HomeMy WebLinkAboutBusiness Plan DPR December 2013WATE USE WATE USE
CALIFORNIA H
A SPECIAL INITIATIVE: ADVANCING DIRECT POTABLE REUSE (DPR)
AS A PART OF THE SOLUTION TO CALIFORNIA'S WATER SUPPLY CHALLENGES
Business Plan 2012 — 2016
Vision
Where direct potable reuse is widespread across California, and is a viable option for consideration by any water
utility
Goals
To establish direct potable reuse as a water supply option that can be implemented by water utilities based on
economic considerations
Objective
To remove by 2016 regulatory, scientific, technical, and attitudinal barriers to direct potable reuse, through rigorous
scientific research; communicating the resulting findings and data through awareness programs; and, working with
regulatory authorities to facilitate implementation of direct potable reuse (DPR) based on economic considerations
Key Strategies
1. Define the agenda of research needed, building upon current pathways for implementing DPR
2. Raise new funds from interested and benefitting parties, dedicated to this program
3. Commission research studies and White Papers, based upon determined priorities
4. Utilize findings to develop communications /education /awareness programs
5. Recruit constituent partners to disseminate messages and coalesce support for DPR
6. Develop advocacy agenda and programs aimed at legislators, regulatory officials, local boards, and other
influencers
7. Establish technical and practice recommendations for local water utilities to adapt and adopt DPR
December 2013
Timing
June 2012 — until funding goals reached
June 2012 — until completion
January 2013 — May 2013
June 2013 — August 2013
September 2013 — June 30, 2015
July 2014 -- December 31, 2014
January 2015 — December 31, 2015
Background
Solicitation of constituent prospects
Advocacy outreach and policy guidance
Research Agenda Formulated; RFP process organized
RFP for research projects and award of White Paper grants
Research conducted
Educational /awareness programs developed
PR programs launched with partner groups
The following facts provide the challenge to act and the opportunity to succeed:
1. California has adopted a goal of increasing the use of recycled water from approximately 0.65 million acre -
feet per year (MAF /year), to 1.5 MAF /year by 2020, and then to 2.5 MAF /year by 2030 — approximately a
four -fold increase over the next 18 years. California discharges 3.5 MAF /year to the ocean, so sufficient water
is available to meet the recycling goal. However, this goal cannot be attained through the existing reliance on
non - potable reuse since non - potable demand that can be feasibly served with a separate (and expensive)
"purple pipe" distribution system is of insufficient magnitude to reach the State's recycling goals. Indirect
potable reuse (IPR) is currently a source for water utilities that serve over seven million Californians, but IPR
relies on groundwater recharge or surface water augmentation, which is infeasible in many parts of California
due to unsuitable hydrogeology, groundwater contamination, and lack of surface water reservoirs. Potable
reuse uses less energy than importing water and seawater desalination. The State's second largest city (San
Diego) and other cities are considering direct potable reuse to supplement and stabilize their existing water
supplies.
2. Furthermore, a bill passed by the CA Legislature in 2010 (SB x7 -7) aims to reduce urban water use by 20%
and requires water use efficiency measures in the agricultural sector through a combination of
requirements, compliance measures, and incentives. Water for agriculture is key to California's economy —
especially with demand for food production projected to increase by 50% by 2050. SB x7 -7 encourages water
recycling as a water use efficiency measure by counting every gallon of recycled water used to offset use of
other supplies as a gallon counted toward the 20% goal.
3. California Senate Bill 918 (SB 918) was signed into law on September 30, 2010 and was sponsored by
WateReuse California and Planning and Conservation League. It provides funding and a process for the
California Department of Public Health (DPH) to 1) adopt regulations for indirect potable reuse for
groundwater recharge by December 31, 2013; 2) adopt regulations for surface water augmentation by
December 31, 2016, if an expert panel convened pursuant to the bill finds that the criteria would adequately
protect public health; and 3) report to the legislature by December 31, 2016, on the feasibility of developing
direct potable reuse.
In addition, this initiative is also based on the results of the following efforts already undertaken by the water reuse
community:
2
December 2013
• NWRI White Paper on Regulatory Aspects of Direct Potable Reuse in California, prepared by James Crook,
Ph.D., P.E., and sponsored by the National Water Research Institute, April 2010.
• Direct Potable Reuse Workshop — Workshop Report, prepared and sponsored by the California Urban Water
Agencies, National Water Research Institute, and WateReuse California, September 10, 2010.
• Direct Potable Reuse: A Path Forward, prepared by George Tchobanoglous, Harold Leverenz, Margaret Nellor,
and James Crook, and sponsored by the WateReuse Research Foundation and WateReuse California,
February 2011.
• Water Reuse: Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater, National
Research Council, Water Science & Technology Board, January 2012.
What WateReuse Expects to Accomplish
Interest in DPR — the introduction of highly treated recycled water into a potable water supply distribution system or
into a raw water supply immediately upstream of a water treatment plant — is increasing because of diminishing
potable water supplies, difficulty in expanding the use of non - potable water in communities in California, the success
of large indirect potable reuse (IPR) projects (Tchobanoglous et al., 2011), and challenges facing the discharge of
wastewater effluent into the environment. The National Research Council's Water Science & Technology Board
evaluated potable reuse (NAS, 2012) and found that 1) engineered processes can provide public health protection on
par with currently - permitted natural barrier systems, and 2) the risk of contaminant exposure in the two planned
potable reuse scenarios does not exceed the risk encountered from existing water supplies, and may be orders of
magnitude lower. As a result, the use of DPR as a water supply alternative is receiving greater interest as an approach
to augment potable water supplies and maximize recycled water use.
The implementation of DPR would occur on a case -by -case basis, taking into consideration site - specific
environmental and economic factors (Tchobanoglous et al., 2011). The decision to pursue DPR will involve factors
associated with IPR in addition to other considerations specific to DPR.
For communities that have limited groundwater recharge or reservoir augmentation options, DPR may offer the only
approach to large -scale recycled water use. Other drivers include: the technologies to purify wastewater are well
established; DPR may offer a cost - effective approach to diversifying a water portfolio; DPR may require less energy
than other alternatives; and DPR avoids potential water quality issues associated with groundwater and surface
water sources (Tchobanoglous et al., 2011; NAS, 2012).
DPR would provide communities with another viable water supply alternative to increase water supply, diversify
water portfolios, and provide maximum flexibility in managing water supply choices.
Core Programmatic Activities Under This Initiative
• Core programmatic activities to be undertaken include the following: Outreach and Education
• Technical Research
3
December 2013
Each is described below.
Outreach and Education
Outreach and education of key stakeholder groups is needed. Key stakeholders groups include legislators, regulators,
water professionals, water agency and other key regional policy- makers, environmental advocates, and ratepayers.
Education and outreach will take different forms depending on the targeted stakeholder group(s). For purposes of
this plan, the education and outreach effort is divided into two parts: regulatory /legislative and other stakeholders.
The regulatory /legislative effort follows the model established by SB 918, which charges DPH with responsibility for
evaluating the feasibility of DPR. The technical research program described in the next section is designed to meet
DPH's needs in this regard. A regulatory /legislative outreach effort is needed to establish a liaison between the
program and DPH to ensure that research is conducted and other activities undertaken in a manner consistent with
DPH needs and obligations under SB 918. This liaison effort is expected to include meetings and possibly funding for
and facilitation of expert panels to be convened to advise DPH.
To assist the State meet its goals for additional recycling through additional potable reuse, including DPR, changes to
State regulations and statute are needed. An initial list of barriers to such recycling and some possible solutions have
been identified by WateReuse California, and barriers /solutions related to potable reuse are as follows:
Barrier
Solution
1. Water Board regulation of recycled water projects
Clarify in statute that no RWB permit or approval is
with no Basin Plan nexus and /or minimal water
needed for tertiary recycled water use in settings in
quality impacts.
which recycled water is not discharged to land,
The only current permitting structure for recycled
surface water or groundwater, such as industrial
water exists in Porter Cologne. As a result, the
uses. Clarify that permitting authority rests with the
Regional Water Boards (RWBs) regulate all recycled
local building official in consultation with CDPH. Rely
water uses regardless of the nexus with or impact
on DPH's existing fee - for - service authority to fund
on beneficial uses. The requirement to secure
this if possible.
permit coverage from the RWBs, while
Move ATPW from Porter Cologne to a division
simultaneously complying with more relevant
dedicated to ATPW and establish DPH as the
public health requirements, represents an
permitting authority for potable reuse projects (right
unnecessary burden and cost on water end users,
now these are all groundwater recharge) which use
recycling agencies, and RWBs. One example is
ATPW because of limited potential for water quality
indoor industrial reuse, where the RWBs generally
degradation and strong interface with the potable
issue permits for uses that are entirely within the
water supply. Write this language broadly enough to
regulatory sphere of the plumbing code and Titles
cover raw water augmentation projects (discussed in
17/22 of the California Code of Regulations.
bullet 3 below) so they can be accommodated when
Another example is potable reuse with ATPW,
regulations are developed.
where the level of treatment (which is appropriate
Establish a procedure for RWB review of ATPW
for the planned reuse as domestic water supply)
projects with a Basin Plan nexus to assure that the
effectively results in a product that will not
project is protective of identified beneficial uses.
adversely impact water quality or beneficial uses.
4
December 2013
Barrier
Solution
2. Current law (as established by SB 918, enacted in
Distinguish between raw and treated water
2010) does not distinguish between "raw water
augmentation with ATPW (both were called "direct
augmentation" and potable reuse, which limits
potable reuse" in SB 918).
project development.
Authorize DPH to permit raw water augmentation
Raw water augmentation, which would allow ATPW
and develop regulations only if criteria are
to be blended with raw water sources upstream of
recommended by an expert panel.
drinking water treatment plants is considered
between DPR and IPR; the role of natural treatment and environmental buffers in
"direct potable reuse" under SB 918, when in fact,
public acceptance; opposition to DPR; why the public accepts DPR.
this practice could be implemented with multiple
• Develop survey questions and perform the survey.
barriers on par with indirect potable reuse projects.
• Use agreed -upon terminology and information obtained from stakeholder surveys.
The estimated cost of this activity through 2016 is $850,000.
An outreach and education program to address other stakeholder groups is expected to address the following needs:
Research Need
Description
1. Develop
• Develop water recycling terminology that is understandable by stakeholders and
Appropriate
consistent with regulations to instill credibility and product confidence.
Terminology
. Examples where the resolution of key terms is needed include product water, non -
potable reuse, and DPR versus IPR.
2. Survey
• Identify stakeholders.
Stakeholders
. Determine the purpose of surveys. For example, how the public differentiates
between DPR and IPR; the role of natural treatment and environmental buffers in
public acceptance; opposition to DPR; why the public accepts DPR.
• Develop survey questions and perform the survey.
3. Develop
• Use agreed -upon terminology and information obtained from stakeholder surveys.
Messages
. Identify the audience (which should include supporters, opponents, the water reuse
community, the water community).
• Identify key objectives and the content of messages.
4. Develop a
• Determine when to initiate outreach so that efforts are proactive and consider all
Communications
supply alternatives.
Strategy
• Incorporate experience learned from successful and unsuccessful potable reuse
projects and other critical factors.
• Identify the types of information and methods of communication that will be most
useful.
• Identify strategies for community leaders /decision makers and the press.
• Identify strategies to work with opponents.
5. Implement the
• Use the information developed by the prior tasks to implement elements of the
Communications
Communications Strategy that are not project- specific.
Strategy
The Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence (AWRCE) has undertaken a project to develop a "National
Demonstration Education and Engagement Program" (NDEEP). The goal of the $10 million project is that key
5
December 2013
stakeholders in Australia see recycled water as acceptable 'alternative water' for augmenting drinking water supplies.
The NDEEP is expected to support successful public engagement and addresses stakeholder concerns through the
provision of contemporary scientific information on water recycling for drinking purposes. The project is managed by
the University of New South Wales. The NDEEP is expected to provide valuable information that can be used to
further the California DPR initiative.
The estimated cost of this programmatic area is $1.3 million.
Technical Research
Five technical research topics were developed in the Direct Potable Reuse: A Path Forward study and 14 were
identified in the NAS report. These research topics are the basis of the science and technology component of the
DPR Development Program. Once these research areas are completed, the knowledge base would be available to
support DPH's evaluation of DPR pursuant to SB 918 and potentially to design and develop operating plans for
proposed DPR projects. SB 918 requires DPH to convene a panel of experts to provide technical advice regarding the
feasibility of DPR. Since a goal of the DPR Initiative is to provide the necessary research to support the feasibility
evaluation, input from the panel to confirm the needed technical research is considered necessary.
Key technical research has been initiated based on the Direct Potable Reuse: A Path Forward study and NAS studies
and consultation with DPH and technical experts pending formal review by the SB 918 panel. These research projects
currently in progress and planned for 2013 are as follows:
0
December 2013
Budget and
Research Project Title
Funding Mix
DPR Projects Launched Prior to the California DPR Initiative (2011— early 2012)
Monitoring for Reliability and Process Control of Potable Reuse
$400,000 by WRRF
Applications (WRRF 11 -01)
$1,450,000 by Research Team
Equivalency of Advanced Treatment Trains for Potable Reuse
$375,000 by WRRF
(WRRF 11 -02)
$868,000 by Research Team
Evaluation of Risk Reduction Principles for Direct Potable Reuse
$232,814 by WRRF
(WRRF 11 -10)
$87,000 by Research Team
Guidelines for Engineered Storage Systems (WRRF 12 -06)
$100,000 Award Pending
$1,107,814 by WRRF (pre -DPR Initiative)
Total Funding Applied Before the DPR Initiative Was Launched
$2,005,000 by Research Team
$3,112,814 combined total
0
December 2013
Scheduled DPR Research Projects (formulated in late 2012 and board - approved in early 2013)
Integrated Management of Sensor Data for Real -Time
$250,000
Decision Making
Model Public Communications Plan for Advancing Direct
$300,000
Potable Reuse (DPR) Acceptance
CCP Assessment to Quantify Robustness and Reliability of
$250,000
Multiple Treatment Barriers of DPR Scheme
Evaluation of Source Water Control Options and the Impact
$100,000
of Selected Strategies on Direct Potable Reuse (DPR)
Blending Requirements for Water from DPR
$100,000
Treatment Facilities
DPR Demonstration Project
$2,100,000
Packed Bed Removal of Organic Oxidation Products from an
$175,000
RO -AOP Treatment Trains
Total Planned Funding:
$3,275,000
Total of Scheduled Research Funding
$4,382,814 budgeted by WRRF in FY2013
(FY2013 commitments; does not include future funds to be
$2,005,000 scheduled from contractors 2013
remitted through this DPR Initiative)
$6,387,814 combined total budgeted
Roles
WateReuse Research Foundation
The mission of the WateReuse Research Foundation is to conduct and promote applied research on the reclamation,
recycling, reuse, and desalination of water. The Research Foundation is an educational, nonprofit public benefit
501(c)(3) corporation that conducts applied research on behalf of the water and wastewater community for the
purpose of advancing the science of water reuse, recycling, reclamation, and desalination.
The Foundation's research covers a broad spectrum of issues, including chemical contaminants, microbiological
agents, treatment technologies, salinity management, public perception, economics and marketing. The Foundation's
research supports communities across the United States and abroad in their efforts to create new sources of high
quality water while protecting public health and the environment.
It is the only "water non - profit" organization focused exclusively on water recycling and desalination, and after 12
years of facilitating academic style independent research (141+ projects launched; 75 still active) exclusively on the
science of water reuse, it is uniquely qualified to lead, manage and direct new scientific ventures into IPR and DPR.
7
December 2013
Additionally, with its privileged relationship with California water agencies and their allies that facilitate much of the
nation's water reuse history, the WateReuse Research Foundation is the natural choice to execute this program, and
can ensure appropriate treatment of California's unique situation and needs.
The WateReuse Research Foundation will be responsible for technical and public acceptance research with input
from WateReuse California.
As a hallmark of this program and plan, WRRF will utilize its process and structures for soliciting proposals for original
research, the evaluation of submissions, and the commissioning /contracting of awards to investigators and
consultants. The Foundation's Research Advisory Committee (RAC), composed of a cross section of academic,
technical and operational experts, will formulate RFPs, White Paper criteria, and their issuance. With each proposal
submission for research or expert analyses, separate Project Advisory Committees (PACs) will be formed, using
scoring tools and evaluative processes to ensure rigorous evaluation and fair selection of prospective awards.
Research contracts will be awarded using agreement templates calling for measurable deliverables, budget discipline,
and periodic reporting and adherence to proposal objectives.
WateReuse California
The mission of the California Section of the WateReuse Association, a nonprofit organization, is to promote the
responsible stewardship of California's water resources by maximizing the safe, practical, and beneficial use of
recycled water and by supporting the efforts of the of WateReuse Association. Outreach is a key aspect of the
mission of WateReuse California at the state and local levels. As such, WateReuse California is actively engaged in
working with appointed and elected officials to affect both regulations and legislation that will move recycled water
projects forward in a streamlined manner. WateReuse California also provides our membership with expert
testimony to support local projects that are consistent with our mission, as well as assists new, existing, and
challenging water recycling projects.
WateReuse California will be responsible for implementing the education and outreach component and providing
input to technical and public acceptance research.
National Water Research Institute
The National Water Research Institute (NWRI) is expected to be a valuable partner in non - advocacy elements of this
effort, including convening panels of experts consistent with SB 918. NWRI, along with WateReuse California, will
play a particular close and technical role working with California Department of Public Health (CDPH), including the
development of their needs, the formation of the expert panels, their public education and dissemination
requirements, and the next steps to developing subordinate regulations and legislation needed to meet the goals for
feasibility of DPR.
Other Organizations
The Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Research Foundation, and the Water
Environment Research Foundation may consider some of the needed research to be within their traditional areas of
interest and, if so, partnerships will be formed to conduct research for our mutual benefit.
0
December 2013
Funding — Financial Requirements
The following table summarizes the estimated cost of the three program areas:
Program Area
Estimated Cost Through 2016
($ millions)a
Education and Outreach
Regulatory /Legislation
$0.85
Other stakeholders
1.30
Future and Additional Technical research
$3.85b
Total
$6 .00a
a These are estimates; the December 2012 research planning workshop identified many millions
more needed to undertake all 22 identified research topics. Numbers subject to change as
preliminary research yields new opportunities and as the regulatory and political climate evolves.
b The total estimated cost of technical research is $6.25 million, and the WateReuse Research
Foundation estimated share of this is $3.85 million, with the balance provided by research project
participants. This estimate does not reflect input from DPH.
We have estimated that $6 million would be the minimum required to undertake this initiative in all aspects — a body
of original research; launching public awareness programs; and a coordinated track of outreach and engagement
with key officials and interested parties. This is a minimum; of course, public relations and education campaigns can
consume many millions more by themselves. Accordingly, we have established as a goal $10 million as needed to
ensure full implementation of the plans with the highest quality and completeness.
The estimated start -up requirement of $6 million is designed to be "new money' — newly derived funds above and
beyond annual dues and fees paid by members to the sponsoring organizations. External funding from companies,
professional firms, philanthropists, and private foundations is welcome and will be sought.
The base $6 million (estimated need) would be sought from four primary sources:
• 20 -30+ major public water agencies in California;
• 10 -15 consulting engineering firms doing business in the water reuse industry; and
• The California Water Foundation in the form of a matching grant;
• Private foundations and philanthropists, water technology and equipment manufacturers, and other
companies using or impacting water in their business operations.
The fundraising plan calls for, first, water agencies to support the initiative by providing approximately $2 million,
which will hopefully convince the California Water Foundation to provide matching funds, or a seven - figure grant.
Together, with these standards of giving, we will approach CEOs of major consulting engineering firms and ask them
to provide $2 million as their "fair share," taking into account the fact that they would benefit by a) conducting some
9
December 2013
of the research and b) being awarded future design /build /operate contracts which will result from DPR
implementation. External prospects, motivated by such "internal" leadership, would be asked to donate a like
aggregate amount. We believe we can secure $2 million from large strategic foundations in the State focused on
water issues, and an additional $4 million from private philanthropists who care about environmental, resource, and
development issues pertaining to California.
In order to be successful overall, we need a number of pledges from water agencies at the six - figure level
($100,000 +), and from consulting engineering firms, we need several pledges at the $250,000+ level as well as a host
of others at six - figures. These are the standards of giving needed to ensure $6 million and up to $10 million is raised.
To date, progress in reaching out to water agencies has been good, shown as follows:
PLEDGES CONFIRMED BY BOARDS OR BY AUTHORITY OF GMs
Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. California (Jeffrey Kightlinger, Debra Man) $500,000
Dublin San Ramon Services District (Bert Michalczyk /David Requa)
$150,000
Water Replenishment District of SoCal (Robb Whitaker)
$110,000
South Orange County Agencies (c /o Joone Lopez)
$108,000
Moulton Niguel, El Toro, Santa Margarita, South Coast,
Laguna Beach County, Trabuco Canyon, San Clemente
Orange County Water District (Mike Markus)
$100,000
West Basin Municipal Water District (Rich Nagel)
$100,000
Santa Clara Valley Water District (Jim Fiedler)
$100,000
Eastern Municipal Water District (Paul Jones)
$100,000
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Grace Robinson Chan)
$100,000
Orange County Sanitation District (Robert Ghirelli /James Ferryman)
$ 50,000
Western Municipal Water District (John Rossi)
$ 50,000
Irvine Ranch Water District (Paul Cook)
$ 50,000
City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department (David Guhin)
$ 50,000
Sonoma County Water Agency (Grant Davis)
$ 50,000
Three Valleys Municipal Water District (Richard Hansen)
$ 50,000
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (Shane Chapman)
$ 50,000
City of San Diego Water Deaprtment ( Marsi Streirer, Amy Dorman)
$ 50,000
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District (Dan Pedersen)
$ 50,000
Delta Diablo Sanitation District (Gary Darling)
$ 40,000
Marin Municipal Water District (Larry Russell, Krishna Kumar)
$ 30,000
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (Norris Brandt)
$ 25,000
Town of Windsor, CA (Richard Burtt)
$ 20,000
Burbank Water & Power (Ronald Davis, Bill Mace)
$ 20,000
Los Angeles Dept. of Public Works (Adam Ariki)
$ 20,000
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation District (Mark Williams)
$ 20,000
10
December 2013
City of Pleasanton, CA (Daniel J. Smith) $ 10,000
Rancho California Water District (Matthew G. Stone) $ 10,000
Castaic Lake Water Agency (Dan Masnada) $ 10,000
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation Dist. (Prabhakar Somavarapu) 10,000
TOTAL COMMITMENT FROM WATER AGENCIES: $2,033,000
REQUESTS MADE —Attended Leadership Dinner and /or Received Individual Briefings
San Diego County Water Authority (Maureen Stapleton, Toby Roy)
City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation (Enrique Zaldivar)
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control District (Keith Israel)
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Don Berger)
Helix Water District (Mark Umphres)
Padre Dam Municipal Water District (Allen Carlisle)
San Alijo Joint Powers Authority Water Reclamation (Michael Thornton)
Ventura Water (Shana Epstein)
TOTAL POTENTIAL REPRESENTED IN REQUESTS MADE: $200,000+
REMAINING MAJOR AGENCIES — Those We Need to Solicit
San Jose Water Company
El Dorado County Water Agency
Long Beach Water Department
Estero Municipal Improvement District
City of San Diego Public Utilities, Water Ops
Fairfield Public Works Water Division
City of San Jose Environmental Services
Foster City Public Works
Fresno Department of Public Utilities
Ramona Municipal Water District
Golden State Water Company
The Amador Water Agency
Goleta West Sanitary District
Anaheim Public Utilities
Hi- Desert Water District
Apple Valley Ranchos Water Companies
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
Azusa Light & Water
Imperial Irrigation District
Bolinas Community Public Utility District
Lassen Municipal Utility District
California Water Service Company
Lodi
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Mammoth Community Water District
Camarillo Sanitary District
Marina Coast Water District
Camrosa Water District
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Merced Irrigation District
Carmichael Water District
Modesto Irrigation District
Central Basin Municipal Water District
Mojave Water Agency
Central Coast Water Authority
Montecito Water District
Chino Basin Watermaster
Monterey Park Public Works
Citrus Heights Water District
Monterey Peninsula Water Mgt District
Coachella Valley Water District
Oakdale Irrigation District
Crescenta Valley Water District
Otay Water District
Cucamonga County Water District
Palmdale Water District
Davis Public Works Department
Palo Alto
Desert Water Agency
Palo Alto Utilities Department
Dominguez Services Corporation
Park Water Company
11
December 2013
Pasadena Water & Power
Redding
Rincon del Diablo District
Rio Linda /Elverta Community Water District
San Benito County Water District
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
San Juan Water
San Lorenzo Valley Water District
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara Public Utilities
Santa Monica Water Division
Shasta Lake
Sierra Pacific Resources - Water
Soquel Creek Water District
South San Luis Obispo Cty, Wastewater Utility
Southern California Water Company
Southwest Water Company
Stege Sanitary District
Stinson Beach County Water District
Suburban Water Systems
Sweetwater Authority
Tehachapi- Cummings County Water District
Thousand Oaks /Camarillo District
Turlock Irrigation District
Union Sanitary District
Vallecitos Water District
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Vandenberg Village Community Services District
Vista Irrigation District
Walnut Valley Water District
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Top prospects in the consulting engineering sector (having significant "water business ") are as follows:
AECOM
Kennedy /Jenks
Alan Plummer Associates
Lee & Ro
Black & Veatch
Malcolm Pirnie /ARCADIS
Brown & Caldwell
MWH Global
Carollo Engineers
Parsons
CDM Smith
RBF Consulting /Baker
CH2M Hill
RMC Water and Environment
Epcor Water
Separation Processes Inc (SPI)
GHD
Stratus Consulting
Greeley & Hansen
Suez Environnement
Hazen & Sawyer
Tetra Tech
HDR Engineering /Stetson
Trussell Technologies
H2O Engineering
URS Corp.
Jacobs Engineering
Veolia
Leadership has already been shown by ten large /major consulting engineering firms, either globally or with
significant presence and markets in California. We've received six pledges at $250,000 each; four at $150,000 and
three other pledges under $100,000 each. We have also received a $250,000 pledge from United Water /Suez.
Together, these pledges from firms doing business with water agencies total $2,500,000 in support! These pace-
setting pledges, especially those at $250,000, will inspire other leading consulting engineering firms to make
similar, or extraordinary, pledges in turn — we expect two more pledges at the $250,000+ level, and a host of
other pledges yet to come. Securing such will ensure our ability to raise a lot more than the budgeted $2 million
in pledges from this important constituent sector. What a success to date!
Furthermore, TrojanUV, a leading supplier to the industry, has pledged $250,000 as well. We are just beginning
to approach this allied sector to join in, and believe at least another $2 million can be raised from it.
12
December 2013
With the $2,023,000 raised to date from water agencies, the $2,500,000 raised to date from consulting
engineering firms, and with TroianUV's $250,000 pledge, we've achieved a grand total of $4,783,000 to date in
support of this Initiative on behalf of California and its water future.
Additionally, six water agencies in the Bay Area along with Los Angeles Department of Water and Power banded
together through the Water Research Foundation to amass $600,000 in support, specifically designated for three
of the essential DPR research projects from the agenda. With this allied support, a grand total of $5,383,000 has
been raised to advance DPR in and for California.
Significant momentum and results have been achieved by the first two crucial internal sectors — water agencies
and consulting engineering firms. As our efforts continue, we seek to expand the circle of support, but we are
well on the way to success, hitting key fundraising markers to date.
Support from the water industry is key to eliciting external confidence and support as well. Larger pledges first
set the pace and evoke other large, extraordinary pledges. Leadership attracts other leading entities, those
synonymous with the industry, and those wanting to capitalize on the future. These three precepts represent our
overall strategic philosophy which guides our efforts.
13
December 2013