36
Paula KehoeSan Francisco Public Utilities CommissionWater Resource Mgmt
Paula Kehoe is Director of Water Resources for the SF Public Utilities Commission. Paula is responsible for diversifying San Francisco’s water supply through conservation, groundwa-ter, desalination, and recycled water projects. Paula also prepares the city for increased water conservation requirements and encouraging the use of alternate water sources.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply? “Use it once and throw it away” approach to water
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?Centralized systems- need for more approaches than just centralized
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.Public funding for research and development of new water technologies including testing, adoption, and pilot projects.
Patricia GonzalesDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering Stanford University
Graduate Student
Patricia is a first year PhD student working with Dr. Newsha Ajami and Prof. Dick Luthy at Stan-ford University. Her research focuses on new approaches to integrated water management in the San Francisco Bay Area in order to enhance the reliability of water supplies. Currently, Pa-tricia is evaluating the necessary decision sup-port tools, economics, and governance frame-works required for diversifying traditional water supply portfolios, as well as innovative methods for structuring effective coordination of urban water management at different scales. This is an interdisciplinary project under the NSF En-gineering Research Center for Reinventing the Nation’s Urban Water Infrastructure, in partner-ship with Stanford’s Water in the West program.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?The greatest threat is the human mentality that water is just another commodity, rather than recognizing its true value as a limited resource.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?I would partner with social scientists who could help me bridge the gap between the science and public perception when it comes to water sup-plies.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?The most beautiful aspect of water is that it doesn’t just go away, it goes through a full cycle, replenishing itself in new forms.
HOK Water Workshop
37
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Lack of understanding in the availability of water and level of consump-tion. Which activities use how much water in all aspects of life, at home, at work, for the products I buy, etc.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?Water utilities. They have an enormous potential in shaping the way we behave in relation to water consumption
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?We would recycle our wastewater to direct potable reuse, because there would be plenty of evidence shown to prove how clean the process can be.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?The ability to cleanse and renew.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.Water is a vector of both health and disease.
• Share your water story.My work centers on water, because it is a basic element for life, and its importance will never go out of style. The discrepancies between water consumption around the world are gigantic, and I hope that through my work I am able to work on solutions for all scales, and all types of people so that water scarcity is a less prevalent reality in the world.
Prentiss Darden serves as Sherwood Design Engineer’s Innovation Generalist in resilient and district scale infrastructure. As a designer, she aspires to use technology in concert with ecol-ogy to amplify and mimic the innate capabilities of natural systems to improve conditions with-in the built environment. She is interested in pursuing the use of software and hardware, as both modeling and fabrication technologies, to create a range of systems, products, and expe-riences that model, monitor, and improve eco-logical and metabolic functioning of the built environment and associated material and ener-gy flows. She has a BA in International Rela-tions from Lewis & Clark College and a Masters in Landscape Architecture from LSU.
Prentiss Darden
Engineer
Sherwood Design Engineers
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?There are too many and the question needs to be considered in context of each place. I live in Marin. Threats to my water supply are different than threats to San Francisco’s. Poor planning is certainly a ubiquitous threat
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?Someone in agriculture – Most water is consumed in the agriculture in-dustry yet this is the one area that most engineers/consultants know the least about.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?I think one of the greatest losses to our infrastructure has been the de-struction of wetlands and the loss of services they provide. I’d reverse that if I had a wish.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?Life giving. No water, no life.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.This will need some explaining, but there was a three dimensional chart I was thinking of developing with space, level of treatment, and cost as the three axes. This would help to visualize which wastewater treatment technologies should be selected or considered given various project constraints. Not sure exactly how it would work but you could develop a data man nipulation tool that enables one to visualize available options.
• Share your water story.I’m a surfer. When I was young, I would sometimes get ear infections from surfing after a storm in Malibu. There were all kinds of nasty things coming down that creek from overflowing septic systems and urban run-off. I wanted to make a difference so I studied aquatic ecology, a lot of chemistry and engineering and that’s how I ended up working with water.
Rowan Roderick-JonesARUP
Water Associate
Leader of Arup’s water practice in the US, Row-an plans and designs solutions for integrated surface water, wastewater, water supply, and ecological systems. His expertise in water supply and demand assessment, hydrologic, hydraulic and flood risk analysis, stormwater volume and quality control, ecological engi-neering, energy/water nexus modelling, and cli-mate resilience has developed through project experiences in Asia, the Middle East and North America, including numerous projects in China, where Rowan spent 6 years based in Shanghai and Hong Kong. He holds an MS in Civil and En-vironmental Engineering, a BS in Conservation and Resource Studies and a BA in Physical Ge-ography from UC Berkeley and is a Chartered Scientist through the UKs Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management.
HOK Water Workshop
38
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Ironically, the major infrastructure investments in the early 1900’s that made potable water so easily and reliably accessible that we take it com-pletely for granted, waste it, believe we are entitled to it (“we” being all classes of human users--urban & ag).
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why? A wetlands biologist, to learn more about the ecological functions and organisms that inhabit wetlands, the Delta.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?Hoar frost, snow crystals.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.Carrying it gallon by gallon from a creek, spring or lake to your home.
• • Share your water story.
Amazing experience to ski across the Sierra Nevada from east to west in spring of 2010...6 days traveling and camping on water crystals!
Sonia is an advocate for the sustainable use of water resources through public education, policy reform and progressive regulation. She obtained an architecture degree at UC Berke-ley and worked for ten years in design and urban planning, six of them in São Paulo, Brazil. There she also developed environmental education campaigns and began advocating for sustain-able water management. Back in California, an education credential led to fifteen years of teaching in Bay Area schools. Since 2007 So-nia has intensely focused on California water issues, working on campaigns at Food & Water Watch, co-chairing the Sierra Club Bay Chapter Water Committee, lobbying for graywater and rainwater harvesting legislation, and investigat-ing water pricing reform.
Sonia DiermayerSierra Club
Co-Chair, Water Committee
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Climate Change
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?Chief Marketing Officer from a Fortune 100 consumer products corpo-ration. I am interested in exploring ways introduce water innovation into mainstream, everyday thinking.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?Shift the focus to decentralized reuse and conservation strategies and technologies
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?Despite its ability to divide, water does have a unique convening pow-er. In the U.S. for example, many people who would avoid a discussion about climate change will acknowledge our water challenges and need for solutions.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.In California, we do not have a water shortage – we have a shortage of cheap water
• Share your water story.I am originally from Montana and had the fortune developing an under-standing of the region’s unique water resources and agricultural heritage at a young age. As an Economics major in college, I dedicated a large portion of my studies toward water resource management issues in rural Colorado. Thus, my primary interest in water stems from personal expe-riences in the American West. In 2010, I made a career transition from the financial services sector to run Imagine H2O’s programming. My interest in the organization’s mission originated from my own experiences with the rise (and fall) of the cleantech sector from 2002-2009. As a financial consultant advising institutional investors, I saw a lack of market understanding and associ-ated investment opportunities in the water sector. Thus, I was intrigued with Imagine H2O’s efforts to build a global ecosystem for water innova-tion and entrepreneurship.
Scott BryanImagine H2O
Director of Innovation
Scott manages Imagine H2O’s core program-ming and is responsible for building the organi-zation’s strategic partnerships. Prior to joining Imagine H2O, Scott was a financial consultant specializing in sustainable investment strat-egies for institutional and private clients at Royal Bank of Canada and Piper Jaffray. Scott originally became involved in Imagine H2O’s volunteer team in 2008 through the Full Circle Fund’s Energy and Environment Circle. Scott also serves on the advisory board of Vida Verde Nature Education in Half Moon Bay. He has a BA in Economics from the Colorado College.
HOK Water Workshop
39
Andrea Steves
FICTILISGraduate Student at UCSC Digital Arts & New Media Program
FICTILIS is the collaborative practice of An-drea Steves and Timothy Furstnau. The word “FICTILIS” is Latin for “capable of being shaped or changed; earthen”. This definition refers to the form of our practice and to the role we hope it plays within the larger culture. We work on a project basis, across many types of me-dia, genres, and disciplines, with partners and collaborators, according to the requirements of the project, in the forms of installation, ex-hibition, performance, and social practice proj-ects, and often incorporating research, writing, sound, video, interior design, curating, pop-up spaces and services, and event organizing. Our mission is to create and share work that is aesthetically, conceptually, technologically, and socially engaging.
We are inspired by creative approaches to all areas of human activity, especially those not typically positioned as “art”. We use creative curatorial practices to bring together works of widely varying origin, by people from all lev-els of experience and achievement, to create cultural experiences that are accessible to all. We seek to promote art as a sustainable and socially responsible practice, and explore the roles artwork can play in programs for positive social change.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Privatization and/or industrial processes (mining/drilling).
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?We would change the fact that present day systems utilize massive amounts of potable water to move human waste through plumbing. We use, on average, 4757 gallons of drinking water per person per year to just in our “modern” toilets to flush human waste. More water is required to keep our septic systems running and transport our waste all the way to water treatment plants fast enough. The World Health Organization recommends 5 gallons per water per person for everything - washing, cooking, drinking, etc, and we currently use about 80-100 gallons per person per day (regular toilets use about 10, low flow 5 gallons - just for flushing!)
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration. Locating human settlement near water sources: If you look at early hu-man history, humans are located near water sources.
Tim Furstnau
FICTILISGraduate Student at UCSC Digital Arts & New Media Program
Masters Degree in Water Resources Technolo-gy and Management, with 25 years’ post-grad-uate international water and environmental engineering experience. Focusing on the inte-gration of multidisciplinary teams and strong client liaison, I have managed and delivered world class major infrastructure projects. Cur-rently the Engineering Manager for a 100-mile segment of the California High Speed Rail Proj-ect. My core expertise and passion lies in the development of water strategies, integrating water supply and sanitation schemes, recycled water systems, flood hazard assessment, sus-tainability and climate change adaptation.My experience includes engagement at senior levels in government, working with communi-ty-based organizations, and all aspects of the project cycle, including proposal writing and project definition, concept design and options analysis, feasibility studies, detailed design and specifications, tendering and adjudication, and contract and program management. I have lived and worked in the USA, Mauritius, Botswana, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, the UK and Canada, traveled extensively in Africa including for projects in South Africa, Comoros and Tan-zania.
Stephen BurgesARUP
Hydrology Leader
HOK Water Workshop
40
William EisensteinCREC, Berkeley Dr. William Eisenstein is the Executive Direc-
tor of the CREC. He received his Ph.D in En-vironmental Planning and his Master’s in City Planning from UC-Berkeley. His dissertation research focused on stormwater-sensitive res-idential landscape and environmental values. His graduate career also included extensive work and writing on urban sustainability, eco-logical design, ecological economics, and re-source conservation planning.Dr. Eisenstein has also served as a consultant to the State of California’s Delta Vision process and Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, and as Director of the Delta Initiative at UC-Berke-ley. In each of these projects, he facilitated pub-lic participation processes to provide input to the state on complex resource management issues involving the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. He has also produced influential writings and consultations to the state on land use is-sues in the Delta region.He has also worked with Urban Ecology, Green-belt Alliance, the Tri-Valley Business Council and others on urban sustainability issues in the greater San Francisco Bay Area.
Executive Director of CREC
Tracy QuinnNatural Resources Defense Council
Tracy Quinn, P.E., joined Natural Resources Defense Council in the Santa Monica office in March 2011 as a Policy Analyst for the Wa-ter Efficiency Team. She has over ten years of experience as an environmental scientist and engineer and her practice areas have included water resources planning and design, pollutant fate and transport, and industrial regulatory compliance. She served as a project manager for several water resources planning reports, the design of a groundwater desalination facil-ity, and various industrial NPDES compliance studies. At NRDC, Tracy focuses primarily on California water efficiency issues relating to the implementation of water conservation reg-ulations, such as SBx7-7, and the development of new product standards.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?Apathy. In order to use this precious resource efficiently individuals not only need to be aware of the limitations of our water supply, they need to care about it, take action, and be accountable. Water quality and drought are often shown as top concerns among Californians, but there is a disconnect between the idea of water scarcity and how we use water in our daily lives. That disconnect needs to be addressed if California is to achieve sustainability.
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore water who would that be and why?I would partner with a behavioral scientist to explore improved methods for motivating individuals to be more thoughtful about their impacts on the environment.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure, what would that be and why?I would like to see our water infrastructure be more decentralized and more closely mimic the natural water cycle.
Policy Analyst, Water Efficiency Team
HOK Water Workshop
41
Bruce WolfeSF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Bruce Wolfe has been the Executive Officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board since 2003. He oversees the 120 staff of the Water Board in carrying out the Board’s mission of understanding, protecting, enhancing, and restoring the Bay and the Re-gion’s waters. Prior to his appointment, Bruce had been the Board’s division chief for imple-menting watershed management programs, including control and restoration of impacts to wetlands and streams, storm water pollution control, nonpoint source control, implementa-tion of wastewater reuse, and control of dis-charges of waste to land. Bruce started with the Water Board in 1977, and, in addition to his watershed management oversight, has overseen the Board’s drinking water well investigation program and its Super-fund and fuel leak cleanup programs, has had direct responsibility for permitting wastewater treatment plants and landfills, and developed the Board’s initial program to oversee waste-water treatment plant operations and main-tenance. Bruce is a registered professional engineer in California, and holds a B.S in Civil Engineering and an M.S. in Civil/Environmental Engineering from Stanford University.
Executive Officer
Moderator:
Josiah Cain
Participants:
Support:
Garam HannGabrielle Saponara
Statement of Work/Hypothesis:
Social:••
•
Financial:
Policy:
Technology:
Scalable:
Profitable:
Transferrable:
Implementable:•••
••••
•••
••
••••
Required inputs:
Required inputs:
Anticipated outcomes:
Required timeline:
Required stakeholders:
Moderator:
Brian Jencek
Participants:
Support:
Fumiko DockerMathew Roush
• Metric: access to resources & funding, whether public funds (tax base) or private• Metric: Water-energy nexus. Water supply must be sustainable from an energy standpoint
(energy intensive solutions are unsustainable)• Operations and maintenance is a critical part. Staff with education to maintain systems. If it’s
not maintainable, it’s not sustainable. Small towns: small operational staff can’t maintain complex systems.
• Put a value to the resource. Water rates are cheap. They don’t capture the full cost of delivery and infrastructure maintenance to the consumer/user. We undervalue water
• Cost of water use: e.g. Water in food production, from farm to table.• Education of the consumer (can we start with young people?): “daylight” water infrastructure
and real costs of transport to point of use. Integration of water knowledge in school curriculum
Chapter 1 – Putting Value to the Resource
Idea: Water Education in schools; public campaigns to educate on municipal water systemsAdd value and educate on water purity and access. Note challenges: marketing by bottled water companies competes! Fear mongering, yuck factor, the distrust of “toilet to tap”Idea: Match the quality of use to the quality of source. Separate supply streams/loops.Non-potable uses (grey water): agricultural uses. Match the use to the quality of supplyPotable: Title 22 drinking water standards (or just below drinking water standards)Challenge: Moves towards decentralized water use: can utilities get involved in decentralized water schemes?Misalignment between political will (barrier to integration) and technology (implementable now)
AWARENESS // IDEAS // IMPLEMENTATION // OPERATIONS (AND MAINTENANCE)Awareness Putting value to the resource
Building trust at an early ageIntegrating water values in the elementary curriculumBrightwater Treatment Center ‘bricks’Challenges – lobbying and scare tactics used by the bottled water industry
Tying the value of water to agriculture (cost of food) and energyEducation/Resources: Infrastructure ManagersOperations & Maintenance: local water companies must maintain!IssuesPerceived responsibility to provide food security: state agriculture, federal, local (community) competition for water resources drives political barriers to innovative water policyIdeas• Matching water qualities to uses
• Fresh, potable (Title 22) v non-potable use: treat the water to the level necessary for the use.
• Increase conservation at point of use• Tackle the competition between agriculture and urban water use – incentive sharing.• District scale resource (cost) and infrastructure sharing (eco-districts)
Statement of Work/Hypothesis: How do we shift public perception of value of water? How do we increase the value of water (higher water rates)?The true cost and value of water is not a public priority. We have an expectation of cheap water (also cheap food, energy). We must shift towards valuing water’s true cost of delivery to multiple uses, including infrastructure maintenance and
Social: Lead with water as a health issue e.g. in communities where water quality is an issue (rather than scarcity). How to impose limits, make them palatable? Incentives, or punitive measures (limited allocation, with fines, or cap and trade)? Social justice: low income families, subsidies at unit level. Human right to water.Perception and value = public info campaign
Financial: Can a local water cap and trade system be implemented? Identify finite water allocation. Increase the cost of water to ag, increase fines.
Identify and select our two best ideas for moving forward. Write a hypothesis statement about
Policy: Hierarchy:Social equity: Water is a human right. Access to safe affordable potable water guaranteed, up to a limit.Cap and trade.Sliding scale – base cost up to x gallons. Beyond this, water rates increase to capture higher water use by wealthy consumersAll other uses are below this (agriculture, industry).
Technology:Energy efficient scalable point of use.Energy efficient infrastructure for both supply and waste.
Identify and select our two best ideas for moving forward. Write a hypothesis statement about
Scalable?Transferable?Implementable?Phaseable?Flexible?
Statement of Work/Hypothesis:
Social: Media, education, art to inspire cooperation between uses. Humor. Design Competitions. School programs, curriculum integration. Seek points of intervention and ways to make ideas “stick”. Events tracking water infrastructure eg. UCSC marathon. Sewer tours. Campaign to tie individual behavior to group, promotes accountability and empowerment. Local behavior with global impacts, with empowerment action, eg. London climate change campaign. Change farmers/ag perception of water, when facing competing needs. Promotion of the local food movement as proxy for sustainable water use.
Financial: Promote water efficiency. Local food movement is surrogate for sustainable food label. Support of local food movement by the public. Incentive water use to lower costs, improve brand, Challenge: wine industry struggle with sustainable movement. Rebates and payments to farmers for water not used, or for groundwater recharge. Promote net metering for water. Promote net positive, water banking.Cap and trade ag or across uses
Identify and select our two best ideas for moving forward. Write a hypothesis statement about
Develop an artificial “water bank”, a water treatment lagoon, with combined surface storage & groundwater recharge system, that supplements the local aquifer (groundwater recharge), and augments what can be a secondary and tertiary water supply to serve multiple uses. This is co-located with a local park with native habitat with local recreational benefits.
Social: Media, education, art to inspire cooperation between uses. Humor. Design Competitions. School programs, curriculum integration. Seek points of intervention and ways to make ideas “stick”. Events tracking water infrastructure eg. UCSC marathon. Sewer tours. Campaign to tie individual behavior to group, promotes accountability and empowerment. Local behavior with global impacts, with empowerment action, eg. London climate change campaign. Change farmers/ag perception of water, when facing competing needs. Promotion of the local food movement as proxy for sustainable water use.
Financial: Funded through local bonds, funding from state/federal sources, public private partnership. Local business support.
Policy: State Law “Use it or lose it”. Increase efficiency and maintain allocation to grow more crops. Net metering for water = flood irrigation of water to recharge aquifer in winter months.Reduce, reuse, recycle, recharge (loading). Incorporate into CA law order of priorities.Revise the “use it or lose it” water allocation to a networked system of inputs/outputs
Technology: Colorado trade of groundwater rights for agriculture, w/ software to manage water rights, identify trading, economic impact. Facilitates use of water where need isProvide transparencyCreate tools (software) for point of use, whether by agriculture, urban, or environmental monitoring
Identify and select our two best ideas for moving forward. Write a hypothesis statement about
Scalable?Transferable?Implementable?Phaseable?Flexible?
Develop and promote a common “water bank”, a passive water treatment lagoon/reservoir, with combined surface storage & groundwater recharge system, that supplements the local aquifer (groundwater recharge). This augments secondary and tertiary water supply to serve multiple uses (urban, agriculture, environmental). The surrounding land is repurposed as a regional park with native habitat and recreational benefits.
Evaluate the base case water system with input and output. Capture low hanging fruit by increasing conservation measures across users (point of use efficiency). interconnections and efficiencies across the system, build feedback loops mimicking nature, and technology to self-optimize. Create a networked, integrated water system.
Financial: Funded through local bonds, water grants, increased water rates. Work with federal and state sources for funding. Increase capital inputs from agri-tourism (tie in to the local biodynamic brand). Parks and recreation gets involved.
Public private partnerships. Support from local businesses.
Increase the tourism industry: local food promotion, the entire region goes biodynamic/organic, promotes water purity. Local products: beer, fishing, wine, pot
Community biodynamic brand/identity
Policy:.Revise the “use it or lose it” water allocation to a networked system of inputs/outputsDiversify water supplies to include recycled water from the water bank.Phase in water recycling with increased public outreach and acceptance.Focus local water policy on the utilization of the water “bank” as the savings account supporting multiple future use
Technology: High efficiency irrigation.High efficiency plumbing fixtures.Internet of things: use monitoring, leak detection.Develop a community dashboard: networked metering systems that enable each type of user to monitor themselves and others. Create tools (software) for point of use, whether by agriculture, urban, or environmental monitoring. Technology supports community awareness through dashboard access at public buildings (schools, city hall, libraries, etc)
Social: a phased effort to increase acceptance of a diverse water portfolio, including recycled water supplies.Promotion thru local and external branding effortsIncrease the tourism industry: local food promotion, the entire region goes biodynamic/organic, promotes water purity.Community biodynamic brand/identityCulture: Environmental promotion through cultural brandingBackyardIncorporate in local school curriculum. Town history, environmental stewardship, promote locally based curriculum.Promotion of public health: Wellness promotion, increased longevity, well-being
Required inputs:In order to create a “water bank” that supports multiple uses:Determine the base case of current water usage by different consumers: agriculture, urban (residential, industrial, power), and environmental. From the base case, determine where efficiencies can be made, from a point of use (high efficiency fixtures, distribution systems, irrigation systems) to a systems efficiency standpoint.Increase efficiency across the board.Create an integrated network of water capture, storage and treatment where all inputs are monitored in real-time by monitoring and distributed network systems
Required stakeholders:Local government & public agencies – includes drinking water and waste water departmentsLocal schoolsBusiness groupsAgricultural usesCommunity membersEnvironmental groupsDaylight formerly underground agricultural uses – pot growers
Required timeline:Now: establish the base case of water usage, current water portfolio,.Near-term: low-hanging fruit: increase water efficiency with available conservation technologies.Mid-term: Long-term:
Anticipated outcomes: Increased tourism, industry (beer), increased fishing, improved identity, promotion of sustainable agriculture.Improved top soil
Effort
Cost ($)
Energy in
tensity
Water production
Moderator:
Lynn Filar
Participants:
Support:
Ellen FusonJustin Kelly
• Do you have right to use water? Where is the water committed?• What is the quality of the water – what does the quality need to be?
• Santa Cruz water mapping: http://people.ucsc.edu/~mjamieso/
• Identify problems and users, then develop portfolio of solutions that might apply to the situation at hand• Demand management might be the most cost effective • Graywater – does it make sense when it is going to direct or indirect potable reuse. The solutions are interconnected
depending on need.• Important to know use profile
• What is in the water and how can the nutrients be reused so they are not lost in the process?
• OBJECTIVES:• Actionable items for water security and resilience• Decrease in energy use associated with water – and reduce green house gas emissions• Creation of toolkit for the municipalities to potentially execute• May drive policy
• PROBLEM STATEMENT:• How to create water scarcity and resilience?
• Water Supply• Waste Water• Surface (rain water harvesting, green roof)• Ecosystems
• What are synergies between them? Waste supply supplies waste water, reducing water demand has synergistic relationship with water supply, etc.
• Systems approach helps identify gaps in policy, hopefully we can learn how to bridge disconnects in our policy.
• River restoration could replenish groundwater, could positively impact ecosystems, and social benefits.• Untapped Potential - NRDC document• Demand management
SURFACE MANAGEMENT:• Rainwater harvesting: roof, street, space, reservoir, catchment scales, and improving permeability.• Improving permeability reintroduces water to the aquifer• Look at reasons for management need: Water quality, flood control, property protection, pollution mgmt. • Codes are based on getting rid of and controlling water. Designers have traditionally been discouraged to manage
water on site.• Rethink the policy issue so that managing water is a positive and necessary. Rethink it as resource and a supply, not
something to discard. • If we have 1% for art, perhaps we can have a goal of 10% for water management• Results driven goals for retaining.
FRAMEWORK:Social, Policy, Technology, Funding
FILTERS:• Energy consumption and use – Green house gases• Connect behaviors to use by establishing metrics and making them visible• Ecosystem considerations and use to inform treatment levels• FIT FOR PURPOSE
STRATEGIES:• Ways Surface Mgmt can recharge the water supply:• Improve permeability: rain barrels, soil• River Restoration• Direct recycling• Direct potable reuse• Groundwater recharge• Land application: treat to secondary standards then discharge to environment • De-channelize as a specific type of restoration• Local retention• Capturing surface water• Education, awareness, changing habits, investment: create opportunities for consumer action to promote social
change. WaterSmart software helps consumers understand water use and bill. • Sub-metering units, old infrastructure are most inefficient in SF
WATER RECYCLING:
• Examine as potential viable options• Could be further down chain because of cost, energy, policy• But what can be done? How can we improve water recycling's efficiency?
WATER SCARCITY RESPONSE:• Demand reduction• Alternative Supply• PORTFOLIO BASED APPROACH• Recycling depends on policy, technology
• Focus on reuse in order to frame conversation and investigate potentially untapped resources• Recycling could be larger or smaller part, recognizing a portfolio of approached goes into addressing water resiliency.
Statement of Work/Hypothesis:
• A portfolio based solution to water scarcity will be the most comprehensive approach based on level of service goal.
• Water recycling is an aspect of this portfolio and we are investigating barriers and solutions to implementation.
Water Recycling:• Centralized
• Purple Pipe/non-potable reuse• Recharge Aquifer/indirect potable reuse• Direct potable reuse
• Treatment (Bio, MD, RO , Advanced Oxidation (UV,H03) • On Site (building scale)
• Gray water reuse• De-centralized (district scale)
TESTS TO DETERMINE APPLICATION:• Do you have the right to use the water?• What are the potential local uses? Define the “who”• What is proximity to uses?
Social• Perception how to change dialogue from toilet to tap
• Education through empowerment: competition, feedback to reveal impact• Map infrastructure to ethic• Promote savings through passive actions which is easier to control than behavioral changes. • “Clean” fork as analogy for confused perceptions. • Necessary PR campaign.
Financial• System cost is barrier to recycling implementation• Public & private partnerships• Initial (private) investment to install infrastructure and repayment takes place over time through water
rates.• How does community size impact ROI?• Reduce demand could eliminate treatment.
Technology• MFROARP• Alternative treatments without producing brine: Ozone/ biofiltration/disinfection to lead to pathogen load
reduction• Still need infrastructure to support fire management, minority of water being treated in plant is being
consumed
Policy• No current regulation that allows for direct potable reuse. • Is there a crisis enactment for endangered communities?• Monitoring may not be cost effective
Policy• Do we own rights to use?• Status of current legislation• Sewer mining policy• Health and safety policy for recycled and residential (indoor) reuse
Financial• System cost is barrier to recycling implementation
Technology• Energy costs• Infrastructure
Social• Perception: “yuck factor” that once it is contaminated it is always contaminated• Social injustice and imbalance of non-essential uses• Return of investment on stewardship mentality
• Articulate goals of community• Understand policy statements• Establish requirements of goals. (costs, etc.)• Discover feasibility of goals
Required stakeholders:• Researchers• Local Stakeholders• Mayor• Water/Energy Utilities• NGO’s• Business Community• Designers
Required timeline:Crisis situation will require more short term solutionsTimeline will be longer for long term goal
Anticipated outcomes:• Ensure water security for small communities
What is current use? (Water demand assessment)
Who? How Much? What for?
Is this a crisis?
See table on next page
Yes! No!
Are customers using water efficiently?
Yes!No!
Investigate new supplies(Supply Assessment)
Investigate Demand Reduction Strategies
Will supply meet demand?
Yes!
No!
StormwaterDesalinateRecycled WaterImport Water (trucking, pipelines)Unused Local Resources (i.e. groundwater)Storage
Have you maximized efficiencies of existing systems?
Yes!No!
*Crisis Solutions (10-15 years) vs. emergency solutions
Time Cost VolumeAvailable
Reliability Obligation Additional
benefits
Impact by climate change
Other risks
Green-house gas
emissions
Trucking
Pipelines
Groundwater
Storage
Recycling
Desalination
StormwaterRecapture
Weight Criteria appropriatelyRank recommendations – determine approval processImplementLong Term Monitoring• Demands• Quality• Behavior• Reliability• Perceptions
LONG TERM WATER SOLUTION
Analyze General Plan• Future Demands• Policy StatementsLocal Ecology
Who are the Stakeholders?• Researchers• Local Stakeholders• Mayor• Water/Energy Utilities• NGO’s• Business Community• Designers• Financiers
Validate Plan• Is it still appropriate?
1. Brainstorm new strategies2. Development Monitoring Plan
What are the necessary roles?• Decision-makers• Policy/political influencers• Community Education/PR
Plan for growth, and how water fits into development
• Individual Action• Humor/public embarrassment
• #droughtshaming• Publicizing water use records
• Competition – requires instant feedback• Micro-metering• End-use metering• Water sensors similar to bio-sensors
• Impacts of diets (breadth of change)
• Consider wastewater discharges to ocean to be “Waste and unreasonable use”
• Net Zero/Positive Development• Bottled water tax
• Crowd-sourcing innovation• On-Site design:
• Permeable landscape• Water Retaining landscapes
• De-Centralized Treatment• Currents/Very large bags• Fog harvesting/kites
• Crowd-sourcing
Moderator:
Marc Arnold
Participants:
Support:
Matthew FulvioChris Gardini
• Define our table goals• Supply side • Demand Side
• Springfield Valley$• They hold during dry season• Optimize the hold• Misalignment between best tech solution and regulatory solution
• Political will, lack of. Informed change.• Stimulate water production.• Real time monitoring of quality.
• Can this be an advantage? • Yountville – ponds for irrigating vin• Balance domestic vs agriculture• Advanced treatment to augment reservoir vs direct reuse • Small towns have limited technical resources. Outside help required. Public
private partnership required for Cent. Solution.
• Conservation First? • Behavior aspect• Create appropriate landscaping• Fixture solutions • Compost toilets
• What is the water budget???• Inform the consumer• Where does the water go?
• Match water sources with end use.• Rainwater – source
• Large storage required –too large?• Not our focus• 5000gl per home - is there space? Where? Innovative solutions?
• For the design community – challenge.
• Household – source – no storage required? • Direct grey water reuse.• Is access to help available? Yes but slow? Rebate?• People are stubborn.• How do you get people to adopt these solutions?
• Realign revenue template – price of water? • Price must go up• Restructure required• Keep people informed
• Decentralized solutions? Household scale? Utilize rainwater reduce greywater
• Smart water tanks? • Can they have multiple functions?
• Don’t be constrained by current technology
• Mini Districts. • Black water reuse advantage no storage required.• Purple pipe (not needed)• What are nodes? • What are the definitions • Palatable transition for utilities • Staffing? Who should be in charge? • Developers?• Cost benefit analysis• What about the agriculture
•
••••••••••
•••
•••••
•••••
•••••
Statement of Work/Hypothesis: Mini District
District scale potable reuse (implemented by utility) and house scale (home owner) coupled with rainwater/greywater collection and reuse. The district scale treatment happens in a “house” that doubles as a water community center.
Social:The district scale treatment happens in a “house” that doubles as a water community center. Opportunity to bind neighborhoods together towards common goals.
Financial: Utility charge and manages funds. Lower buy in for Mini District option. The ability to grow as financing become available. (scalable). Minimal piping infrastructure investment compared to purple pipe solution.
Policy:Transparent. Public involved in decision making process. Community buy in required.State regulation will be in place by 2016.
Technology: Sewage flows to Mini district plant and is treated to potable standards and then sent back out into the community. Technology exists is used in other cities.
Required inputs:What are their water losses? What are the shortfalls of the current system? Composition of usage? Per capita indoor Outdoor water use Major industry Prospects for growth? Master plan validate or conduct. Site? Community engagement In what communities does this make senseAffordable optionPolitical limits. How do we get the community to take the fist step. What is the function of the community center?
• Mobile home park• College • Military base• Resort community
Required inputs:• Search for the community
• Wealthy • Motivated • No other options• NGO partner • Interested government partners • Utility cooperation • Served by a large utility
• Community Structure• Demographics • Income • Future growth • Ability to take on debt
• Utility assets and capabilities• Water usage • Waste output • Human resources• Conditions of the assets• Ability to take on debt
• Real data on hydrological conditions
• Mobile home park• College • Military base• Resort community
Anticipated outcomes:• Supports natural hydrological cycle. • They want to expand beyond pilot• Liberation from drought cycle. • Reduces growth constraints on town• Property values go up• Green community reputation
• RISKS• Not affordable • Technical failure • Community backlash – lack of acceptance• Long implementation time
Required timeline:• Identify the Advocate• Political groundwork, NGO advocate • Conduct outreach• Create community partners• Community workshops• Plant the seed• Leverage available resources• Work-shopping by neighborhoods• empower communities to make their own• Identify funding opportunities
• IRWMP (integrated regional water management planning) • Identify vendors• Demonstration project at small scale (100)
• Built as non potable but convertible to DPR as early as regulations change• Train for operation and maintenance
• Community buy in • Statewide regulation in process, • Feasibility study• Study impacts on receiving water• Expand to full size module (1000)• Convince government that this is a solution for all communities
Required stakeholders: • Utility• City government• Community leaders• State regulator• Chamber of commerce• Media• County government• leader of the target neighborhood• Advocacy• vendor community• contractors regional experts• NGO
Notes From the Group:1. Overkill? Is this too much for the community in question.
Is a solution to this a matrix approach? Hammer looking for a nail? Reframed question for a predetermined solutionNeed more data for a real tech solution. Innovation was a priority
2. Better solutions when projects seek solutions rather than vice versaleads to a lack of issue identification.
