Term paper

How to Overcome Public Perception

Student Name

Instructor Name

Course

Date

Abstract

This paper aims at providing a detailed outlook regarding Orange County Water District (OCWD) and how it managed to protect itself from oppositions by the public on its potable reuse project, the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). The aim was to first have a clear understanding on what was going on with the other projects, before it could then understand the outreach program process development and execution. This would ultimately prove the importance of pushing on with the efforts dedicated to outreach and clear identification of the necessary steps in educating the public.

How to Overcome Public Perception Issues on Potable Reuse Projects

The state legislature created the Orange County Water District in 1933 with the purpose of managing the huge groundwater basin in Central and north Orange County in the state of California, USA. The board of directors constitutes of 10 members and are tasked to policy setting, establishing the amount of pumping out of the basin and setting tariffs. The district pumps out 77% of the water and 23% is imported from other regions since Southern California has a semi-arid climate and receives approximately 355 mm of rainfall annually. Ground water basins are an alternative to the imported water provided by MWD. If well managed, a basin provides low-cost water since it costs half as much as the imported water. Orange County water depends on rainfall, storm water capture, Santa Ana River flows, untreated imported water as well as recycled water for refilling its basin. However, there are times that retailers pump out more water than is refilled into the basin. If this practice is prolonged, problems such as seawater intrusion and land subsidence may be experienced. In cases of droughts, these problems are mitigated by reducing pumping.

The Orange County Groundwater Basin is a coastal basin, which is connected to the ocean. In the 1960s it was observed that seawater was starting to contaminate coastal drinking water wells and moving inland thereby potentially threatening the main part of the basin’s aquifers. In response to this threat the District built a series of coastal injection wells and a 57,000 m3/dtreatment facility called Water Factory 21 (WF-21).The ultimate size of the District’s facility would be 492,000 m3/d and OCSD agreed to pay for half the cost of the original 265,000 m3/d treatment facility and pipeline if the District guaranteed.With those assurances, OCSD did not need to build its proposed new additional ocean outfall.The size and scope of the project was extraordinary and the total investment of nearly $500 million by both agencies was substantial. There had never been a potable reuse project built at this size (265,000 m3/d) anywhere in the world.

During this time, there were several other potable reuse projects that were in various development phases and each one had severe challenges that could potentially impact the proposed project in a detrimental manner.

San Gabriel Valley Project

In mid-1992 the Upper San Gabriel Water District (USGWD) was proposing to build a 94,600 m3/d indirect potable reuse (IPR) project that would recharge its groundwater basin in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California. The proposed project would take tertiary treated wastewater and spread it into surface basins to recharge the groundwater basin, in compliance with California regulations.

East Valley Water Project

In October 1995, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) was proposing to build a 38,000 m3/d indirect potable reuse (IPR) project that would recharge its groundwater basin in the San Fernando Valley in Southern California. Like the San Gabriel Valley project, the LADWP project would take tertiary treated wastewater and spread it into surface basins to recharge the groundwater basin, in compliance with California regulations. The project was supported by some environmental groups but opposed by others who asserted that recycled water posed health risks.

San Diego Water Purification Project

In June 1993, the San Diego Water Authority agreed to serve as the lead agency to determine the feasibility of the San Diego Water Purification Project. This project was planned to be a 76,000 m3/d advanced treatment plant that would utilize microfiltration/ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, ozonation, and chlorination and then pump the water to a surface reservoir where it would spend about 28 months in the reservoir before finally going through conventional water treatment.The feasibility study was completed in May 1994 and reviewed by an independent expert panel, regulatory agencies and a citizens’ advisory panel that had been put together by the Water Authority.San Diego had an expert and citizens’ advisory panel engaged all along the way and yet, in the end, the project was stopped because of politics.

The OCWD met with OCSD on 20th January 1997 to talk about whether OCSD was interested in building a joint project. The boards of directors agreed to name the project Orange County Regional water Reclamation (OCR) project. They went ahead to form joint CSDOC OCSD/OCWD Ad Hoc committee, that comprised of three members and three alternates from each agency. The requirement of any item to be approved was approval by two directors from each agency, while project matters had to be voted on by the committee, and any expenditure had to be passed on to each agency’s board of directors to approve. Their first meeting was held on March 6, 1997 and discussions entailed the preparation of required environmental impact studies, governance issues and public relations. Public outreach was a key component in success assurance.

Early Outreach Planning

A request proposal on the first meeting was prepared by the staff and it identified that the work that was being requested would be the first phase of the outreach would last for approximately 18 months. The work included:

1. Research – Reviewing case studies and identifying target audiences.

2. Plan Strategy – Development of a public relations strategy and action plan.

3. Implementation – Preparation of support literature, presentations and press releases.

4. Evaluation – Collection and codification of results.

Early Work

The team later identified the project need and conducted a survey of 500 area residents to test commonly used water industry terminologies, supply vs. safety issues, project description, and name identification, arguments for and against the project and cost issues. Major findings from the respondents were:

1. When asked what their main concern about water in Orange County was, 40% said safety/health

2. When asked what they think about the quality of drinking water, 37% worried about the safety of the drinking water

3. When asked about Orange County water supplies and anticipated population growth, 59% said that Orange County does not have enough water unless new supplies are found

4. When asked what term relating to water was most favourable, 83% favoured the term purified water

5. When given the choice between recycled water, reclaimed water, purified water, reprocessed water and purified water, 71% chose purified water as the best choice

6. When asked if they were aware of a new water project in Orange County that would reclaim and purify wastewater, 25% were aware.

The information gained by these efforts, pushed for a change of name from OCR to GWRS (Groundwater Replenishment System). It was noted that many people were not aware of the project thus prompting the need for a robust outreach program if success was to be attained. The materials that were sought to help with the outreach program were:

1. Press release- to inform the public of the scoping sessions.

2. Fact sheet- defined different terms that were frequently used but not known.

3. Project question and answer sheet.

4. Briefing paper- attempted to explain where OCR water came from.

5. Media messages- helped to answer questions posed.

Phase 2 work would cover the next 12 months and target the following groups:

1. Business Outreach – Target a list of top businesses in Orange County and provide one-on-one presentations.

2. Government Outreach – This would be a continuation and expansion of the ongoing program focusing on city council presentations.

3. Community Outreach – Develop a Citizens Advisory Committee of 20 to 30 individuals and hold quarterly luncheons to brief and update the Committee on the project and seek its input on the various issues being discussed.

4. Friends of the Groundwater Replenishment System – This was an ongoing campaign of obtaining support letters and resolutions for the project.

5. Other Target Audiences – This group included the technological and scientific community and retail water agencies.

It was also agreed that there needed to be an increase in public information efforts in Phase 3 to achieve the following goals, strategies and tactics:

1. Goals - Obtain support from target audiences for the project; move forward with project development and to build a coalition of supporters and technical experts in various fields.

2. Strategy – Update and create a public awareness campaign team to continually conduct community, government and media outreach to keep the flow of communication regular and predictable.

3. Tactics – For community relations: (i) Continue public speaking engagements; (ii)

Continue newsletter on a quarterly or bi-annual basis; (iii) Lobby business and community leaders; (IV) Offer community copies of the project video; (v) Develop a GWRS website; (vi) Consider forming an expert panel.

For governmental relations: (i) Send a quarterly update letter to city, state and federal representatives; (ii) Send quarterly update letters to other water agency board members; (iii) Offer presentations to city council members in the service area to give them updates.

For media relations: (i) Continue proactive media relations on a regular basis; (ii) Conduct media training; (iii) Offer video to local cable stations for airing; (iv) Develop a crisis communication plan.

The one thing that had been learned through the focus groups was that the more information the public received about the GWRS and the need to ensure a safe, reliable water supply, the stronger the support from the public. After four years, the board had a chance to vote as to whether to move forward with the project or not and they learned the following:

1. Key messaging: (1) the health and safety of the water was proven, the cost was lower than alternative supplies. The technology that was being used was proven and used in other industries. The need for the project is based on future population growth and future challenges to imported water sources.

2. Planning efforts: The project is a public education challenge, once the project is explained it is accepted and the public will focus more and more on the project as approval approaches.

3. Execution: Had given over 400 presentations, briefed elected officials, business, media, community and key environmental groups; (3) continued a program that included publications.

Shortly after the approval to move forward with the project, the Committee decided to form a subcommittee to specifically deal with the outreach efforts for the project. The Groundwater Replenishment System Public Information and Education Subcommittee (the PIE) was subsequently formed and consisted of two Directors from each agency, who reviewed all outreach efforts before taking it to the Committee for approval. The PIE determined that the outreach should continue through the end of the first phase of construction and that outreach efforts should be increased. The PIE determined that the next phase of outreach must use different, more costly methods such as direct mail, radio and television advertisements and other means to reach, educate and gain the support of a greater number of the population.

The GWRS also influenced how consumers started to look at wastewater – as another resource they should take care of and reuse. Prior to the project coming online, telling the wastewater side of the story was limited for fear that people would only focus on the source water for such projects. Messaging focused mostly on the water purification side of the project and was methodically communicated to the public and media by OCWD staff, not OCSD staff. As more favourable media coverage of the GWRS increased, OCSD’s Board of Directors expressed the desire to have a greater role in media efforts and tours involving dignitaries. The Committee directed staff to continue speaker’s bureau efforts, update messaging and print and digital materials, make enhancements to the GWRS tour program, and apply for industry awards. Most of these efforts would be done without the assistance of outside consultants. Since the outreach framework from Phases 1-4 was still relevant, staff modified it and built upon it to address new issues and interests as they arose.

Conclusion

The primary factors contributing to its success was, and continues to be, its outreach program. The key to outreach on any project is to be transparent, start early in the process and continue through the life of the project.The first step for a successful outreach process needs to be to identify the issues key stakeholder groups may have with a proposed project. This is done by utilizing polling and focus groups to identify those issues and then developing talking points and collateral materials that can answer any questions that may materialize. The initial focus then needs to be on identifying key stakeholder groups, going out and giving presentations on the project and obtaining written support letters from those groups. The outreach must be flexible and continually evaluated so that it can change as conditions change and new issues and opportunities arise.

References

Los Angeles Times, “Smaller Water Reclamation Plan Appeases Miller Beer”, February 9, 1996

Los Angeles Times, “Sewer Water Reclamation Plan Comes Under Fire”, June 6, 2000

R. Rhodes Trussell, Paul Gagliardo, Samer Adham, Patricia Tennison, MWH, City of San Diego and Katz & Associates, Inc., “The San Diego Potable Reuse Project an Overview”, IWA Conference, Hong Kong