model communication plans for increasing awareness and ...mwdh2o.com/faf pdfs/5b_rw_wbmwd werf...

MMooddeell CCoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn PPllaannss ffoorr IInnccrreeaassiinngg AAwwaarreenneessss aanndd FFoosstteerriinngg AAcccceeppttaannccee ooff DDiirreecctt PPoottaabbllee RReeuussee

WWaatteeRReeuussee RReesseeaarrcchh FFoouunnddaattiioonn

Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse

About the 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 Foundation’s research advances the science of water reuse and supports communities across the United States and abroad in their efforts to create new sources of high quality water for various uses through reclamation, recycling, reuse, and desalination while protecting public health and the environment. The Foundation sponsors research on all aspects of water reuse, including emerging chemical contaminants, microbiological agents, treatment technologies, reduction of energy requirements, concentrate management and desalination, public perception and acceptance, economics, and marketing. The Foundation’s research informs the public of the safety of reclaimed water and provides water professionals with the tools and knowledge to meet their commitment of providing a reliable, safe product for its intended use. The Foundation’s funding partners include the supporters of the California Direct Potable Reuse Initiative, Water Services Association of Australia, Pentair Foundation, and Bureau of Reclamation. Funding is also provided by the Foundation’s Subscribers, water and wastewater agencies, and other interested organizations.

Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse Mark Millan Data Instincts Public Outreach Consultants Patricia A. Tennyson Katz & Associates, Inc. Shane Snyder Professor & Co-Director Chemical and Environmental Engineering University of Arizona Cosponsor Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

WateReuse Research Foundation Metropolitan Water District of Alexandria, VA Southern California

Disclaimer

This report was sponsored by the WateReuse Research Foundation and cosponsored by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Foundation, its Board Members, and the project cosponsors assume no responsibility for the content of this publication or for the opinions or statements of facts expressed in the report. The mention of trade names of commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of the WateReuse Research Foundation, its Board Members, or the cosponsors. This report is published solely for informational purposes.

For more information, contact:

WateReuse Research Foundation 1199 North Fairfax Street, Suite 410 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-548-0880 703-548-5085 (fax) www.WateReuse.org/Foundation

© Copyright 2015 by the WateReuse Research Foundation. All rights reserved. Permission to reproduce must be obtained from the WateReuse Research Foundation.

WateReuse Research Foundation Project Number: WRRF-13-02 WateReuse Research Foundation Product Number: 13-02-1

ISBN: 978-1-941242-18-6

WateReuse Research Foundation v

Contents

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. x Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................... xi Foreword ................................................................................................................................ xiii Acknowledgments................................................................................................................... xiv Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. xvii

Chapter 1. Communication Goal and Objectives ................................................................. 1 1.1 Communication Goal ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Communication Objectives .............................................................................................. 1

Chapter 2. Literature Review ................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Issues of Concern ............................................................................................. 5 2.2.2 Obstacles to Avoid ........................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Promising Outreach Messages and Methods ................................................... 6 2.2.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 3. Qualitative and Quantitative Investigations ....................................................... 9 3.1 Qualitative In-Depth Interview Summaries ..................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Utilities and Agencies ........................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Legislators .......................................................................................................... 24 3.1.3 Health Professionals ........................................................................................... 33 3.1.4 Special Interests .................................................................................................. 39

3.2 Qualitative Focus Group Summaries from Model Communities ................................... 46 3.3 Quantitative Telephone Survey Research from Model Communities ............................ 57

3.3.1 Telephone Survey Results (Combined) .............................................................. 58 3.3.2 Telephone Survey Results (Santa Clara Valley Water District) ......................... 74 3.3.3 Telephone Survey Results (City of San Diego) .................................................. 90

3.4 Summary of Findings: Building Public Acceptance of DPR of Recycled Water— Key Findings from Opinion Research .......................................................................... 105

Chapter 4. State-Level Communication Plan .................................................................... 107 4.1 Background and Purpose.............................................................................................. 107 4.1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 107 4.1.2 Communication Challenges ............................................................................... 107 4.1.3 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 107 4.1.4 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 108 4.2 Messaging .................................................................................................................... 108 4.3 Audiences/Stakeholders ............................................................................................... 110

vi WateReuse Research Foundation

4.3.1 Government Leaders ....................................................................................... 110 4.3.2 Water Supply and Wastewater Associations .................................................. 111 4.3.3 State-Level Civic Associations and Interest Groups ...................................... 112 4.3.4 Academic and Engineering-Related Associations and Leaders ..................... 112

4.3.5 Employer and Trade Associations and Business/Development Interests ........................................................................................................... 112

4.3.6 State-Level Environmental Groups and Leaders ............................................ 113 4.3.7 Media Outlets with Statewide Reach .............................................................. 113 4.3.8 State-Level Health Care Industry ................................................................... 114 4.4 Framework ................................................................................................................... 115 4.4.1 Strategies ........................................................................................................ 115 4.4.2 Letters and Proclamations of Support............................................................. 116 4.4.3 Predrafted and Regularly Distributed potable reuse Articles ......................... 116 4.4.4 One-on-One Meetings .................................................................................... 116 4.4.5 Partnerships with Local Agencies .................................................................. 117 4.4.6 Formal Presentations ...................................................................................... 117 4.4.7 Social Media ................................................................................................... 118 4.4.8 E-mail Updates ............................................................................................... 118 4.4.9 Communication Tools .................................................................................... 118 4.4.10 Website ........................................................................................................... 118 4.4.11 Basic Presentation of Facts ............................................................................. 118 4.4.12 Visuals Library ............................................................................................... 119 4.4.13 Background Papers and White Papers ............................................................ 119 4.4.14 Briefing Books/Digital Program Briefs .......................................................... 120 4.4.15 Media Content ................................................................................................ 120 4.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 120

Chapter 5. Community-Level Communication Plan ........................................................ 123 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 123 5.1.1 About This Plan .............................................................................................. 123 5.1.2 Basis for Development of the Community-Level

Communication Plan ...................................................................................... 123 5.1.3 How to Use the Community-Level Communication Plan .............................. 123 5.2 Communication Premise .............................................................................................. 124 5.3 Research-Based Guidance ........................................................................................... 124 5.3.1 Secondary Research ........................................................................................ 124 5.3.2 Primary Research ............................................................................................ 124 5.4 Challenges and Opportunities ...................................................................................... 125 5.4.1 Challenges ...................................................................................................... 125 5.4.2 Opportunities .................................................................................................. 128 5.5 Message Plan ............................................................................................................... 129 5.5.1 Getting Ready for Public Engagement ........................................................... 129

WateReuse Research Foundation vii

5.5.2 Effective Messaging to Advance Understanding of Potable Reuse ................ 129 5.5.3 Messaging Goals ............................................................................................. 129 5.5.4 Water Terminology ......................................................................................... 130 5.5.5 Suggested Messages ........................................................................................ 131 5.5.6 Using Messages to Communicate More Effectively ....................................... 132 5.5.7 Overall Anticipated Message Outcomes ......................................................... 133 5.6 Audience Identification ................................................................................................ 133 5.7 Strategies and Activities ............................................................................................... 133 5.8 Opinion Leader Outreach ............................................................................................. 134 5.8.1 Identifying Opinion Leaders ............................................................................. 134 5.8.2 Menu of Opinion Leader Outreach Activities .................................................. 135 5.8.3 Briefing Binders/Digital Program Briefs .......................................................... 139 5.8.4 Academic/Education Leaders ........................................................................... 140 5.8.5 Business Organizations ..................................................................................... 141 5.8.6 Civic Groups ..................................................................................................... 143 5.8.7 Environmental Organizations ........................................................................... 144 5.8.8 Medical, Public Health, and Water Quality Experts ......................................... 146 5.8.9 Media ................................................................................................................ 148 5.8.10 Multicultural Leaders and Groups .................................................................... 148 5.8.11 State and Local Elected Officials and Their Staff ............................................ 149 5.9 Other Key Audiences ................................................................................................... 152 5.9.1 Internal Audience.............................................................................................. 152 5.9.2 Water Wholesalers and Retailers ...................................................................... 154 5.9.3 Youth ................................................................................................................ 156 5.10 Communication and Outreach Tools............................................................................ 157 5.10.1 Menu of Informational Materials ...................................................................... 157 5.10.2 Speakers Bureau ............................................................................................... 161 5.10.3 Media Outreach ................................................................................................ 163 5.10.4 Social Media Platforms..................................................................................... 164 5.10.5 Independent Advisory Panel/Stakeholder Working Group .............................. 165 5.11 Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 165 5.11.1 Plan Measurement and Adaptive Management ................................................ 166 5.11.2 Counting the Numbers ...................................................................................... 166 5.11.3 Rapid Response Plan ........................................................................................ 167

References ............................................................................................................................. 171

Appendix A: Utilities and Agencies In-Depth Interviews: Respondent List and Discussion Guide ............................................................................................................... 174

Appendix B: State Legislators In-Depth Interviews: Respondent List and Discussion Guide ............................................................................................ 181

viii WateReuse Research Foundation

Appendix C: Health Professionals In-Depth Interviews: Respondent List and Discussion Guide ............................................................................................ 185

Appendix D: Special Interests In-Depth Interviews: Respondent List and Discussion Guide ............................................................................................ 188

Appendix E: Key Findings from Opinion Research by FM3: Presented in PowerPoint ..................................................................................................... 191

WateReuse Research Foundation ix

Figures

3.1 Results of mind-mapping exercise on recycled water .................................................... 50 5.1 Relationship of opinion leaders to other target audiences ............................................. 135

x WateReuse Research Foundation

Tables

3.1 Water Sources Mentioned by Agencies ......................................................................... 11 3.2 Main Reasons for Turning to Filtered or Bottled Water ................................................ 13 3.3 Description of Interview Participants ............................................................................ 28 3.4 Initial Support for Indirect Potable Reuse of Recycled Water ...................................... 51 3.5 Initial Support for Direct Potable Reuse of Recycled Water ......................................... 52 3.6 Reaction to Terms to Describe Water for Direct Potable Reuse .................................. 52 3.7 Reaction to “Purified Water” Terms to Describe Water for Direct Potable Reuse ...... 53 3.8 Choice of Best Arguments in Favor of Direct Potable Reuse ...................................... 54 3.9 Progression of Support for Direct Potable Reuse ......................................................... 55 3.10 Final Comments about Direct Potable Reuse ............................................................... 56

4.1 Communication Strategies per State-Level Audience ................................................. 115

5.1 Dos and Don’ts ............................................................................................................ 163 5.2 Key Plan Element Prioritization and Timeline ............................................................ 169

WateReuse Research Foundation xi

Abbreviations and Acronyms AWT advanced water treatment BMP best management practice CDPH California Department of Public Health (see DDW) CEC contaminant of emerging concern DDW California Division of Drinking Water (formerly CDPH) DPR direct potable reuse FAQ frequently asked question(s) GHG greenhouse gas GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System IAP independent advisory panel IPR indirect potable reuse MCL maximum contaminant level MF microfiltration MGD million gallons per day NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine NWRI National Water Research Institute OCWD Orange County Water District PPCPs pharmaceuticals and personal care products RO reverse osmosis UV ultraviolet WRRF WateReuse Research Foundation

WateReuse Research Foundation xiii

Foreword

The WateReuse Research Foundation, a nonprofit corporation, sponsors research that advances the science of water reclamation, recycling, reuse, and desalination. The Foundation funds projects that meet the water reuse and desalination research needs of water and wastewater agencies and the public. The goal of the Foundation’s research is to ensure that water reuse and desalination projects provide sustainable sources of high-quality water, protect public health, and improve the environment. An Operating Plan guides the Foundation’s research program. Under the plan, a research agenda of high-priority topics is maintained. The agenda is developed in cooperation with the water reuse and desalination communities including water professionals, academics, and Foundation subscribers. The Foundation’s research focuses on a broad range of water reuse and desalination research topics including:

• Defining and addressing emerging contaminants, including chemicals and pathogens • Determining effective and efficient treatment technologies to create ‘fit for purpose’

water • Understanding public perceptions and increasing acceptance of water reuse • Enhancing management practices related to direct and indirect potable reuse • Managing concentrate resulting from desalination and potable reuse operations • Demonstrating the feasibility and safety of direct potable reuse

The Operating Plan outlines the role of the Foundation’s Research Advisory Committee (RAC), Project Advisory Committees (PACs), and Foundation staff. The RAC sets priorities, recommends projects for funding, and provides advice and recommendations on the Foundation’s research agenda and other related efforts. PACs are convened for each project to provide technical review and oversight. The Foundation’s RAC and PACs consist of experts in their fields and provide the Foundation with an independent review, which ensures the credibility of the Foundation’s research results. The Foundation’s Project Managers facilitate the efforts of the RAC and PACs and provide overall management of projects. The goal of this project was to advance public acceptance of potable reuse projects (whether indirect or direct) at the state and community levels by building support for and awareness of existing and planned potable reuse programs and by fostering an understanding of how these help to expand our water supply sources. Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse (WRRF-13-02) provides a critical element that has been identified by the WateReuse Research Foundation as vital toward building support and acceptance for direct potable reuse (DPR) a written communication plan that describes how to engage various target audiences who will help to make or break consideration of potablereuse options. This project consists of two communication plan documents: (1) a State-Level Communication Plan (for use by WRRF sections) and (2) a Community-Level Outreach Plan for use in local communities. These communication plans provide strategic methods to introduce the concept of potable reuse and its importance in meeting our future water supply needs. This project provides communities, agencies, and utilities with the tools to be more successful in advancing public acceptance of a range of potential potable reuse projects from indirect to direct. Doug Owen Chair WateReuse Research Foundation

Melissa Meeker Executive Director WateReuse Research Foundation

xiv WateReuse Research Foundation

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the WateReuse Research Foundation in cooperation with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Water Research Foundation supported this work. The project team would like to thank the following people and organizations for assisting us with this effort: Stefani McGregor, Project Advisor, WRRF Julie Minton, Director of Research Programs, WRRF Greg Oliver, Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence Principal Investigators Mark Millan, Data Instincts, Public Outreach Consultants Patricia A. Tennyson, Katz & Associates, Inc. Shane Snyder, Professor & Co-Director Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Arizona Project Team Lisa Brew-Miller, Data Instincts, Public Outreach Consultants Garry Brown, Orange County Coastkeeper Shakari Byerly, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) Joe Charest, Katz & Associates, Inc. Julia Chunn-Heer, Surfrider Foundation JC Davis, Southern Nevada Water Authority Alicia DeGuchi, Data Instincts, Public Outreach Consultants Jennifer Duffy, HDR Barry Dugan, Data Instincts, Public Outreach Consultants Brent Haddad, University of California, Santa Cruz Richard Harris, Nossaman, LLP Robert Hultquist, CDPH retired Sara Katz, Katz & Associates, Inc. Stuart Khan, University of New South Wales, Australia Lani Lutar, Equinox Tina Malott, Katz & Associates, Inc. Dave Metz, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) Jenna Millan, Data Instincts, Public Outreach Consultants Jeff Mosher, National Water Research Institute Jonathan Price, Katz & Associates, Inc. Roxanne Stachon, RMC Water and Environment Danielle Thorsen, Katz & Associates, Inc. Yen Tu, Multicultural Consultant Samantha Valencia, Katz & Associates, Inc. Gina Melin Vartanian, National Water Research Institute Chuck Weir, Weir Technical Services Technical Advisory Committee Jean Debroux, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (Leader) Gary Amy, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (Saudi Arabia)

WateReuse Research Foundation xv

Dawn Guendert, GHD, Inc. Laura Kennedy, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Ellen McDonald, Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. Todd Reynolds, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Tom Richardson, RMC Water and Environment Ben Sanford, Hazen and Sawyer David Solley, GHD, Australia Tim Thomure, HDR Don Vandertulip, ARCADIS Participating Agencies City of Lubbock, TX City of Phoenix, AZ City of Scottsdale, AZ Denver Water, CO El Paso Water Utilities, TX Orange County Water District, CA San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, CA Santa Clara Valley Water District, CA Southern Nevada Water Agency Tucson Water, AZ West Basin Municipal Water District, CA International Asociación Española de Reutilización Sostenible del Agua (Spain) Public Utilities Board (Singapore) Water Services Association of Australia (Australia) Project Advisory Committee Albrey Arrington, Loxahatchee River District (FL) Jeff Dennis, Metropolitan Water District of California Greg Oliver, Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence Dave Smith, WateReuse California Marsi Steirer, City of San Diego (CA) Eleanor Torres, Orange County Water District (CA) Jennifer West, WateReuse California Ron Wildermuth, West Basin Municipal Water District (CA)

WateReuse Research Foundation xvii

Executive Summary

Potable reuse involves the use of a proven and reliable technology to purify recycled water so that it can safely supplement the drinking water supplies of communities. It is especially valuable to communities in water-scarce regions. Experience among water agencies and municipalities has shown, however, that public acceptance of direct potable reuse (DPR) is one of the primary challenges facing this source of water supply. Drinking water that was recently processed from sewage has been a difficult hurdle for utilities to clear. Overcoming the so-called “yuck factor” associated with potable reuse is at the forefront of research currently underway in the water reuse industry. Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse (WRRF-13-02) is aimed at advancing public acceptance of potable reuse projects by building support and awareness of existing and planned potable reuse programs and by fostering an understanding of the great need to continue to expand our water supply sources. One of the critical elements that the WateReuse Research Foundation identified as necessary to build support and acceptance of direct potable reuse is a written communication plan for public outreach that describes how to engage the various target audiences who will help to make or break potable reuse options. Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse consists of communication plan documents in two areas: • a state-level communication plan (for use by WRRF sections) • a community-level outreach plan (for use in local communities) In addition to public outreach strategies, both communication plans include messaging platform components with public outreach tools and tactics. The plans are flexible documents, with tools and tactics designed to be adapted to the specific needs and situations of an individual community. They will be useful whether pursuing indirect potable reuse (IPR) or DPR options. WRRF-13-02 is the first of a two-phase approach toward fostering acceptance of potable reuse. To develop the communication plans for the first phase, the project team first conducted an extensive literature review of previous research related to potable reuse acceptance and to attempted approaches at communication. Next, a series of one-on-one meetings was held with individuals involved with potable reuse projects in their communities—general managers and communications staff—to gain an understanding of the communication challenges and successes they had experienced. Interviews were also conducted with legislators and special interest groups to learn about their attitudes toward, perceptions of, and support for potable reuse projects. The findings from the literature review and interviews were used to develop a set of messages that were then tested in focus groups and in telephone surveys in two communities (the City of San Diego and the service area of the Santa Clara Valley Water District). During each step of the project, the guiding principle was to “Listen, Learn, Retool, and Engage.” Each data set fed into the next data set, and team members adjusted their approach

xviii WateReuse Research Foundation

as new information was received. All of the information from the research was then used to formulate the State-Level Communication Plan and the Community-Level Outreach Plan. The end product is a how-to guide for potable reuse communication on the statewide and community levels. In summary, the project’s findings provide those involved with or planning a potable reuse project with a catalog of promising and proven methods and messages for advancing potable reuse. The combination of literature review, face-to-face meetings, and public opinion research indicates that public acceptance of potable reuse can be achieved by implementing a coordinated, consistent, and transparent communication plan. Some of the key findings to achieving success include the following:

• develop trust (build relationships, offer plant tours) • be consistent with outreach (start early, continue throughout project) • provide information about potable reuse and where it is in use to increase familiarity • be consistent with messaging and terminology • instill confidence in the quality of water (talk about the treatment process) • be transparent (discuss costs, water quality, safety, environment) • be prepared (expect tough questions and misinformation)

A key finding from the focus groups and telephone surveys showed that after receiving additional information about potable reuse and the multi-stage treatment process used to make the water safe to drink, most participants became more comfortable with the idea of potable reuse. In addition, the use of “purified water” and of “certified water” were favored by participants as terms to describe the potable reuse water. Completion of Phase I lays down the strategic groundwork for Phase II of the WateReuse Research Foundation’s approach to fostering public acceptance of potable reuse. Phase II will take the information gleaned from Phase I and use it to begin creating and refining outreach materials (such as fact sheets and frequently asked questions (FAQ), videos, etc.) and methods. Phase I drew the outline of the plans, and Phase II will create the tools that can be used immediately at the statewide level and in local communities that are considering direct potable reuse (DPR). Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse demonstrates strategic methods to introduce and communicate the concept of potable reuse and its importance in meeting our future water supply needs. It provides communities and agencies or utilities with guidance to be more successful in advancing public acceptance of potable reuse.

WateReuse Research Foundation 1

Chapter 1 Communication Goal and Objectives

1.1 Communication Goal

The goal of WRRF-13-02 is to advance acceptance of potable reuse projects (whether IPR or DPR) on both statewide and community levels by (1) building awareness and support of existing and planned potable reuse projects and (2) fostering an understanding of the need to continue expanding our water supplies. One element critical to accomplishing this goal is the development of a written communication plan for public outreach that describes how to engage the various target audiences to garner support and reduce or eliminate their hindrance of potable reuse projects. The communication plan should include messaging platform components in addition to public outreach strategies, tactics, and tools. It should also be flexible to allow tactics to be refined and dialed up or down in intensity, as needed.

1.2 Communication Objectives

Objectives include the following:

• Design a comprehensive public outreach strategy that is transparent, honest, and thorough to

o help build public awareness, trust, and confidence in potable reuse projects. o increase the probability of public acceptance of potable reuse projects.

• Communicate key messages about potable reuse to relevant stakeholders, such as water and wastewater agencies, government leaders, elected officials, regulatory agencies, environmental organizations, agricultural interests, media, business leaders, and others; messages might focus on

o reinforcing the value of potable reuse to the community o highlighting respect for and benefits to the environment o viewing potable reuse as a “key to a sustainable planet”

• Provide useful and accurate information to help minimize or mitigate confusion, opposition, and discomfort; information topics might include

o the benefits of potable reuse . o the science and technology behind potable reuse o scientific evidence to demonstrate the public health and safety of potable reuse

water.

• Provide tactics and strategies to

o collaborate with the media and foster balanced coverage of potable reuse o proactively listen to and address public concerns about potable reuse, including

responding to potential controversies

2 WateReuse Research Foundation

o increase the probability of gaining written support (e.g., support letters) for potable reuse projects from a broad group of stakeholders

o create and maintain an information pathway for stakeholders


Chapter 2

Literature Review

Our team explored a range of relevant research and experience at utilities with a focus on public outreach and communication activities related to potable reuse. A compiled summary report follows this list. There are several ongoing WateReuse Research Foundation projects and recent reports that we want to build on. These include the following:

Dishman, C. M.; Sherrard, Joseph H.; Rebhun, M. Gaining Support for Direct Potable Water Reuse. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 1989, 115 (2), 154–161.

Dolnicar, S.; Hurlimann, A.; Grun, B. What Affects Public Acceptance of Recycled and Desalinated Water? Water Research 2011, 4 (5), 933–943.

Hartley, T. Water Reuse: Understanding Public Perception and Participation; Water Environment Research Foundation: Washington, DC, 2003.

Hawley, E. L.; Means, E. G., III; Deeb, R. A.; Macpherson, L.; Slovic, P.; Adamson, J. Communication Principles and Practices, Public Perception, and Message Effectiveness; Water Environment Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2009.

Khan, S. Drinking Water Through Recycling; The Benefits and Costs of Supplying Direct to the Distribution System; Australia Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering: Melbourne, Australia, 2013.

Khan, S.; Gerrard, L. E. Stakeholder Communications for Successful Water Reuse Operations; Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, 2005.

Macpherson, L.; Snyder, S. Downstream: Context, Understanding, Acceptance. Effect of Prior Knowledge of Unplanned Potable Reuse on the Acceptance of Planned Potable Reuse; Report No.WRF-09-01,,WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2013a.

Macpherson, L.; Snyder, S. Public Perceptions of Indirect Potable Reuse: Creating Water Quality Confidence; Report No. WRF-01-004, WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2013b.

Macpherson, L.; Snyder, S. Public Perceptions of Indirect Potable Reuse: Ensuring a Good Policy Decision; Report No. WRF-01-004; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2013c.

Macpherson, L.; Snyder, S. Public Perceptions of Indirect Potable Reuse: Investing in Water Reliability; Report No..WRF-01-004; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2013d.

Macpherson, L.; Snyder, S. Public Perceptions of Indirect Potable Reuse: Managing Water Supply Replenishment; Report No. WRF-01-004; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2013e.

Macpherson, L.; Snyder, S. Public Perceptions of Indirect Potable Reuse: Turning Conflict and Opposition into Assets; Report No. WRF-01-004; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2013f.


Macpherson, L.; Snyder, S. Talking About Water; Understanding How to Communicate for Public Understanding: The Key to Public Acceptance; Report No. WRF-07-03; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2013g.

Manidis/Roberts. Community Consultation Report: Report on the community consultation undertaken on the Water2WATER proposal; ACTEW Corporation: Canberra, Australia, 2007.

Millan, M.; Nellor, M. H. Public and Political Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse; WateReuse California: Sacramento, CA, 2010.

Miller, G. W. Public Acceptance: The Greatest Barrier to Widespread Water Reuse. WateReuse Association: Alexandria,VA, 2008.

National Research Council. Understanding Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater (pack of five booklets); The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012.

Po, M.; Kaercher, J. D.; Nancarrow, B. E. CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 54/03, Literature Review of Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse; CSIRO: Australia, 2003.

Resource Trends, Inc. Best Practices for Developing Indirect Potable Reuse Projects: Phase 1 Report; WateReuse Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2004.

Ruetten, J. Building the Water Utility Brand, Practical Advice for Increasing Trust, Support, and Investment: An AMWA Management Handbook; Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies: Escondido, CA, 2008.

Sandman, P. Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication; American Industrial Hygiene Association: Fairfax, VA, 1993.

Tchobanoglous, G.; Leverenz, H.; Nellor, M.; Crook, J. Direct Potable Reuse—A Path Forward; WateReuse Research Association: Alexandria, VA, 2011.

United States Bureau of Reclamation. Successful Public Information and Education Strategies Technical Memorandum; CH2M HILL: Washington, DC, 2004.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Water Reuse; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2012.

Water Environment Federation and the American Water Works Association. Using Reclaimed Water to Augment Potable Water Resources: A Special Publication, 2nd ed.; Water Environment Federation and the American Water Works Association: Alexandria, VA, 2008.

Wildermuth, R. Public and Political Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse. WateReuse California Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, March 2010.

2.1 Introduction

In preparing Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse, our team reviewed previous research related to potable reuse (whether indirect or direct) to learn what is currently known in regard to acceptance of DPR as well as attempted approaches for communication. Previous and current WRRF potable reuse and recycled water communication-related studies have been included in this


review. This summary report highlights key findings, issues of concern, obstacles to avoid, and promising messages and methods of potable reuse communication. There is a plethora of literature discussing recycled water issues, including public outreach. Only some of this literature mentions potable reuse. Because this project’s focus is to foster acceptance of direct potable reuse, we have primarily examined literature dealing with public outreach for potable reuse, whether direct or indirect. We express our apologies for not including those authors or researchers who may have included a discussion of potable reuse outreach as part of a larger report or those who have written about outreach for more traditional recycled water applications.

2.2 Summary of Key Findings

Overall there are consistent lessons and recommendations throughout the potable reuse outreach literature. These generally suggest beginning outreach early, developing consistent terminology and messaging, having the utility become a source of trusted information, and focusing on water's quality rather than its history. In addition, it is commonly stated that knowledge and understanding of the water treatment process increases acceptance of water reuse.

2.2.1 Issues of Concern

A variety of issues of public concern are raised in the literature. The issues of public concern typically revolve around health and safety. Digging deeper reveals that they also include cost, the “yuck” factor, having a choice among various water supply options, trust in the utility, knowledge about the treatment process, environmental justice, ecological effects, regulations, population growth, and water purification being viewed as a “last resort.” Businesses that depend on water may also have concerns about how recycled water may affect their reputation and brand. The example typically provided was of the Miller Brewing Company and its concerns over producing beer from purified water.

2.2.2 Obstacles to Avoid

Obstacles involving terminology are often cited, including the current lack of consistent terminology among those in the water industry, the use of jargon, the lack of public understanding of the meaning of terms used in the industry, and the use of terms focused on the history rather than the quality of water (e.g., “reclaimed” rather than “purified”). Additional obstacles to avoid include not starting outreach early enough, not addressing misinformation when it occurs, being overconfident, having a wastewater agency be the driving force for a potable reuse project rather than having a water supplier in the lead, neglecting media outreach, not communicating all water supply alternatives, labeling opponents as irrational, making potable reuse a “pet project,” avoiding conflict, and “playing politics.” Other obstacles mentioned that may be harder to avoid but are important to consider in outreach efforts include lack of regulatory oversight, the potential for a greater “yuck factor” for DPR compared with indirect potable reuse (IPR), distrust of government and scientists, concealment by opponents of their true motives/concerns, the opposition not revealing itself until late in the process, and pledged support not materializing when implementation actually begins on the project.


2.2.3 Promising Outreach Messages and Methods

Although opposition to a project can arise at any time and, for many reasons, there are no guarantees that projects will reach the implementation phase, there appear to be some methods that are more promising than others at fostering acceptance of DPR. The following messages and methods are cited repeatedly in the literature along with supporting evidence of research findings or successful projects implementing these tools.

2.2.3.1 Promising Messages

When determining the messaging for DPR communications, developing positive, consistent terminology is constantly emphasized as essential for successful communications. Literature suggests using terms that focus on the quality rather than the history of the water, such as “purified water” in place of “recycled water.” In addition, the terminology needs to be easy to understand and meaningful to the public. Using analogies can help with this. As previously mentioned in the key findings, increasing knowledge is key for acceptance of DPR. Some educational messages can include explaining the urban water cycle, highlighting successful projects elsewhere, and identifying the benefits of potable reuse (e.g., increasing local control of the water supply, improving reliability and water quality, and providing possible cost savings). Clearly articulate the problem that is to be solved through implementing DPR. Although all water supply solutions and alternatives should be presented, alternative sources of water should not be conveyed as “options” but rather as a necessity for the community. In explaining these options, present the financial and long-term sustainable implications of all sources of water. Agencies should make a clear recommendation as to what solution they propose. Messages also need to instill confidence in the quality of the water provided by utilities. For example, messages should emphasize that purified water meets all water quality standards and should further explain what those standards mean. Provide information about water quality standards, regulated substances, regulations development, and the consistent monitoring and testing of water. In addition, messages should emphasize the value of water, using descriptive phrases like, "Water… it's too valuable to be used just once." Similarly, the idea of “wastewater” should be reframed so that it is seen as a resource rather than as waste. For example, wastewater treatment plants could be called “resource recovery facilities.”

2.2.3.2 Promising Methods

The literature describes many frameworks, steps, principles, and timelines of effective outreach efforts. The methods presented herein represent the key aspects of these methods and focus on the methods with the most success or those most often cited. As with any communication effort, developing and implementing a communication strategy, starting with a written strategic communication plan, was cited as a key first step in potable reuse communications. As part of this, a positive brand should be developed in which the utility defines the project before others create a negative brand, such as “toilet-to-tap.” A successful example of this is Singapore’s Public Utilities Board's brand of their product, “NEWater.”


Outreach must be conducted as early in the process as possible, preferably before any decisions are final and before implementation begins. Community leaders and members should be engaged prior to the conception of a reuse project. The communication must continue throughout the process, keeping leaders updated with proactive notifications. By focusing on these influencers, they can impact a larger group of followers and magnify any outreach efforts. Developing a genuine partnership with the community is important for the success of a reuse project. To develop this partnership, the agency should understand what the community values and what its concerns are. The community should be treated like investors and encouraged to take part in water supply solution development at an appropriate level with inclusive decision-making processes. In addition to keeping community members informed and engaged, politicians and the media should also be an important part of the outreach audience. Partnering with credible organizations, such as public health agencies, will enhance this community partnership. Last, the agency should make its staff available and provide contact information to the public. One of the techniques suggested in promoting DPR is the use of applied behavioral analysis and social marketing. This would require an initial analysis of the community’s knowledge of water reuse followed by conducting modeling, such as with a video, and giving incentive-rewards, such as prizes for those who drink purified water. The results would then need to be evaluated. Because of the controversial nature of potable reuse, risk communication and management are important aspects of any communication program. Identify and collaborate with all stakeholders, including any opponents. It may be necessary to create events designed to identify opponents early in order to address conflict at the earliest stages. Having a proactive plan for dealing with negative reactions will help in battling misinformation. Project constraints should be clearly explained to opponents so they understand why decisions are made in a certain way. Explaining the “relative risk” of potable reuse helps the public view risks from a real-world perspective. Tools such as fact sheets and frequently asked question (FAQ) documents can be useful in proactively responding to concerns. The literature regularly emphasizes the need for agencies to be a trusted source of water quality and information. By being transparent and honest, encouraging personal control from the public, and fostering community participation, trust can be gained. In addition, the agency must demonstrate its commitment to water reliability and quality. A few suggested ways of doing this are through communicating messages of safety, such as the multiple barrier process, or through highlighting the agency’s water quality track record. Agencies will not have all of the answers, and they should acknowledge their uncertainty. This may diminish the public’s judgment of the agency’s competence but will not harm it as much as if the agency sounds certain and turns out to be wrong. Furthermore, acknowledging uncertainty increases the public’s judgment of an agency as trustworthy. Finally, a multitude of tools are mentioned as useful in potable reuse outreach efforts. These include visitor's centers as part of a tour program, demonstration projects, images and visual aids, one-on-one communication and in-depth interviews, comprehensive contact databases, open house meetings, workshops, advisory committees and task forces, e-mail broadcasts, interactive tools and social networking (such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and blogs), project-focused call centers, websites, and the WateReuse Foundation’s “Downstream” slideshow. Surveys can be used to analyze perceptions before and during outreach, thus


measuring movement. Some innovative tools include conducting a pharmaceutical take-back program in which the agency can provide information while informing the public of how they can be part of the solution. Also, non-threatening ways to experience purified water are encouraged, such as conducting purified water taste tests or filling a swimming pool with purified water.

2.2.4 Conclusion

In conclusion, there is a wide variety of literature in existence that provides a variety of approaches and suggestions for potable reuse outreach. The most commonly cited themes seem to revolve around terminology, the early onset and consistency of outreach efforts, and building trust in potable reuse as well as the agency responsible for it. By building on previous findings, future IPR and DPR efforts will have a better chance at gaining public acceptance.


Chapter 3

Qualitative and Quantitative Investigations

In addition to the literature review, primary qualitative and quantitative research was conducted for this effort. The qualitative methods were composed of in-depth interviews among various audiences of interest as well as focus groups and telephone surveys among members of the general public in two selected communities. These research efforts can and should be replicated in communities either contemplating or in the early planning stages of potable reuse projects. The survey document and focus group and interview discussion guides found in this section are designed to be easily modified or adapted to a specific potable reuse project in any community. That being said, there are many costly mistakes an inexperienced research team can make, which can result in misleading, faulty, or unreliable data and/or analyses. For this reason, it is highly recommended that an agency turn to research professionals to assist in the planning and execution of its primary research efforts. The focus groups and telephone surveys were conducted in two model communities identified by the Project Advisory Committee and the research study team (the City of San Diego and the service area of the Santa Clara Valley Water District). The focus groups and telephone surveys were conducted using criteria developed to serve a broad array of communities that may potentially consider potable reuse in the future. A key element of the project was to listen to concerns and develop messaging concepts that will foster understanding of potable reuse. These messaging concepts, in the form of videos, ads, and terminology, were tested in focus groups and in telephone surveys in the two model communities. The findings from the focus groups, surveys, and interviews were then used to inform two documents: a state-level communication plan and a local-level communication plan for advancing potable reuse.

3.1 Qualitative In-Depth Interview Summaries

A series of qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with four groups: utilities and agencies, legislators, health professionals, and special interests. The objective of the interviews was to gain an understanding of the familiarity with, attitudes toward, perceptions of, and support for potable reuse projects among these groups. The in-depth interview process allows for an open exchange of ideas and is best suited for uncovering the range of views, beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and experiences that may exist in a certain population. The in-depth interviews were configured and conducted by Data Instincts and Katz & Associates.

3.1.1 Utilities and Agencies

This report presents topline insights and learning from a total of 27 one-on-one in-depth interviews that were conducted with project general managers, communication staff, and


others closely associated with current or planned potable reuse projects, as well as a few projects that are in very early exploratory phases. The interviews were conducted in the United States and Australia via telephone or in person and took place in January and February 2014.

The primary objective of this research effort was to gain an understanding of communication challenges and successes from those who have been on the front lines of potable reuse projects in their communities. The discussion guide and list of participating agencies is available in Appendix A.

The findings from these interviews were combined with learning from secondary research, such as literature review, to assist the Data Instincts and Katz & Associates team in developing this document, Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Potable Reuse, in association with the WateReuse Research Foundation.

Specifically, the interview questions were designed to explore the following:

• the most significant public acceptance challenges as more communities consider new water sources, such as potable reuse

• specific communication strategies that were successful and unsuccessful • regulatory and political challenges that make public acceptance more difficult to achieve • some of the greatest challenges to educating the public, elected officials, and the media

about the benefits of new water sources, such as potable reuse • specific recommendations that can be made to utilities, districts, or advocates seeking

support for potable reuse projects

3.1.1.1 Methodology

In-depth interviews are a qualitative research method best suited for uncovering the range of views, beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and experiences that may exist in a certain population. During the in-depth interview process, an experienced interviewer uses a discussion guide to conduct a structured conversation with participants.

Like other qualitative methods, in-depth interviews allow for detailed exploration of topics but do not provide data that is statistically representative of a larger population. Instead, the information obtained is descriptive and should be considered as representing a range of opinions that may exist among various segments. Note that opinions are not necessarily factually accurate.

3.1.1.2 Anonymity

Interview participants were told that the list of participating projects would be included in this report but that their responses, including quotations, would be incorporated anonymously. Participants were promised anonymity to encourage candid feedback. This report uses the pronoun “he” in all cases, whether referring to a male or female respondent, to preserve anonymity.

3.1.1.3 Report Format

This report summarizes responses from interview participants. Occasionally a response will be in italics to indicate a specific comment, although the interviews were not recorded and


remarks are not verbatim. These remarks are included to give the reader a flavor for the language interview participants used when discussing the issues.

3.1.1.4 Core Highlights

Respondent Profiles

Most of the respondent agencies get their water from a variety of sources. Only a few are reliant on a single source. The water sources mentioned by the agencies are summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Water Sources Mentioned by Agencies

A few of the participating agencies currently have active potable reuse programs, either fully established or in the early stages, including pilot or demonstration projects. The majority of agencies we talked to do not have active projects but are either in the planning stages or have been actively discussing the introduction of potable reuse in their communities. Only a few agencies reported that they currently have no plans for some type of potable reuse project.

The following were noted as the drivers for potable reuse projects in their communities:

• dwindling water supply that is due to drought • need for emergency or secondary supply • need for reliable supply • population growth • dwindling water supply that is due to regulations • saltwater intrusion Of those in the planning stages, most anticipate their projects will be implemented in the next five to ten years, with a few coming online in the nearer future and with others having much longer timelines. The operational or planned projects will produce anywhere from 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) to 80 MGD, with most in the range of 10 to 30 MGD. These numbers tend to fluctuate with the seasons and represent anywhere from 1.5% to 40% of water demand for these agencies.

Source

# of Mentions

Surface/Surface storage

17 Groundwater 14 Imported 12 Recycled water 11 Conservation 4 Stormwater 2 Desalination 2 “Closed” and protected catchment

1


Most agencies are considering both DPR and IPR projects. Only a couple are looking strictly at DPR, including a stormwater reuse project in Australia, and a handful are considering only IPR.

The community was a lot more comfortable with the idea of recycled water being recharged to an aquifer where it would remain for several decades rather than being supplied directly into the [drinking water system]. This would have made the emotional “yuck” factor a bigger hurdle to overcome.

Several agencies said they would prefer to pursue DPR (particularly in cases where it is easier and more cost effective to implement) but are concerned about public acceptance, a lack of current regulations, and fear that future regulations may render their IPR efforts obsolete. To this point, many respondents expressed frustration over the lack of clear regulations related particularly to DPR projects, and some find themselves in a wait-and-see situation. Others are proactively working with regulators and report that the current drought situation is helping to nudge both regulators and their communities toward potable reuse acceptance.

Some smaller agencies are also sitting on the sidelines, waiting to see how projects unfold—in terms of public acceptance, regulatory issues, and/or implementation hiccups—in larger communities.

The primary obstacles or barriers to implementing either DPR or IPR projects include the following:

• funding • public perception and acceptance • lack of regulations • lack of political support (fear of political fallout) • solving technical/environmental issues, such as chemical stabilization by removing the

dissolved oxygen out of the water as well as brine disposal

Community Perceptions of Current Water Supply

Most of the agencies reported that their community members, in general, recognize that water supply is a serious issue that could have (or is already having) a negative impact on the area. The recent drought situation in many western and southern states has served to further sensitize the public to the issue of water supply as evidenced by the continued and growing success of many water conservation programs.

That said, a few agencies noted that there is still a significant portion of the population who are complacent or unconcerned. In the words of one respondent, “Members of the public open their tap and the water flows. So, until we get into some kind of allocation process because of severe drought, they are not worried.”

As to water quality, more than half of the water agencies we spoke to reported that people in their communities have some water quality concerns; others said there are few or no concerns about water quality in their area, but only a couple of the agency representatives said their community believes their water comes from a pristine source.


Because we are a wholesale agency, we don’t hear directly from customers. But we have not heard any complaints from our member agencies. I think it is probably a mixed bag though—unless there is a contaminant outbreak, people think the quality is okay.

But so many people use filters or bottled water, that they may not care whether the quality is good or not.

Our water is not viewed as pristine—people know the source is the lakes and that the water needs to be treated. But they probably underestimate the upstream agency impact on the Colorado River and do not realize how good the State Water Project water is.

Most of these agencies said they have not surveyed community members to see what percentage drink unfiltered water from the tap, filtered water, or bottled water. In the United States, those respondents who have done such surveys have found that anywhere from 36% to 55% of their customers buy and drink bottled water; many others filter their tap water. Australian respondents reported a sense that larger percentages have high confidence in water quality and fewer are apt to turn to bottled and filtered water.

When asked what they think are the main drivers for community members to turn to filtered or bottled water, respondents in the United States and Australia responded as summarized in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Main Reasons for Turning to Filtered or Bottled Water

Reason

# of Mentions

Taste/Flavor

9 Safety/Health 6 Hardness 4 Fluoride 2 Odor 1 Clarity 1 Convenience

1

Only a small minority of respondents said that their customers’ view of the safety or flavor of their current water supply was a driver for augmenting their supply with alternative sources, such as DPR.

Community Support of Potable Reuse

Although a few are unsure about the level of community support for potable reuse, most of the responding agencies said their communities are at least somewhat supportive and that support has been expressed primarily through public commentary (in meetings, open houses, etc.), letters of support, surveys, and positive media coverage.

We found through surveys that while the majority say no, initially, with education the acceptance grows a lot. Once our facility opens, we will continue to survey so we can see what the level of support is now.


The sense from our public meetings is there are very few negative comments about potable reuse—the bigger question is "what will this do to my rates?" The same sector of the population opposed to fluoride came out as opposed to potable reuse and say hormones, etc., will get by the treatment and any mechanical system will fail.

We find that the community has a general frustration with why we are not doing it. Whenever we have had to implement restrictions, there are consistent clear calls from community members to make better use of urban stormwater.

Not surprisingly, there seems to be a direct correlation between perceived need and the level of community support. Areas currently experiencing drought or with a history of water supply woes, particularly when such woes can have a direct and dramatic impact on the general community, clearly enjoy more support for potable reuse projects. Communities that have been “getting by” with their current supply options and have had no, or relatively minor, inconveniences due to shortages are less inclined to embrace potable reuse.

About half of the respondents say their policymakers are supportive of potable reuse in the community. Others say support is mixed or they are unsure at this point of what level of policymaker support they have. Policymaker support is expressed in a number of ways, including letters of support, public comments, and voting record on related issues.

Very supportive because they realize we have no other alternative. We have no groundwater to tap, and as the lakes decline, we must use the resources we have at our disposal.

Yes. For the expansion, we circled back with legislators and water producers and got letters of support from all of them. It was pleasant to go meet with elected officials when they all know and love the plant!

The majority of our five member council are supportive—opinions range from support to the most negative opinion being that "toilet-to-tap" sounds yucky; this member will need to see data to prove it is safe. But they did approve our strategic plan that includes investigating potable reuse.

We took the time to educate and fully inform our board. So, they were very familiar with the processes and were unanimously supportive.

The termed out mayor brought this idea up after visiting Orange County GWRS [Groundwater Replenishment System] and is still a huge proponent. The current mayor supports it, and so does the council, which has had at least half the members turn over since we started exploring IPR. We have briefed new council members, and they are all supportive.

A few noted what seems to be a lack of political will on the part of their leadership, wherein concerns over potential negative community reaction become the priority over sound policy.

The city council is supportive, but the mayor is worried about the election. Politics sometimes gets in the way of common sense.


The council adopted the strategic water supply plan by resolution. They are aware and they understand the potential need. They have not said no, but they prefer not to go there now.

At this time, policy makers are supportive of us undertaking the research but are not supportive of potable augmentation with any non-conventional source, including urban stormwater. There is essentially a blanket ban on potable reuse of non-conventional sources from the Victorian Government. It is government policy not to consider recycling for potable use. The relevant minister has stated this, and it is repeated by all of the relevant government agencies.

Project Opposition

Only a few agencies reported significant opposition to their potable reuse projects. Many reported that they are too early in the process to gauge public reaction. Some have had dealings with small, but vocal, groups or individuals but say that, thus far, these opponents have not garnered much traction.

Social media, blog posts, traditional media (newspapers, radio), and commentary at public meetings (project and city council) seem to be popular vehicles for project naysayers. Top concerns among the concerns raised are

• the “yuck” factor • health and safety concerns [contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), pharmaceuticals

and personal care products (PPCPs), fluoride] • the cost to ratepayers • environmental concerns • government distrust Few agencies say they have made changes to their projects based on opposition. Some have created working groups, citizen advisory panels, or partnerships to review and work through any issues. Others have not felt the need to make any adjustments to their projects, though one noted the importance of continually evolving the communication efforts and tools as the project progresses.

We have not made any changes to the project at this point, but you always need effective outreach. Aspects of our outreach have evolved based on comments we receive. We have also changed our outreach based on learning from research. We modified our presentation based on comments we received. Certainly our outreach is not static.

Several agencies note that being prepared to answer difficult questions related to potable reuse helps quash fear and doubt among the greater population. In fact, being proactive and transparent, having detailed and accurate information on hand early in the project planning phase, and working openly and closely with local leadership, regional water quality boards, or other appropriate agencies are all deemed as successful approaches for mitigating vocal opposition and keeping projects on track.


Communication Activities

Most agencies are engaged in a plethora of communication tools and techniques aimed at various audiences, including the following tools, listed by audience:

• community leaders

o plant tours/hard hat tours (at a pilot, demonstration, or full-scale plant) o one-on-one discussions o small group presentations o meetings with neighborhood councils o solicitation of letters of support from elected officials

• groups and organizations

o plant tours/hard hat tours (at a pilot, demonstration, or full-scale plant) o speakers bureau o town hall meetings

• schools and teachers (all grade levels)

o media o plant tours/hard hat tours (at a pilot, demonstration or full-scale plant) o news releases/articles o fostering of one-on-one, personal relationships

• general communication tools

o public service announcements/ads/commentary (radio, TV, newspaper, online, etc.) o presence at community events (information booth) o public meetings (city council, water board, etc.) o panel of water quality experts, scientists, educators o web (virtual tour, video, dedicated project website, social media) o collateral materials (fact sheets, bill inserts, newsletters)

In addition to transparency and being prepared for tough questions, fostering personal relationships with the media, leadership, opposition, and interested members of the community rises to the top as a method of building trust in the agency and acceptance for potable reuse.

The local radio station is supportive and announces rain notifications hourly. The public trusts us and what we are doing. This is the biggest hurdle: the public must trust you, and then you need to tell people what you are doing and how you are doing it.

We are on the radio frequently. In fact, I gave out my personal number on the radio recently and told people to call if they had any questions at all. It is my job to make them comfortable with the project. I think the personal touch is what we need for a project like this.


When asked which communication efforts have worked or are working particularly well, the following emerged:

• plant tours (with leaders, media, schools, colleges; at a pilot, demonstration, full-scale, or neighboring community plant)

• direct face-to-face contact with community members; neighborhood meetings, workshops, etc.

• close work with community leaders • establishment of community-based advisory group and/or technical working group • providing of information to regulators • establishment of close relationships with the media and engagement with them early in

the process; submission of news releases or articles • school outreach (messaging tailored to specific grade levels) • frequent broadcasts of notices of water supply levels during drought • use of all opportunities for pubic engagement/visibility • speakers bureau • face-to-face meetings • public meetings • presentation of project awards/recognition • video with physicians, scientists, university professors • clear, concise, and transparent project information readily on hand (handouts, factsheets,

backgrounders, newsletters, web, etc.) • Internet (project website, videos, e-mail) • social media (particularly for younger audiences)

Although we have not done outreach for our IPR project, we do end any public tours of our system at the IPR station and offer people the opportunity to drink the water that will be injected into the seawater barrier. Only a few people decline to taste the water.

A panel put together by NWRI [National Water Research Institute] was extremely important and has lent huge creditability to the evaluation process.

The public meetings were very successful. We were very straightforward about the project and process. We explained that we were taking (sewage) wastewater and cleaning it up to high level and blending it with our drinking water source. We explained the processes involved with microfiltration, UV [ultraviolet], and blending.

A key element of the Community Engagement program was the construction of a visitor's center at the Advanced Water Recycling Plant where we opened the doors and invited anyone and everyone in to see it for themselves. This open and transparent approach went a long way to fostering comfort and support. A grass roots approach to community events was also utilized, and we developed a roadshow that visited a


range of public events where we spoke one-on-one with people. We tested people’s responses wherever we went.

Tours, personal relationships, and various educational activities are widely viewed as among the most successful ongoing communication efforts. That said, fewer than half of the agencies that are in the potable reuse planning stages have plans for a pilot or demonstration plant. When asked what has not worked so well, some said it was too soon to tell. Others reported it was hard to pick out any one thing, and several made the point that it is wise to employ as many tools as you can, as they tend to work together in synergistic fashion. Still, a few respondents were able to name what were for them less than fruitful tactics or missteps taken along the way.

I think you need to try everything to see how it works, but constantly change it up as you get feedback. Everyone gets information in different ways and listens to different sources. So I can’t really think of what was not successful, except maybe interest in social media. I think people go to Facebook and Twitter primarily to check on friends and family.

The Citizen Leadership Advisory Committee did not work well. People are busy and they feel "been there, done that" about being updated at committee meetings. For the initial project the response was good, but not for the expansion. Frequency is challenging as well. E-updates might have been as good as a meeting, but we also don’t want to inundate people with e-mails.

We stopped and started the outreach effort. This significantly hurt our efforts. Clearly we should have listened more carefully to our advisors. Some political interests dominated the strategy without consideration for long-term effect.

Most Significant Public Acceptance Challenges

When respondents were asked what they believe will be the most significant public acceptance challenges as more communities consider new water sources, such as potable reuse, they replied as summarized in the following:

• addressing health and safety concerns o water quality o PPCPs/CECs o perception of potential exposure to contagious diseases

• explaining costs to ratepayers • combating the “yuck” factor and "toilet-to-tap" branding • engaging (breaking through disinterest and busy schedules) and educating the public • building trust • working with regulations/regulators • addressing mixed messages from within the industry and inconsistent language; for

example, clearly and simply defining IPR and DPR


Most importantly, the "yuck" factor is still there, and we have to address this head on—maybe brand it or own it. People have emotional responses to what they don’t understand. It is not science to these people, and the more science you provide to them, the more they hold on to their own opinion. The question is how to convey that reuse has been happening all the time. The other main issue for us is the unaffiliated public and how to reach them. They don’t go to meetings because they do not have time, etc. We have to develop the right strategies for different parts of a very diverse city without changing our message.

The "yuck" factor must still be overcome for our project to become feasible. Cost is the other big issue.

Cost—people don’t understand why rates go up and connect that to the pay and pensions at water districts. Also, as an industry, we all speak in different ways about the same things, and we need to get rid of mixed messages, such as "Recycled Water—Do Not Drink."

Similarly, when asked what they think are some of the greatest challenges to educating the public, elected officials, and the media about the benefits of new water sources, such as potable reuse, they replied as summarized in the following:

• engaging the busy public, leadership, and media (getting their attention) • explaining relative costs versus value of various options; addressing cost concerns • overcoming “toilet-to-tap” and “yuck” factor branding • making complex issues understandable • working with regulators and within regulations • dealing with short attention spans • dealing with media sensationalism • addressing safety/health/quality concerns • finding the right language to communicate with laypersons • addressing social justice perceptions • overcoming fear of the unknowns that could be discovered later • dealing with political turnover

People don’t understand what it means to have an unreliable supply because their water supply has never been cut off and they can’t relate to that. A crisis would be needed to really gain that understanding. But the environmental community is asking to be engaged on this issue. And I think using a "green" theme is a good idea: this water is renewable, reusable, recyclable, etc. Also it is locally controlled and drought resilient—and it makes sense to use water more than once.

Will we be opening a Pandora’s Box about water safety if we say that the water we are creating for DPR is better than what you are drinking now? How do we talk about existing drinking water safety while introducing a new water supply with new treatment processes?


People understand the value of reusing water. The sustainability of reusing water is key and resonates with the public.

Regulatory and Political Challenges

Respondents were asked if they experienced any regulatory and/or political challenges that made public acceptance of potable reuse more difficult to achieve. On the basis of these interviews, most projects seem to be subject to regulations from multiple agencies representing local, regional, state, and/or federal government interests, which can be onerous to wade through.

However, the biggest regulatory issue facing many of these agencies is the lack of clear regulatory paths toward permitting such projects. There was a sense of frustration among many of the respondents. There are draft regulations that offer some guidance for IPR-type projects. However, for DPR projects there are no clearly defined regulations and not even a framework for moving forward with confidence. Some respondents believe that regulators are under-informed about potable reuse and, therefore, are reluctant to put themselves on the line. This results in a pattern of foot-dragging or over-regulating to “play it safe.”

I am just concerned that there are no regulations in place to do what we want to do. There may be some movement now, but we can’t wait forever for a decision. We don’t want to be in the position where we are ready to go and there are no regulations.

I am not aware of any political challenges. But we need a regulatory framework in place. The public will look to the regulators to assure them their water supply is safe.

With the successful implementation of the Orange County project, the conversation is easier.

Now the city council wants DPR, and there are no regulations. They only have a limited time in office, and this will not happen in their term. We do have a good relationship with regulators. We are trying to push ahead of where the regulations are, so we have to manage expectations, which is tough.

Regulators are a roadblock to moving forward. It is very time consuming to get a project going. Regulations need to evolve. There is so much research to show what we can do in terms of water purity. It seems regulators are dragging their feet to the point where the legislature has had to mandate deadlines for them. Why can’t they move faster or hire a contractor to write regulations? And certain politicians were not accepting of potable reuse, including some county supervisors.

Yes, because they don’t have the knowledge nor funds for studies, it seems State officials are over-regulating just to play it safe. But they are not basing this on factual studies. Funding studies to help them make more informed decisions is clearly a challenge. Silos of government regulations overlap each other, covering their butts. This makes it unusually difficult if you are trying to secure permits.


Potable reuse is considered to be politically volatile; the policy advisors really guard their ministers. As such, potable reuse is not even openly discussed at a political level. This is a consequence of how previous proposals for potable reuse have been used politically in Toowoomba (QLD) and South Australia.

A few respondents reported that they have spent a great deal of time educating and working with various regulatory agencies and/or creating political support on a local or regional level, which has helped move their projects forward, but most say more work needs to be done on the regulatory front.

We managed to maintain bipartisan support in the lead-up to and during the trial project. This was particularly essential when the time came for the government to decide if the project would proceed to a full scheme. It was important the scheme did not become a political argument; support on both sides helped to smooth the way.

About one-third of respondents said they had or have one (or more) project champion(s) or advocate(s) that have been helpful in gaining support for their project. These champions include regional water quality board members, water district board members, water quality experts, mayors and city council members, state and federal elected representatives and appointees, and environmental organizations.

We have engineers and water quality experts who have been in the trenches with good professional accreditations behind their names—they made presentations and were out front on the project and gained respect from the community.

The former mayor has been a project champion—it was his idea! And the Assistant Director of Public Utilities. But we need more people to help with this so we can present the technical results of the pilot study accurately.

We are so networked today, and international projects are very, very important. The evolution of potable reuse in the USA (particularly Orange County) has, in itself, been effectively a key advocate. Similarly, if one of these projects were to ‘fail’ in some way, that would have a tremendous impact to public support or acceptance in Australia.

Many agencies without project champions recognize the value of having respected project advocates, and several continue their efforts to foster such support.

One of the things in our survey was that people trust academicians, so we will put together a panel of academics with different expertise (water treatment, public health, etc.) and videotape their discussions and make sure they are available to attend public events.

We need some of the state legislators, congressmen, senators, and the local government elected officials to step up to the plate.


Respondent Recommendations

When asked what specific recommendations they would offer utilities, water districts, or advocates seeking support for potable reuse projects, respondents offered the following:

• develop trust; you must do this to achieve public acceptance • have a demonstration facility—let people see how the water is treated and even taste it if

possible • make a clear and visible commitment to quality and safety • be transparent, honest, and clear in all communications • develop personal relationships with leaders, regulators, public, and media • work closely with regulators; bring them into the process early • start all outreach activities early and be consistent; don’t start and stop your outreach

efforts • educate from the inside out; groom the entire staff to be project ambassadors • don’t be in a hurry; take a step-by-step approach with regulators and your public • identify respected project champions early • seek outside funding • develop consistent language and messaging throughout the industry • get support and advice from other agencies and associations

Resist the temptation to take shortcuts. At GWRS, for example, they owned the fact there was going to be a "yuck factor" in the minds of the public, and they worked very hard to make sure the water was as clean as it could be. DPR will need to adopt the GWRS model: have enough treatment and monitoring to create a level of confidence. Streamlining may be good, but short-circuiting is not.

Look at how San Diego has done it so far—public outreach was a lot of work, but it has helped them especially with public officials and NGOs. And I think it helps to talk with people face-to-face and at the site where you are planning a facility if possible.

Talk to regulatory agencies as far in advance as possible. Start this process even before you know what type of plant you will propose. Once you have the concept, start meeting with regulators and talking with them. They need to know you can meet standards, but they also want to know you have the capacity to operate a good program. They want to develop a relationship with you and the design team early.

Go after and secure outside funding sources. If you can demonstrate safety and performance to the RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), you can get your project permitted. But people tend to think lots of things are feasible until the bill is due. Explore partnerships, cooperation between agencies and within regions—and then identify and apply for funding that might be available. Here is a message to the regulators/legislators/governor: start budgeting for these projects if you want them to get built.


Try to speak in a consistent way that is clear and understandable to the layperson. And the industry needs to reach agreement on what to call this and how to be uniform in this effort. We are getting better but still need to improve.

Start public outreach as early as possible; educate your employees regarding potable reuse because they are also members of the community, and they become the trusted resource, so they are ambassadors—don’t just rely on your public information officers; and try to learn from other agencies as much as possible—learn new solutions to new challenges.

Reach out to the WateReuse Foundation or WateReuse California as enormous reservoirs of information; use the same message; learn lessons from others (associations can help with this too)—many agencies have visited our research facility; talk to regulators early (they come every other month to meet, and there is a new topic each time, so by the time we have an engineering report, they will have had lots of information).

Don’t hide it or gloss over it—be straight with the public about what you are doing; be open so people can gain greater understanding—they can see, hear, and be a part of it; work on the media and get them to stop looking for juicy stuff and Toilet To Tap. Need a flexible strategy—talk to others, but recognize that "one size doesn’t fit all"—and it is especially important to hear what did not work; evaluate after six to nine months and tweak what is not working; never ratchet back your outreach—it must be ongoing.

There are good models of what worked—we went to Orange County and asked what worked and what did not—you can learn from past projects—don’t start from scratch; timing is everything and do your planning in advance to take advantage of timing opportunities; be sure to have board support before starting.

Get academics and medical professionals in at the start—they are common, everyday people that tell the truth; work with the media at the beginning; develop credibility with the pubic and water users—show everything you have and are doing; show the need; start early with regulatory agencies—this could be a big hold up; make sure your staff and consultants know what they are doing.

Get as many community leaders as possible (people without any skin in the game) supporting it and saying we need to do this—they are more credible; have opinion leaders be advocates as this gives policy makers cover to make the decision to do potable reuse (if/when the regulatory pathway and financing are there, it is down to the policy makers having the moxie to move forward with it).

We are learning as we go and trying to listen to others. I would say be consistent and transparent in messaging to the entire team, including employees. We also tell our employees and others that this is not a done


deal—we are asking questions to determine if this is a good idea for the community—and the answer may be "no."

We are probably our own worst critics and make things more difficult than they need to be for ourselves. We do this in the questions that we ask and how we frame them. If we accept, as a starting point, that all alternatives for augmentation of water supply must meet health standards, then that ceases to become a significant point of difference. The difference then is the cost to community for various options such as seawater desalination, wastewater potable reuse, stormwater potable [reuse].

Engage early, don’t create an advertising campaign that looks like propaganda, and make sure you target key figures and decision makers in the community who are sought for advice, media comment, and direction.

Principal Interviewers/Investigators

Mark Millan, Data Instincts Patricia Tennyson, Katz & Associates

3.1.2 Legislators

This report presents topline insights and learning from a total of 21 one-on-one in-depth meetings with 34 California state legislators and/or their staff members. The meetings were conducted in person and took place in April and May 2014. (Note that since the time of these interviews, the California Department of Public Health’s [DPH's] drinking water regulatory section moved under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board. It is now known as the Division of Drinking Water [DDW].)

The primary objective of this research effort was to gain an understanding of familiarity, attitudes, perceptions, and support regarding potable reuse projects among the state’s leadership and policymakers. The discussion guide and a list of participants are available in Appendix B.

The findings from these discussions were combined with learning from in-depth interviews conducted among other population segments as well as secondary research, such as literature review, to assist the Data Instincts and Katz & Associates team in developing this document, Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse (WRRF-13-02), in association with the WateReuse Research Foundation. Specifically, the discussion guide was designed to explore the following among state leadership: • challenges and opportunities for gaining support at the state leadership level • awareness, knowledge, and understanding of potable reuse and the processes,

technology, and science associated with it


• perceptions of, attitudes toward, and willingness to support potable reuse projects • awareness of and familiarity with potable reuse projects in their

district/community or throughout the state • perceptions of the most significant public acceptance challenges as more

communities consider new water sources, such as potable reuse • perceptions of regulatory and political challenges for potable reuse • greatest challenges to educating elected officials about the benefits of new water

sources, such as potable reuse • specific recommendations for utilities, districts, or advocates seeking legislative

and public support for potable reuse projects

3.1.2.1 Methodology

This type of one-on-one meeting, sometimes called in-depth interviews, is a qualitative research method best suited for uncovering the range of views, beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and experiences that may exist in a certain population. During the meeting, an experienced interviewer uses a discussion guide to conduct a structured conversation with participants.

Like other qualitative methods, the one-on-one meetings allow for detailed exploration of topics but do not provide data that is statistically representative of a larger population. Instead, the information obtained is descriptive and should be considered as representing a range of opinions that may exist among various segments. Note that opinions are not necessarily factually accurate.

3.1.2.2 Anonymity

Interview participants were told that the list of participating legislators or their staff members would be included in this report but that their responses, including quotations, would be incorporated anonymously. Participants were promised anonymity to encourage candid feedback. This report uses the pronoun “he” in all cases whether referring to a male or female respondent, to preserve anonymity.


This report summarizes responses from meeting participants. Occasionally a response will be in a quotation to indicate a specific comment, although the discussions were not recorded and remarks are not verbatim. These remarks are included to give the reader a flavor of the sentiment expressed by meeting participants when discussing the issues.

3.1.2.4 Key Findings

• Although most leaders, or their representatives, were familiar with recycled water, only a few demonstrated that they had a solid understanding of potable reuse.

• Others were able to make educated guesses at the meaning of potable reuse, knowing that “potable” means drinkable. For those unfamiliar with the terminology, and even for some with more familiarity, the term indirect potable reuse seemed the most confusing and misunderstood.

• Many respondents demonstrated a lack of awareness of the history of potable reuse and current and proposed projects in the state.


• Several legislators or their representatives stated that they could not go out on a limb to support potable reuse in their district without more knowledge and assurances relative to safety, costs, need, and benefits.

• A few also seem reluctant or unwilling to back a project unless public support is in evidence, which, for them, points to the great need for public outreach and education.

• The lack of potable reuse regulations and a clear permitting process was troubling to many of the leaders and made supporting potable reuse all the more difficult for them.

• To combat issues of government distrust and suspicion, a number of respondents stressed the importance of careful planning, education, and transparency every step of the way.

• Making a personal connection with these leaders was helpful, so face-to-face meetings, tours, or personalized presentations work well. However, trying to schedule these with members of the Senate and Assembly was challenging because of the demands on their time.

• For routine, ongoing communication about potable reuse, most respondents preferred to be contacted via e-mail. However, some said that if there is an important issue or an upcoming vote, they would like a face-to-face meeting. In addition, they wanted to be informed and briefed early if issues arise that might generate calls from their constituents.

• An informative web page to help state leaders learn about potable reuse and stay current with related issues would be a welcomed mode of communication/education/outreach for many.

3.1.2.5 Recommendations

Recommendations include the following:

• Develop and execute an education/outreach effort expressly tailored to state legislators, their staff and consultants; the effort should include

o one-page, double-sided fact sheets o a website or web pages that present potable reuse information in succinct, easy-to-

understand language and include FAQs, potable reuse history and current projects, fact sheets, and key white papers; include information about the science and technology involved with potable reuse as well as information about PPCPs, CECs, pathogens, etc.

o information about ongoing public outreach/education efforts o a program of face-to-face brown bag lunch meetings, presentations, and/or tours

• Create a system for informing the leadership early in the process of proposed potable reuse projects—especially if the projects are in their district—or about any issues arising with current ones.

• Work with legislators to help clear the regulatory and permitting pathways.


Respondent Profiles

Some of the interviews included more than one respondent. Therefore 34 individuals participated in the 21 interviews. Ten interviews were conducted with representatives and/or


their staff (i.e., directors, aides, consultants) representing Northern California districts and communities, and an equal number were conducted with their Southern California counterparts. One session was conducted with an individual in a statewide position. A brief description of participants is given in Table 3.3.


Table 3.3. Description of Interview Participants

Type

Elected Official

Staff/Other

Senate 3 7

Assembly 9 15 Total 12 22

Water Reuse Familiarity

Nearly all respondents were at least somewhat familiar with recycled water, with about half saying they were quite familiar with it. Most had read or heard about recycled water issues in their district or the state. Some had active recycled water projects in their district; others said there are plans or discussions for future projects.

A handful of participants were in comfortable territory with the terms direct potable reuse, indirect potable reuse, and potable reuse, and about one-third said there are utilities or cities in their districts planning or discussing potable reuse projects. About the same fraction said they believe the communities and members of the public in their district are, or would be, supportive of potable reuse projects; a handful said they would not anticipate support for such projects, and the remainder were unsure.

Others were able to make educated guesses at the meaning of potable reuse, knowing that “potable” means drinkable. To those unfamiliar with the terminology, and even to some with more familiarity, the term indirect potable reuse seemed the most confusing and misunderstood. At least one (and possibly more) consistently confused recycled water with graywater and/or stormwater; this individual defined indirect potable reuse as “something that is sometimes done in combination with graywater and stormwater, which is captured and put into a natural setting.”

Most respondents were at least somewhat familiar with high-pressure membrane filtration and/or reverse osmosis (RO) technologies. Only one participant was aware that potable reuse has been used in various locations since 1962 and more recently in Orange County and San Diego (demonstration plant) and that it is coming soon to Santa Clara. A few others were aware of some of those projects (particularly San Diego and Orange County) but not all of them; about an equal number were not aware of any of the projects. This general lack of awareness points to the need for education/outreach to better inform state leaders.

Potable Reuse Perceptions

Regardless of their level of familiarity with potable reuse or the technologies involved, most respondents seemed to have an overall favorable perception—at least on a conceptual level—of reusing water in this way.

Many noted the great need to develop new water sources and acknowledged that the current drought situation has driven that point home. That said, many also noted that much education is needed, both for state leaders and their constituents.

Though most respondents had not conducted a potable reuse survey and did not know of any that had been conducted in their districts, when asked what they considered to be the


most significant public acceptance challenge as more communities consider new water sources like potable reuse, they replied as follows:

• the “yuck” factor; “toilet-to-tap” • long-term, approachable public education o communicating the technology/science o explaining the water cycle o explaining benefits o showing where it is already being done; showing a track record • water quality perceptions o safety o health o pathogens/PPCPs/CECs • cost • environmental impacts • environmental justice concerns • maintaining forthright/transparent communications • building and communicating failsafe water systems/redundancies • government/business distrust

You will need to demonstrate that it is truly safe. If you can do that, it will cure most of the issues. If places like Big Spring, Texas and Wichita Falls are still okay in five years, then we are at "game over." If it works there, and no one gets hurt, then it can probably work anywhere. Public perception of how this water is produced. We need to assure people it is safe to use and has great potential. In San Diego our imported water from Colorado has been used over and over. This [potable reuse] water is much cleaner—we need to explain this to people so they better appreciate this resource. Show the science—do more public campaigning to fight off the fear factor. Policy makers are far more familiar with the safety of the water than are the public. More public outreach is needed. There are huge environmental issues (sludge with recycled water and brine with desal) and energy usage issues. And could there be any relationship with “fracking”? If there is a groundwater basin to be recharged and it is located near a fracking field, will there be a water quality issue in the basin? Most people are out of touch with where things come from—including their water—so they will not have thought about its being used many times before it gets to them.


Regarding the issue of government and business distrust, several legislators cited the fracking controversy, the West Virginia chemical spill, and public pushback related to fluoridated water as recent examples of how things can go terribly wrong—either in actuality or perceptually—thus casting a negative halo over all potentially questionable or controversial activities undertaken by big business and/or the government.

Somewhat related is the issue of environmental justice. A few respondents noted that there are segments of their constituency who feel they have unfairly “borne the brunt of many projects” and therefore are suspicious of the government. To combat issues of distrust and suspicion, a number of respondents stressed the importance of careful planning, education, and transparency every step of the way.

We would need to be very upfront about potable reuse. Not like the fracking issue. The oil companies were hiding the ball at first, and now there is no trust at all among the community members. If you are not up front with information, people will just draw their own conclusions, and that will not benefit the project. You will need to educate people around the environmental justice area. Many of our constituents are used to being screwed by projects, and they will need to know this is different. Their perceptions play on their fears, and they are used to being disengaged, especially those who do not speak the language well.

Potable Reuse Support

Several legislators or their representatives stated that they could not go out on a limb to support potable reuse in their district without more knowledge and assurances relative to safety, costs, need, and benefits. A few also seemed reluctant or unwilling to back a project unless public support is in evidence, which, again, points to the need for public outreach and education and for that effort to be visible to the state leaders.

When asked what specific type of information would help them determine if they could or could not support potable water reuse, respondents listed the following:

• project costs and funding schemes

• water quality o safety o health-related o pathogens/PPCPs/CECs

• information about potable reuse projects in other communities; track records

• the science and technology behind the process; how it works

• public education efforts

• level of public support • energy use/carbon footprint • environmental impacts (positive and

negative) • environmental/social justice

considerations • permitting process and regulations • effects on water/property rights • benefits to the public/community • opportunities for interagency

collaboration

WaterReuse Research Foundation 31

Based on what I know—which is not a lot—I think it sounds good. However, I do not know about the amount of energy it takes or about the waste products that are left after the treatment. Also, is it cost-efficient? The senator will be concerned to know how his constituents feel before deciding whether to support a project or not. The Assembly Member would want to know what the connection is to the region. Is this project about regional self-reliance? Is there broad acceptance of it? Is everyone doing direct potable reuse—this is not just being shoved off on our district? Is it cheaper to go to groundwater with this source? Will this increase rates? The Senator will want to know about cost, environmental benefits, how the process works—and if there is collaboration around this, he would be interested in that as he likes to see collaborative projects where knowledgeable groups come together to resolve an issue. I would need to know how to combat arguments against DPR: safety, whether there have been illnesses, the quality of the water. So much is being said about how safe it is. We don’t really believe that is the issue we should be focused on. We assume it will be safe—we should be concerned with whether we have an appropriate path for permitting these new facilities on a case-by-case basis that makes sense. We are very supportive because [it] is important for self-reliance. It is a proven technology. A study on financial support would be nice, and access to grants to help pay for the project. I think the Assembly Member would want to see some of the prestigious California universities show him this is okay before going out on a limb to support it. Or he would need to see a place where it is done safely. The greatest barrier is the local public health offices. The State CDPH (DDW) is moving slowly toward a comfort level with potable reuse, but the locals are intractable. This may be better with Water Board involvement.

Time was cited as among the greatest challenges to educating elected officials about the benefits of new water sources, such as potable reuse. It seems that making a personal connection is helpful, so face-to-face meetings, tours, and personalized presentations work well. However, trying to schedule these with members of the Senate and Assembly can be challenging because of the demands on their time. Many respondents offered insights and advice for an educational effort aimed at the state leadership, such as the following:

For me it was a step-by-step process, and that would probably work for the Assembly Member as well: teach about one issue at a time and draw


lines showing how they connect to make up the whole picture—bring this together in a holistic approach. You will need to educate them that they do "have a dog in this fight" even if there are no projects in their district; have people in the district that support this, or are planning a project, talk to the elected officials. Officials who are very responsive to opinions in their district will be swayed by those who attend public meetings on the topic—and most people who attend this type of meeting are opponents—so they will not support it in the face of what they hear at a meeting. When there is no other way to get water, opinions may shift. Ways to educate include doing what you are doing now: meeting and talking with staff; have the elected official or their district staff person tour a plant if there is one in their district—the member will come back to Sacramento and talk to colleagues and information will spread organically; policy committees here are looked at as authorities, so you need to speak with them for sure. Access—getting face time with them is difficult; only a handful of legislators know anything about water. If there is a demonstration or pilot plant they can see—and if the water district talks this up, more members would listen. In California, where water is a state issue and a right for people, you may get some pushback. Providing staffers and members with fact sheets, one-pagers (no more than one page), two-sided, would be VERY helpful. Maybe a special web page where we could access current information that is VERY brief but informative: FAQs, where these facilities are, what is being studied. Perhaps have links to key white papers if we need more info on CECs or something. Legislators in jurisdictions where projects are being considered will need extra attention and to be provided with resources to educate themselves to speak with constituents. I like the idea [of] info being provided on the web. They would want to be kept informed of any pending legislation that might need their support. Personally I prefer briefings—like a brown bag lunch that lasts no more than an hour. The Water Education Foundation used to have a monthly lunch meeting with a speaker—there was a lot of free-flowing discussion at these. It is also easier to meet during interim periods than during session. Don’t send me a bunch of stuff. And I want to hear from the people in our field office—what have they heard and seen.

For routine, ongoing communications about potable reuse, most respondents prefer to be contacted via e-mail. However, some said that if there were an important issue or an upcoming vote, they would like a face-to-face meeting. In addition, they want to be informed and briefed early if issues arise that might generate calls from their constituents.


If there are state implications or regulatory issues that might generate calls from constituents, we need to know about that early. We want to know about the outreach being done and have appropriate background information. If a district or city is actively promoting a project locally in our district, we would want to know that.

Last, when asked for specific recommendations they would offer utilities, water districts, or advocates seeking support for potable reuse projects, they responded with the following:

• reach out and educate the leadership before a project begins • be frank and transparent • talk to the community early • talk to policy staff early • clear the regulatory pathway • conduct plant tours for leaders and the public • provide easy-to-understand messaging for the leadership and the public

o emphasize quality and safety o cite studies/demonstrate the science o communicate system safety

• work with youth • speakers bureaus

Make sure there is a good PR message—it should be easy, simple to understand, consistent, and transparent; don’t talk about it at a macro level—talk about how it will help each person (lower their water bill or at least slow down or decrease the size of rate increases—tying projects to wallets is still useful). Start early. Have conversations with community members before you make a decision to do it. Make sure they are part of the decision. Do not make a decision and then try to sell it. Do a lot of education. As a state legislator, I need to know about a project when it is on the public agenda because that is when I begin to get questions about it. Policy staff, in leadership offices and on committees, are the ones to talk with—they have great influence in Sacramento. Get the regulatory pathway cleared up; get the Water Board to establish regulations so that agencies can comply; once that is done, this should be okay. Find somewhere for members to see an AWP [advanced water processing] facility with a proven track record; build a working model if there is no other plant nearby.


CECs are not regulated, but when one shows up it needs to be dealt with. This needs to be clearly communicated to the public. Communicate that there is, in fact, a system in place to address unknowns. Someone needs to go first, and that will help all the others. It’s too bad a few can’t agree to move forward together at the same time. That would be great. Explain and be direct with ratepayers; inform [them] and keep them aware of evolving studies and efforts to expand and safely distribute this new water source. The demonstration sites are really the way to go. I applaud these efforts. Let people taste the water after a tour. Start with the science and make special efforts with young people (the same way we got people to wear seatbelts and make other changes). Teaching very young people about these issues will make a big difference when they are in their 20s.



3.1.3 Health Professionals

This report presents topline insights and learning from a total of four one-on-one in-depth interviews that were conducted among representatives of a variety of health professionals, with a focus on those with past or current involvement with public health and regulatory issues. The interviews were conducted in person and took place between April and June of 2014.

While coordinating in-depth interviews with health regulators, as was called for in Task 3 of WRRF-13-02, we encountered a challenge with state health officials' willingness to meet and be interviewed by members of the project team. A regional public health official from the CDPH informed team members that he and others in the department had had an internal discussion about participating in this part of the WateReuse effort (the in-depth interview process for WRRF-13-02).

He said they had determined it was “inappropriate for us to participate in this” and that they would not be able to meet with us for two reasons: 1. “We are a public health agency and our job is to ensure that DPR is safe for the public to

consume (if they are able to), but it is not our job to have the public accept it.” 2. “Taking part in this could conceivably be construed by some as an endorsement for using

DPR. While it is a stated goal; as a public agency, we are not comfortable in that role.”


Respecting this disclosure, we did not pursue scheduling interviews with other state public health officials. Instead, we looked to other regional health-related organizations and individuals with knowledge of, or experience with, health regulations. Among our participants were two retired CDPH professionals whose input proved very enlightening.

The primary objective of this research effort was to gain an understanding of familiarity, attitudes, perceptions, and potential support related to potable reuse projects among health professionals and their insights into the mindset of regulators with regard to potable reuse or other water augmentation projects. The discussion guide and list of participants is available in Appendix C. Specifically, the interview questions were designed to explore the following among health professionals:

• familiarity (and experience) with potable reuse and the processes, technology, and science associated with it

• perceptions, attitudes, and overall willingness to support potable reuse projects • knowledge gaps and unresolved issues that need to be addressed to gain support for

potable reuse criteria, as it is developed The findings from these interviews were combined with learning from in-depth interviews conducted among other relevant population segments as well as secondary research, such as literature review, to assist the Data Instincts and Katz & Associates team in developing this document, Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse (WRRF-13-02), in association with the WateReuse Research Foundation.

3.1.3.1 Methodology



3.1.3.2 Anonymity



This report summarizes responses from interview participants. Occasionally a response will be in a quotation to indicate a specific comment, although the interviews were not recorded


and remarks are not verbatim. These remarks are included to give the reader a flavor for the language interview participants used when discussing the issues.


• Although all of those interviewed embrace the value of DPR, most have significant concerns and believe their concerns may reflect those of health regulators and other water industry policymakers.

• Fear of the unknown seems to be the keystone concern and will be the most difficult to overcome. In the words of one respondent, “We only measure a few hundred contaminants and fewer viruses, but we don’t know what we don’t know or aren’t looking for.”

• Among the specific concerns that these respondents would like to see addressed are o reliable real-time monitoring o ability to detect and remove new constituents as they occur o assignment of parameters for new and existing contaminants o response time to events that ensures that contamination does not occur


Associations that are focused on medicine or public health issues can be instrumental in a potable reuse support initiative. It is imperative that they are provided with accurate data and the latest research findings. In addition to support from state-level public heath associations, support from statewide organizations in the medical industry, including medical associations and hospital associations (physicians, nurses, dentists, etc.) would strengthen public awareness and trust in potable reuse. Specific recommendations include

• Continuing an open dialog with health regulators and professionals, whether supportive or not o provide white papers and fact sheets that they can share with organization members o direct organizations, via e-mail correspondence, to potable reuse informational

websites o keep groups informed about ongoing efforts to develop responsible solutions for brine

disposal. • Developing strategies applicable to this stakeholder group, including

o letters and proclamations of support o pre-drafted and regularly distributed potable reuse articles o one-on-one meetings o formal presentations o interviews with them, shared via podcasts o e-mail updates


Respondent Profiles

Respondents came from a variety of health professional backgrounds: they were environmental health leaders, educators, and engineers. Two participants were retired CDPH


professionals. Respondents from both Northern and Southern California (and one currently residing in Boston, MA) participated in this effort. A list of participants is available in the Appendix.


Nearly all respondents had reviewed recycled water proposals and were familiar with DPR and IPR projects. Most reported that they had read or reviewed reports on highly purified recycled water or potable reuse and were at least somewhat knowledgeable about, or had experience with, RO. Nearly all also demonstrated knowledge about currently operating DPR projects in Texas and Namibia and proposed projects in San Diego and other locations in the United States.

Orange County Water District was very thorough and could be used as a model for others. They utilized an Advisory Panel that was superb—coordinated by the NWRI. In addition, I would say San Diego has done an extraordinary job in changing public opinion over time. People who live there understand much better now how their water systems work. They know that the taste and safety of their water is potentially better if produced and managed locally versus what comes from the Colorado River, for instance.

Potable Reuse Perceptions and Knowledge Gaps

Most respondents have concerns about the use of highly purified recycled water for potable reuse. Two concerns that were articulated were 1) the fear of the unknown and 2) the security of the source of water.

The technological challenges need to be resolved. I would say someday this will be viable, but we have a few hurdles to overcome first. It is what we have not yet identified that we need to be worried about.

When asked if they think public water systems in their area need the option to use DPR, the responses were mixed and thoughtful:

I have some reservations. Certainly it is cheaper and may be easier than IPR. There are lots of political conditions to think of as well. If there is no rain, we will have to do some drastic things—in an emergency we might not have options. But under normal conditions, I have some reservations. Nothing is without risk. I would not go out of my way to express this, but there is risk involved. Of course there is risk with our current water supply. Nothing is absolutely safe. But IPR gives some assurances that DPR may not provide. My concerns are around monitoring and time to react. We only measure a few hundred contaminants and fewer viruses, but we don’t know what we don’t know or aren’t looking for. For example, the old OCWD (Orange County Water District) project found NDMA [N-nitrosodimethylamine] and 1,4-dioxane that they didn’t know they needed to look for previously. The need is in parts of the state where people will be willing to look at these new sources based on significantly reduced rainfall.


Do you mean they "need" this option or they "would like to have" this option? Some might need it if they have a need for new water sources but do not have an environmental buffer and cannot do IPR—in this case, they do not have any other option and would need DPR.

Only a couple of respondents were aware that the WRRF has research underway to address knowledge gaps regarding DPR.

This work can be very helpful. Plus it is useful when organizations like WRRF ask us what kinds of things need to be addressed in order for us to approve such projects. Sometimes, though, there are concerns or perceptions about the approach being one of advocacy and the sense of urgency applied. The approval process in the state structure can take time to be done effectively, properly, and with the public’s safety in the forefront.

When asked what issues or unknowns need to be resolved before they think regulators would have the information they need to permit DPR, water reliability/safety, response time, and monitoring emerged as the areas of greatest concern:

• Demonstrated reliability in technology to monitor, detect, and address new constituents as they occur

• Demonstrated adequacy of response time to prevent contaminants from entering distribution system during various types of events, as well as the ability to supply other water in case of a problem; knowledge of how long the system can be offline

• Knowledge and understanding of 12-10-10 log removal of microbials and information on expected log removals

• Enhanced source control program—routine monitoring for contaminants; also, a full evaluation of the raw water quality before this source goes to treatment so that the agency knows what it is dealing with: “MCLs [maximum contaminant levels] are usually based on source water, so this will play into the evaluation of the need for enhanced source control”

• Knowledge of complete treatment train along with demonstration projects that consistently prove efficacy in producing safe water

We need to be able to look at indicators that tell us that the water is reliable. The challenge is when we see new constituents evolving, like NDMA. Now in the case of NDMA, OCWD did a fine job of recognizing the issues and quickly demonstrated ways of addressing it. We have never stopped projects, but the truth is we learn something new from each one every time. And as new ones come along we add to the knowledge base as to what we need to scrutinize and look out for. I believe this [is] our role and what the public expects of us.

They will want to know the monitoring system is working fine and, if not, that they can either shut the system down or fix a problem before any unsafe water gets to the distribution pipes. The response time is very important. They will need almost real-time monitoring, and there should be parameters for each contaminant, especially viruses. A one time, brief


exposure to a contaminant that might cause cancer if there was lifetime exposure will not be a big concern, but if a virus gets out, it will cause widespread illness.

The Drinking Water Program is convening an expert panel to investigate the feasibility of developing criteria for DPR. When asked if they are confident that this panel will help resolve their concerns—or those of health regulators—most respondents said yes, with some qualifiers:

The NWRI one that was run in OCWD was very thorough. I anticipate that this one will be equally as rigorous in their review. I think we can all agree that reusing a resource is a good thing, not a bad thing. Verifying that we have a safe approach with redundancy is going to be paramount.

I know it is a good panel and am confident that these are experts outside of CDPH (DDW) that should be able to address most of the questions with appropriate responses.

Depending on the makeup of the panel, I would feel confident—but when the same people turn up on panels over and over again, it seems they are too "inside the industry" to really allow the regulators to be confident. Will these people be "outsiders" enough to be objective?

When interviewers mentioned that DDW has approved impaired resources in the past and respondents were asked if they view potable reuse to be similar to those cases or distinctly different, the responses were varied and thoughtful:

The review process is similar, but entirely different. Byproducts of IPR and DPR projects cause us a greater detail of concern because of what we don’t know. It’s like the analogy of "it’s not what you know; it’s what you don’t know that you worry about." The concern is the unknowns of the unknowns. So, municipal wastewater facilities need to be able to have good programs that address source water, the treatment process, and reliable monitoring. The science is not there yet to say it is safe in all circumstances. Utilities need to provide the department with that assurance, just as with impaired water sources. Raw wastewater is an impaired source—at what point does it become source water? If it goes through an advanced water treatment [AWT] process, it is likely better than raw water and would not then be considered impaired. There may be a question from CDPH (DDW) as to whether this is an impaired source, but the regulations should exist regarding it as a water supply. I would not think they could approve a source if it violates the MCLs, but I am not clear on your definition [of] "impaired." I would assume anything they approved would still meet the criteria. It depends on the source of the impairment I think, as to whether DPR is similar. When sewage is the origin of the water, it is not really similar to a vague concept of impairment. And sewage has stuff besides fecal matter in it.



When asked if they would be willing to support DPR if it meets DDW criteria, all but one respondent continued to have concerns that prevented their full support at the time. Primarily, and again, the concerns tend to swirl around the unknowns as well as public perceptions.

Possibly, but it would depend on evaluating systems and would be on a case-by-case basis. Like I mentioned earlier, we learn more from each project that goes through the system, and projects do vary. Plus, we really need to build these types of facilities before there is a drought, not afterward. The public may be more assured if they knew these facilities were in place augmenting a very small percentage of water versus in a drought filling up whole reservoirs with a very high percentage of highly treated purified recycled water. We also need to be careful that this is not viewed as needed only in instances of last resort; it should be viewed as a system we have at our disposal at all times, not just when we reach critical drought conditions. I will feel better about it if it is based on a solid foundation, with the right parameters and panel. Removing a barrier that can take out other contaminants is problematic, I think. With direct, you don’t really know what you are trying to remove if you don’t know it is there. In general, I would need to know a lot more about the quality and the storage of the water. For the health industry, the purity of the water is a big factor (the use of dialysis), and yuck factor. Public acceptance is the greatest challenge. I think you need to address water reliability, water quality, and local supply. You should have a community outreach campaign. If it meets CDPH (DDW) criteria, why wouldn’t they consider it? They could consider it now without regulations.



3.1.4 Special Interests

This report presents topline insights and learning from a total of seven one-on-one in-depth interviews that were conducted among eight representatives of a variety of special interest groups. The interviews were conducted in person and took place between April and June of 2014.

The primary objective of this research effort was to gain an understanding of familiarity, attitudes, perceptions, and support related to DPR projects among special interest groups that have, or are likely to, weigh in on potable reuse or other water augmentation projects. The discussion guide and list of participants is available in Appendix D.


Specifically, the interview questions were designed to explore the following among special interests:

• awareness, knowledge, and understanding of potable reuse and the processes, technology, and science associated with it

• perceptions of, attitudes toward, and willingness to support potable reuse projects • awareness of and familiarity with current community/statewide potable reuse projects • perceptions of public acceptance challenges related to potable reuse • specific recommendations for utilities, districts, or advocates seeking legislative and

public support for potable reuse projects

The findings from these interviews were combined with learning from in-depth interviews conducted among other relevant population segments as well as secondary research, such as literature review, to assist the Data Instincts and Katz & Associates team in developing this document, Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse (WRRF-13-02), in association with the WateReuse Research Foundation.

3.1.4.1 Methodology



3.1.4.2 Anonymity



This report summarizes responses from interview participants. Occasionally a response will be in a quotation to indicate a specific comment, although the interviews were not recorded and remarks are not verbatim. These remarks are included to give the reader a flavor for the language interview participants used when discussing the issues.


• Many environmental special interest respondents are supportive because they know the need for supplemental supply is only going to intensify, and they believe potable reuse is more environmentally responsible compared with other supplemental water supply options, particularly desalination.


• Respondents with a greater familiarity with potable reuse tend to be more supportive of reuse projects and less fearful of the technology.

• Those with little or no knowledge are either casually supportive or strongly opposed to IPR and DPR projects. Some in this group tend to be suspicious of the government and of the science and technology behind potable reuse.

• Among supporters, brine disposal remains an area of great concern and one that could erode support if not adequately addressed. Other concerns include safety and cost.


• Continue an open dialog with special interest groups, whether supportive or not. Try to bring dissenters along the learning curve through outreach, education, and personal relationships.

o Invite group representatives to WateReuse Association and WRRF conferences and events.

o Provide white papers and fact sheets that they can share with organization members. o Direct organizations, via e-mail correspondence, to potable reuse informational

websites. o Bring relevant groups into the conversation early in the potable reuse project

exploration and planning processes.

• Keep groups informed about ongoing efforts to develop responsible solutions for brine disposal.


Respondent Profiles

Many of the respondents were representing various environmental special interest groups, with exceptions being representatives from two Chambers of Commerce and one from a nurse’s association. Respondents from both Northern and Southern California participated in this effort. A list of participants is available in Appendix D.


Nearly all respondents had read or heard about recycled water related issues; a little more than half said they were quite familiar with recycled water. Three reported that they had very little recycled water knowledge. Without prompting, some of the more familiar mentioned recycled water projects and activities in San Diego, Santa Clara, Orange County (GWRS), and Australia.

A couple of respondents were familiar mainly with tertiary and some IPR projects; they had trouble distinguishing between IPR and DPR. Others were far more knowledgeable about potable reuse and could accurately distinguish between direct and indirect.

Fewer than half of the participants were very familiar with high-pressure membrane filtration technology, such as RO. Others had heard of it but were not knowledgeable about the technology.

Two participants were unaware that potable reuse has been used in various locations in California. Others were familiar with one or more of the following projects: Orange County,


San Diego (demonstration plant), and Santa Clara. Some respondents also mentioned, without prompting, projects in Texas, Virginia, Singapore, and Australia.

Fewer than half said they were aware of planned or active projects in communities in their area; the remainder said they did not know of any, though one said he would welcome one in Northern California.

Potable Reuse Perceptions

Respondents with greater familiarity with potable reuse tended to be more supportive of reuse projects and less fearful of the technology. Those with little or no knowledge were either casually supportive or strongly opposed to IPR and DPR projects.

Some in the latter group tended to be suspicious of the government and of the science and technology behind potable reuse. A couple of them said that adequate study has not yet taken place with regard to CECs, specifically endocrine disruptors (EDs), and that they feel that scientists who have expressed concerns and have written to state legislators and regulators have been largely ignored.

Participants were asked what they think about potable reuse and potable reuse projects; a sampling of their responses follows:

These types of projects demonstrate a more environmentally favorable and sustainable approach to water supply. It is a local solution that can use less energy and is less damaging to the environment compared to other options.

In fact we are very supportive of its use and of IPR-related projects. It is an eventuality that is going to happen sooner than later especially during drought conditions. It is a very reliable source of water. Indirect and direct potable reuse projects have multiple benefits.

I will be supportive if the water meets health regulations and it can be shown to me that it is safe for public consumption.

Regulatory agencies lack the financial and personnel resources to keep up with the technology and political impetus of these projects. We have serious concerns about advanced contaminant and estrogen-related issues.

Although none had conducted a potable reuse survey or knew of any that had been conducted in their communities, when asked what they considered to be the most significant public acceptance challenge as more communities consider new water sources like potable reuse, they responded with the following:

• limited potable reuse knowledge and education • understanding failsafe methods and systems • industry’s reliance on “downstream” messaging, or scare tactics, rather than hard data • toilet-to-tap “branding” and understanding the technology behind the purification process • affordability • social justice


• gaps in scientific knowledge • insufficient testing

A good explanation of failsafe methods would be extremely helpful to our members. They get asked this question a lot when asked why we support IPR and DPR.

Be wary of the “downstream” strategy. Rely on data instead of scaring people.

I think we have two weaknesses: scientific gaps (and the DPR initiative is funding research to close these) and we need better lifetime monitoring and technology, especially if there is not an environmental buffer. It seems to be second nature for a utility to quit testing once they see a certain amount of non-detects, but they need to keep on testing. CECs are something people must feel comfortable and relaxed about. It is okay to see page after page of non-detects!

Affordability. These projects may claim to be technologically superior, but if they are not affordable to the communities they serve they will not be able to be utilized efficiently across the board. This is a serious social justice issue.

The branding of toilet-to-tap. There is a misconception that wastewater is going directly to the tap—people don’t understand the technology behind the purification process.


Most indicated they are personally supportive of potable reuse projects, some with reservations. They feel that potable reuse is more environmentally responsible compared with other supplemental water supply options. However, there are lingering concerns about brine disposal, health risks, and costs. The dissenters are strongly opposed to potable reuse. They do not trust that the technology is safe or adequate. They feel that state and federal agencies are too political in nature and, therefore, not neutral in their oversight and not to be trusted to fairly represent the safety of the public. They also believe that conventional risk assessment fails to consider the effects or impacts of very small doses of pathogens or CECs. They cited the confusion over the origin of autism as an example. Last, they expressed the opinion that nothing has been done to adequately address brine disposal.

A diverse citizens’ advisory committee is needed. We do not trust the appointed scientific Advisory Panel. It is too political, so they can’t be trusted to be impartial.

With the exception of these dissenters, most said their organization would be, or already is, actively supportive of potable reuse (both direct and indirect):

We have a state policy advocate who would provide support. We are shorter on staff this year than we have been in the past. But we will


certainly do anything we can. Our members are very supportive of IPR and DPR efforts.

We want to be part of the solution, but it will not be done quickly or lightly. We need the science first. We have to prove the safety and then have a well-run, honest, and transparent campaign. We might also want to try having targeted legislative staff or legislators at a lunch meeting in Sacramento that is close to the capital and have a speaker on this topic.

Our organization understands that people, all people, are sending CECs to treatment plants and that [it] is all of our responsibilities to get to cleaner water. That means the community at large and manufacturers. We have been focused on specific constituents and working with manufacturers and retailers to get rid of them or make adjustments to produce things without them. With the power of the Internet we know there is a way to make beneficial change occur to improve waterways much quicker. Even working with agriculture directly to improve best management practices [BMPs] has proven to be more effective than fighting or opposing them or utilities.

When those who are supportive of potable reuse projects were asked what would be useful in their organization’s decision-making process or continued support for this issue, a few mentioned concerns about brine disposal; one said his organization would appreciate reports and white papers on the topic of potable reuse in general.

We need to know what happens with brine disposal. Specifically how brine is being reintroduced into the environment.

We need to know much more about brine disposal options. What is being done, what can be done? How can we most cost effectively solve the brine issue? The industry needs a "Manhattan Project" mentality about how to handle brine in an environmentally responsible manner. If they do so it will go a long way in gaining our full support.

It would be very helpful to have studies and/or white papers on this subject for our organization to weigh in on this matter. Our organization would need to have someone come to explain the process of potable reuse.

Respondents were also asked what specific recommendations they would offer utilities, water

districts, or advocates seeking support for potable reuse projects from the community. The following is how they responded:

• err on the side of over-education

• start education early, with young people

• develop standardized BMPs, as appropriate

• develop and widely distribute a short town hall video

• compare water quality with streams and current water sources

• employ a variety of outreach/education tools to attract different audiences


• rely on hard data/facts

• get into the community: town hall meetings, health fairs, face-to-face activities

• anticipate questions before they are asked

• address cost concerns versus other options, such as stormwater capture

• mimic the Ground Water Replenishment project

• have trustworthy, non-governmental third-party oversight (like the Breast Cancer Fund or Common Wheel)

We understand that brine disposal decisions are made on a case-by-case basis depending on the site location, hydraulics, geology, etc. But are there BMPs or guidelines that could be applicable to all sites?

Explain that they are already drinking this water. Explain defacto reuse; then they will appreciate the water quality of IPR and DPR.

Get out into the community and anticipate questions early on and bring in experts and put on a forum. Turn a big ballroom into a television studio; inform the crowd and develop two to eight minute videos and widely distribute them.

Explain the water/energy nexus and show how this option is better for ratepayers in the long-run. Don’t just ask for support—ratepayers will pay for this, but there needs to be a strategic campaign to make people feel comfortable that this is reliable, safe, and good economics. And then prove it.

Include a variety of tools in the campaign. The same people seem to always be at seminars—it would be nice to attract a different crowd.

We need to move from the never-ending philosophical discussion and bring people to the table. We were able to change the off-shore oil platform law by bringing common sense to a contentious issue. We held a one-day conference for two consecutive years, brought in experts, made different length videos, and distributed these to legislators to answer questions before they were asked.

There has been a lot of attention focused on the technology, but a compelling argument can be made for the cost effectiveness of this water source versus stormwater capture, which is especially appealing to business people. People do not know the amount of water that has been cleaned up and then is dumped into the ocean every day. There needs to be an oversight agency that is not comprised [sic] of government or industry. Organizations like these are much more trusted and very capable of being fair observers and watchdogs of evolving science, technology, and implementation of AWT processes.


Such oversight will be needed to gain trust in communities and in the state.

Last, all respondents indicated that e-mail is their preferred way to receive information about potable water reuse.


Mark Millan, Data Instincts Patricia Tennyson, Katz & Associates Yen Tu, Multicultural Consultant

3.2 Qualitative Focus Group Summaries from Model Communities

Four focus groups were conducted with residents in the two model communities identified by the Project Advisory Committee. Residents in the Santa Clara Valley Water District service area and residents of the City of San Diego were asked a detailed series of questions to assess their feelings and perceptions about IPR and DPR of recycled water. The focus groups were used to further test and refine messages for their effectiveness among the general public. These sessions allowed us to show and test collateral materials, terminology, and a video, “The Ways of Water” (with a female voice), that cannot be tested in a random-sample phone survey.

Feedback from participants was used to

• identify key goals and messages that will serve as frameworks for the Communication Plans • analyze how messages should be crafted for each target audience to maximize effectiveness • identify water recycling terminology that is understandable by stakeholders, is consistent with

regulations, and will instill credibility and product confidence

The focus groups were conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3), a California corporation that has specialized in public opinion research since 1981. The interim findings are given in the following.


TO: Mark Millan, Patricia Tennyson, and Shane Snyder FROM: David Metz and Rachel Weiler Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates RE: Interim Findings from Focus Groups on Direct Potable Reuse DATE: June 11, 2014 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) recently conducted four focus groups with residents in the Santa Clara Valley Water District service area (April 28) and residents of the City of San Diego (April 29) to assess their feelings about direct potable reuse of recycled water (DPR). The two groups in each location were segmented by gender and were otherwise designed to reflect the demographic diversity of the local population, with a mix of ages, ethnicities, partisan affiliations, and socioeconomic statuses. Overall, focus group participants had highly positive impressions of recycled water. Most saw it as a prudent and worthwhile way to expand water supplies at a time when they perceive they are being taxed like never before. In addition, most were even comfortable with the idea of indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking. However, most expressed initial discomfort with the idea of direct potable reuse (DPR) of recycled water. As much as they could believe it was technologically feasible to make wastewater safe for drinking, they simply lacked confidence that their community was ready—today—to make it a reality. Over the course of the session, however, after exposure to detailed messaging, most participants became more much comfortable with the idea of DPR—particularly after hearing the details of the multi-stage treatment process applied to wastewater to make it safe to drink. Of course, focus group findings cannot be generalized with any statistical precision to the voting population as a whole; only a random-sample survey can provide that kind of statistically reliable data. The findings of the upcoming telephone surveys in each community will drive our final conclusions and recommendations, with relevant analysis from the focus groups to add color and nuance. In the interim, however, this memo summarizes a number of key observations from the groups. Key findings included the following: • Participants were generally satisfied with the performance of their water agency. Most

participants could easily name their water agency and expressed broad satisfaction with its performance. Many noted that they knew little about the agency’s operation but that as long as they were getting reliable water service they felt that the agency was meeting its obligations. Generally speaking, participants were satisfied with the quality and reliability of supply and indicated that they found their water agency responsive when they had customer service issues.

• Relatively few participants drink water straight from the tap; their concerns about tap

water were vague and varied. Most participants said that they drink either bottled water or (most commonly) tap water that has been filtered through a built-in filter or filter pitcher.


However, few could articulate specific reasons why they hesitated to drink water straight from the tap. Some said that the water looked cloudy or had particles in it, others that it tasted funny, and still others that they had a sense that there was some kind of contamination or impurity that they wanted to avoid. Few, however, had any knowledge of a specific water quality problem that they were seeking to avoid by filtering the water.

• Participants had no clear idea where their water comes from. When asked to name the

original source of their drinking water, few could name the body of water or source from which it originally came. Many acknowledged that they had not given the idea any thought until they were asked directly.

• Participants were well aware of the drought and viewed it as an acute concern—and not

one likely to be relieved soon. There was universal awareness of the drought among focus group participants, and although few said it had directly impacted their lives to date, most assumed that it would force changes in their lifestyle or behavior in the near term. Most sensed that this drought was different from others—a more severe and persistent disruption of water supplies than has been the case with other recent droughts in California. And setting aside the present drought, essentially all participants recognized that California had a persistent shortage of water that is bound to endure as long as the state continues growing.

• Initial perceptions of recycled water were positive. To introduce the subject of recycled

water, participants were asked to participate in a “mind-mapping” exercise where they wrote down any words, phrases, or ideas that came to mind when they saw the phrase “recycled water.” The key results are summarized in Figure 3.1. Most participants seemed to have a basic familiarity with recycled water and its use for purposes aside from drinking—with many referring to signs highlighting its use in landscaping or to the “purple pipe” that sets it apart. Most viewed it positively as an important technological innovation allowing responsible use of a scarce resource.

At the same time, many participants quickly moved to considering the possibility of using recycled water for drinking or other household uses. This concept troubled many, as reflected in their related comments describing recycled water as “unsanitary,” “grimy,” “unhealthy,” etc. In this initial discussion, many participants were eager to draw a bright line between what they considered acceptable and helpful uses of recycled water and those they considered inappropriate and troubling.


Figure 3.1. Results of mind-mapping exercise on recycled water. Notes: Combined results from all sessions; numbers reflect frequency with which words or phrases were mentioned

• Indirect reuse of recycled water had significant appeal. To raise the subject of potable reuse, participants were first offered a description of IPR, as highlighted in Table 3.4, and were asked whether they would support or oppose its use in their community. Overall, participants favored it by a margin of two-to-one (22 to 12), though much more decisively in Santa Clara County than in San Diego. Participants seemed relatively untroubled by adding recycled water back into surface water supplies or reservoirs. Several participants noted that animal waste and other unsanitary items already flow into these surface bodies of water and that the additional treatment such water would undergo in advance of household use would make them comfortable with the idea. Others, however, were persistent in their feelings of discomfort—with a sense that human waste was somehow different and that even treated wastewater should not be re-introduced so close to a point of further use.


Table 3.4. Initial Support for Indirect Potable Reuse of Recycled Water Indirect potable reuse of recycled water refers to the process of taking wastewater that comes from the sewer system; treating and purifying it to high standards; and then adding it back to groundwater, reservoirs, or rivers, lakes, and streams. From there, it is treated again, as all water supplies are, before being sent to homes and businesses for all purposes—including drinking.

Position Sunnyvale San Diego Total Strongly Support 3 4 7

Somewhat Support 9 6 15

Total Support 12 10 22

Somewhat Oppose 3 2 5

Strongly Oppose 0 7 7

Total Oppose 3 9 12

• Direct reuse of recycled water was initially divisive. Taking the next step, asking about support or opposition to DPR of recycled water, showed participants split right down the middle—with 15 in favor and 19 opposed (as shown in Table 3.5). Most could understand why DPR made perfect sense in theory: maximizing the use of a scarce resource, adhering to the principle of recycling, and taking advantage of technological advances. Several pointed out cases where wastewater is already successfully reused, such as by astronauts.

At the same time, many contended that they simply lacked confidence that wastewater could be sufficiently cleaned to meet standards for human consumption and said that they did not want to be “guinea pigs” for the process. Although nearly all conceded that it should be technically possible to treat water to those standards, most said that they simply did not have faith that the necessary treatment systems would operate with sufficient reliability to make them comfortable.


Table 3.5. Initial Support for Direct Potable Reuse of Recycled Water

Direct potable reuse of recycled water refers to the process of taking wastewater that comes from the sewer system, treating and purifying it to high standards, and then sending it directly to homes and businesses for all purposes—including drinking.

Position Sunnyvale San Diego Total

Strongly Support 1 4 5 Somewhat Support 6 4 10

Total Support 7 8 15 Somewhat Oppose 8 3 11

Strongly Oppose 0 8 8

Total Oppose 8 11 19 • “Purified water” and “certified water” were clear standouts as terms to describe the product of DPR

treatment. Setting aside the practicality of treating water for DPR, participants were asked to consider a variety of names that might be used for wastewater that had undergone rigorous treatment for purification and to indicate the names that they personally found most appealing. As Table 3.6 makes clear, there were two standouts from the list—“purified water” and “certified water.” Those who favored “purified” said it invoked for them the highest standard of cleanliness that water could be expected to meet. Those who liked “certified” said it sounded like it had gone through a process of analysis and verification that yielded additional confidence that the water really was clean and safe for consumption.

Table 3.6. Positive Reaction to Terms to Describe Water for DPR

DPR Names Sunnyvale San Diego Total Purified Water 13 14 27 Certified Water 10 12 22 Advanced Treated Water 6 5 11

Renewed Water 3 4 7

Recycled Drinking Water 3 3 6

Refreshed Water 4 1 5

New Water 1 2 3

Supplemented Natural Water 2 1 3

Cyclical Water 0 1 1

Blended Drinking Water 1 0 1

Reused Potable Water 0 1 1

Reclaimed Water 0 1 1

Reused Water 1 0 1

Renovated Water 0 1 1

Rescued Water 0 0 0 • Among variations on the theme of “purified water,” participants gravitated to “advanced purified

water.” Anticipating that “purified water” was likely to test well, based on prior research, a follow-up exercise was designed to test several variations on that theme, as shown in Table 3.7. The best modifier for the phrase was “advanced”; many participants somewhat sheepishly admitted that they did not really know


what might make the purification of water an “advanced” process but said that it implied some additional level of treatment that would perhaps give them added comfort.

Table 3.7. Positive Reaction to “Purified Water” Terms to Describe Water for DPR “Purified Water” Names Sunnyvale San Diego Total

Advanced Purified Water 8 10 18 Purified Water 7 6 13 Purified Recycled Water 0 3 3

Purified Wastewater 0 1 1 • Visuals were extremely helpful in building understanding and support for DPR. The focus group

sessions also tested several visuals that explain and clarify the DPR process. These included

o a short animated video explaining the rationale and process of DPR o a fact sheet explaining the multi-stage treatment process of DPR o a process diagram showing the path of recycled water on the way to purification for DPR

Of the three, the most impactful was clearly the fact sheet. Some participants said they were very impressed by pictures of gleaming, high-tech tanks and mechanisms (while simultaneously acknowledging that they had no idea what they did). Others found the detailed explanation of the three-stage treatment process very helpful and said it gave them much more confidence that recycled water could be appropriately treated for drinking. The video also had a positive impact. Whereas some participants found its approach too “cute” or felt they were being talked down to, others admired it as very clear and easy to follow. Several said it would be very useful for presentations to schools or young people. The process diagram was less useful. It simply lacked the more detailed information that participants said they needed to feel confident in the safety of recycled water.

• The strongest messages in favor of DPR focused on the purification process and the importance of

developing water supplies to meet the challenges of growth and drought. Participants were offered a series of arguments in favor of the DPR of recycled water and were asked to select the three that they found most persuasive. As shown in Table 3.8, two stood out—one that referenced the purification process to which recycled water is subjected, and a second that stressed the challenges (including climate change, population growth, and drought) that make it more urgent to expand our supply of water. The latter message was chosen as a first choice far more than any other. The next tier of messages called out some of the environmental virtues of recycled water, including mimicking a natural process and reducing the need to use surface water that could jeopardize fish, wildlife, and the environment.


Table 3.8. Choice of Best Arguments in Favor of DPR (Times Ranked in Top Three)

Message in Favor of DPR Ranked First

Ranked Second

Ranked Third

Total Times in

Top Three (PURIFICATION) The water purification process uses state-of-the-art multi-stage technology—similar to that used to ensure that drinking water produced is safe and free of harmful chemicals and toxins.

3 9 6 18

(SUPPLY) With climate change, population growth, and long periods of drought, we need to consider all options for sustainable future water supplies.

13 2 2 17

(NATURAL PROCESS) The amount of fresh water on the planet does not change. Through nature, all water has been used and reused since the beginning of time across every river system in the world. Using advanced technology to purify recycled water merely speeds up a natural process. In fact, the water produced through advanced purification meets a much higher standard of quality than what occurs naturally.

8 4 0 12

(ENVIRONMENT) Using recycled water is good for our environment. The more recycled water we use, the less we have to take out of rivers and streams and our scarce groundwater supplies. That’s good for rivers, streams, and the fish, plants, and wildlife that rely on them.

3 6 3 12

(SAFETY) Thanks to advances in modern technology, it no longer matters where water comes from. We have the ability to purify any water and make it healthy to drink.

1 4 5 10

(PRINCIPLE) We all recycle as often as we can—glass, plastic, paper, even yard waste. It’s the right thing to do. For the same reason, we should recycle and reuse as much of our limited water supplies as we possibly can. Water is too valuable to be used just once.

4 1 4 9

(ADOPTION) Several California communities, including Orange County, already use advanced purification processes to produce purified recycled water suitable for drinking and household use.

2 2 4 8

(DROUGHT-PROOF) Recycling water is a drought-proof way to help ensure a reliable supply of water to meet local needs, independent of climate change or weather in other locations.

1 4 2 7

(RATES) With the economy just coming out of a recession and many families having a hard time making ends meet, we need to make the most of all of our water resources to help keep water rates low. Over time, making better use of our existing water supplies through recycling will be one of the best ways to keep water rates low.

0 1 3 4

• Participants were comfortable with the amount of energy use involved in DPR. At the end of each

session, it was noted for participants that producing recycled water uses more energy than non-recycled water but less than desalination. Few participants were troubled by that information; most seemed to weigh the benefits of recycled water as worthy of the additional investment of energy.

• At the conclusion of the sessions, most participants were open to DPR—but with many lingering

reservations. As Table 3.9 makes clear, by the end of the sessions more than three-quarters of participants (by a margin of 26 to eight) favored DPR. However, roughly half those supporters qualified their backing for


the idea by saying they only “somewhat” supported it. Many said they would want more specifics about how DPR would work in their community (or alternatively, evidence that it had worked well in other communities) before they would be comfortable signing off on its use in their area.

Table 3.9. Progression of Support for DPR

Position Sunnyvale San Diego TOTAL

Initial Position

After Messages

Initial Position

After Messages

Initial Position

After Messages

Strongly Support 1 6 4 8 5 14

Somewhat Support 6 7 4 5 10 12

Somewhat Oppose 8 2 3 3 11 5

Strongly Oppose 0 0 8 3 8 3

Total Support 7 13 8 13 15 26

Total Oppose 8 2 11 6 19 8

Participants’ final thoughts about the pros and cons of DPR are well-summarized in final written comments they provided about DPR, as shown in Table 3.10. Participants were asked to write down what they would tell a neighbor who asked about whether DPR was a good idea for their community.


Table 3.10. Final Comments about DPR (Framed in the Context of Comments to a Neighbor)

San Diego

Female: It's as logical and doable as other things we recycle and will provide viable water resources unavailable right now. Recycling water is safe and preserves a valuable resource for times of drought.

Female: Too much risk of illness; too much reliance on a procedure that can be too bureaucratic and challenging. Thank you!

Female: In theory, it's a great idea. It mimics Mother Nature's filtration process and it can't get more natural than that. I would just like to see that it has been proven—it is safe and it works and to know that it is federally regulated to ensure its safety.

Female: It could be. We need to learn more facts about the process, the scientific background, and what studies and projects have been done. If technology and science supports it, guarantees safety to society, then it could be a good idea.

Female: It is a great idea because of water conservation and preservation. The process is done through a three step process with microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light. If the comfort is not there to make it drinking water, I believe we can at least use it for other purposes.

Female: I'd have to do more research. I'm still not convinced. I want to look at private filtering/purifying system.

Female: I would tell them 1) it's needed, 2) it's safe, 3) it will be cost effective in the long run. As the population of Santa Clara County continues to grow we need to come up with a solution for the future.

Female: Tell them it is possible, will cost about the same as the current process. Desalinization is not being considered.

Female: It could be a great idea and really help expand our resources: personally I would not drink it without 10 or more years of health testing and reporting. I do feel fine using it for agriculture, industrial use and household.

Female: We don't have a great deal of options and this one is doable but unappealing. OC's used it since 2008. 3 filters, 9000 tests, one million gallons of water.

Female: It helps keep us safe for the drought seasons. We waste so much clean water that we should be able to recycle or reuse.

Female: Make up your own mind. I'll be moving states.

Female: It is a good idea! And technically sound. But we must be vigilant in keeping water quality maintained and tested.

Female: I would tell them after learning about it today I would be open to the idea. I would tell them that the water is filtered as thoroughly as we can through several different filters. However, I don't drink tap water now and I wouldn't then either.

Female: i know the importance of water. I also understand the shortage. Therefore i like the idea of recycling water in the right manner with the latest technology and use it. Provided it is purified and is certified by the right authorities i am all for it.

Female: It's hard to be 100% assured of safety and efficacy, but we do have to look for ways to conserve. OC has been doing it since 2008, it seems to be working. There have been many tests, lots of science behind it.


Female: The use of recycled water is a means to increase water supplies in Santa Clara County. The direct reuse treats non-potable water for use and not potable uses in the community.

Female: It’s been/being done already. We need to find a way to keep our water levels strong, coming from other places.

Male: It is totally safe; We have to consider all options; it is something we all have to do; you have no other choice!!!

Female: I think it's a concept that we should seriously consider. I would support the research required to insure we would have access to purified water.

Male: (1) We should recycle all we can; (2) Water is getting in short supply; (3) They are purifying it much more than we think.

Male: All water is recycled. There is no new water. Get over the yuck factor. It makes the most sense to do direct recycling. Why do the process over again?

Male: Waste of money and effort gaining a small percent of water use rather than forcing big users to be more efficient would save much more.

Male: All water anyway. Wastewater is currently sent downstream for someone else to re-treat and drink so this would just keep the retreatment local. Then we'd need less water from Colorado or NorCal.

Male: I feel positive about this process. You need to learn the aspects of it.

Male: (1) Final product is as pure or purer than our present water; (2) San Diego must find a solution to the lack of water; (3) It is the best solution.

Male: Given the advances in water treatment and purification, I would support the use of recycled water.

Male: After tonight's explanation I'd say that it is a feasible and practical idea for San Diego—other areas are already using successfully. Critical to sustaining our neighborhood.

Male: I think it is a good idea if it is affordable and safe. Need more data to show how good the recycled water is vs. Normal water.

Male: I hate to see water wasted. Rain runoff or any kind. We need to conserve and if possible recycle our water, or we may get very thirsty in the future.

Male I think it's a great idea. The purification process is very thorough and it will help to replenish areas that are currently being drained as we import water.

Male: I heard the process is pretty much the same as what already happens and it seems to be safe.

Male: Reusing wastewater is necessary and incredibly beneficial. San Diego is known for sunshine, or lack of rain. We need to find ways to save and reuse water before we find ourselves in a desperate situation.

Male: It is safe, environmentally-friendly, and absolutely necessary to keep up with our growing populations and use.

Male: Yes because it applies all the principles by which water is already purified and reused and does it in a more controlled efficient manner to higher standards of results.

Male: This is going to be the best way for our future water supply to be received without using precious natural water. The technology and resources have been tested and tried and have been proven to be the most effective way.

In summary, although the focus groups provide a helpful snapshot of community opinion—and allow more in-depth exploration of specific language and images—their findings must be considered qualitative and cannot be generalized to the broader population with any statistical precision. Given this caution, key observations from the focus group sessions included the following:


• Indirect reuse of recycled water had significant initial appeal, whereas direct reuse of recycled water was

initially divisive. • “Purified water” and “certified water” were clear standouts as terms to describe the product of DPR

treatment, and participants gravitated toward “advanced purified water” as a preferred term. • Visuals were extremely helpful in building understanding and support for DPR. • The strongest messages in favor of DPR focused on the purification process and the importance of

developing water supplies to meet the challenges of growth and drought. • Participants were comfortable with the amount of energy use involved in DPR. • Messaging increased overall acceptance of DPR; at the conclusion of the sessions, most participants were

open to DPR—but with many lingering reservations. Survey research underway in both the City of San Diego and Santa Clara County will serve to validate or

refine these findings, with a full report available in late June.

3.3 Quantitative Telephone Survey Research from Model Communities

Telephone surveys were conducted with residents in the two model communities identified by the Project Advisory Committee. Random surveys were conducted in the Santa Clara Valley Water District service area and in the City of San Diego. The telephone surveys gauge community perceptions, sentiments, and potential areas of concern with regard to DPR of recycled water.

Feedback from respondents was used to

• identify key messages and tactical information that will be useful in formulating the Communication Plans

• analyze how messages should be crafted for each target audience to maximize effectiveness • identify water recycling terminology that is understandable to key audiences and potential stakeholders, is

consistent with regulations, and will instill credibility and product confidence The telephone surveys were conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3), a California

corporation that has specialized in public opinion research since 1981.


3.3.1. Telephone Survey Results (Combined)

WATEREUSE FOUNDATION SURVEY 320-601-WT

N=1,200 MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ± 2.8% (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL)

Hello, I'm __________ from F-M-3, a public opinion research company. We are not telemarketers trying to sell you anything or ask for a donation. We're conducting a public opinion survey about some important issues that concern residents of your area. (IF RESPONDENT REPLIES IN SPANISH, OR DESIRES TO SPEAK IN SPANISH, FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE FOR HANDING OFF TO A SPANISH-SPEAKING INTERVIEWER.) May I please speak to __________? (MUST SPEAK TO VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED; OTHERWISE, TERMINATE.) A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where

you can talk safely? (IF NOT ON A CELL PHONE, ASK: “Do you own a cell phone?”)

Yes, cell and can talk safely ------------------------------------- (SKIP TO QB) ---- 42% Yes, cell but cannot talk safely -------------------------------------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell, but own one ------------------------------------ (SKIP TO QB) ---- 47% No, not on cell and do not own one ---------------------------- (SKIP TO Q1) ---- 11% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ----------------------------------- TERMINATE

(ASK QB ONLY IF CODES 1 OR 2 “OWN A CELL PHONE” IN QA) B. Would you say you use your cell phone to make and receive all of your phone calls, most of your phone

calls, do you use your cell phone and home landline phone equally, or do you mostly use your home landline phone to make and receive calls?

All cell phone -------------------------------------- 32% Mostly cell phone --------------------------------- 25% Cell and landline equally ------------------------ 18% Mostly landline ------------------------------------ 23% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 2%


(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 1. Next, you would you say that you have a generally favorable, neutral, or unfavorable opinion of your

local water agency? (IF FAVORABLE/UNFAVORABLE ASK:) “Is that very FAVORABLE/ UNFAVORABLE or just somewhat?”

TOTAL FAVORABLE ---------------------- 40% Very favorable ------------------------------------ 16% Somewhat favorable ----------------------------- 24% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------- 13% Somewhat unfavorable --------------------------- 8% Very unfavorable ---------------------------------- 5% NEUTRAL/DK/NA --------------------------- 47% Neutral ---------------------------------------------- 39% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 8% 2. Next, I'd like to read you some problems facing your area that other people have mentioned. For each one

I read, please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, or not too serious a problem in your area. (RANDOMIZE)

EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO TOTAL SER SER SER SER (DK/ EXT/ PROB PROB PROB PROB NA) VERY

[ ]a. Drinking water quality ----------------------------------------- 0% --------- 16% ------ 22% ------ 48% ------- 4% 26% [ ]b. The adequacy of local water supplies

to meet future demands --------------------------------------- 20% -------- 33% ------ 26% ------ 14% ------- 7% 53% [ ]c. The statewide drought ---------------------------------------- 37% -------- 41% ------ 14% ------- 6% -------- 1% 78% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]d. Jobs and the local economy ---------------------------------- 15% -------- 32% ------ 31% ------ 18% ------- 4% 47% [ ]e. The amount people pay in local taxes --------------------- 15% -------- 25% ------ 29% ------ 24% ------- 7% 40% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]f. Waste and inefficiency in local government ------------- 20% -------- 29% ------ 28% ------ 15% ------- 7% 49% [ ]g. The quality of public education in local schools--------- 19% -------- 25% ------ 27% ------ 21% ------- 8% 44%


MY NEXT QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH WATER USE IN YOUR AREA. 3. First, I am going to read you several different aspects of the service provided by your local water agency.

Please indicate whether you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with that aspect of your water agency’s service. (RANDOMIZE)

VERY SMWT SMWT VERY TOTAL TOTAL SAT SAT DISSAT DISSAT DK SAT DISSAT [ ]a. Providing high quality tap water ----------------- 35% ------ 37% ------ 13% ------ 12% ------- 3% 71% 25% [ ]b. Charging reasonable rates ------------------------- 15% ------ 39% ------ 19% ------ 15% ------ 12% 54% 34% [ ]c. Providing a dependable, reliable

water supply ------------------------------------------ 48% ------ 39% ------- 6% -------- 4% -------- 2% 88% 11% [ ]d. Responding to customer

questions or concerns ------------------------------ 21% ------ 34% ------- 7% -------- 4% ------- 34% 56% 11% 4. Next, thinking about the water that you drink at home, do you most often drink (READ LIST)

Unfiltered water straight from the tap; ------------------ 21% Tap water that is filtered in your home, either at the sink, through the refrigerator, or through a pitcher; or ----------------------------------- 45% Bottled water ------------------------------------------------- 31% (DON’T READ) Other (SPECIFY) --------------------- 2%

(DON’T READ) DK/NA ---------------------------------- 1%

(IF CODE 2 OR 3 IN Q4—FILTERED TAP OR BOTTLED—ASK Q5) 5. Next, I am going to read some reasons other people have given for not usually drinking water directly

from the tap. Please indicate whether each item is a major reason why you don’t drink unfiltered tap water, a minor reason, or not a reason. (RANDOMIZE)

MAJOR MAJOR MINOR NOT A /MINOR REASON REASON REASON (DK/NA) REASON [ ]a. Poor taste or smell of tap water ---------------------------------- 45% -------- 25% --------- 29% --------- 1% 70% [ ]b. Safety or health concerns about tap water---------------------- 46% -------- 25% --------- 29% --------- 0% 71% [ ]c. Its more convenient to drink filtered or

bottled water --------------------------------------------------------- 30% -------- 20% --------- 49% --------- 1% 50%


(IF CODE 3 IN Q4—BOTTLED WATER—ASK Q6) 6. Next, I am going to read you a list of reasons why people think bottled water is safer than their tap water.

Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. (IF AGREE/DISAGREE, ASK: “Is that strongly (AGREE/DISAGREE) or just somewhat?”) (RANDOMIZE)

STR SMWT SMWT STR (DK/ TOTAL TOTAL AGREE AGREE DISAGR DISAGR NA) AGREE DISAGR

[ ]a. Bottled water is sealed and

protected ----------------------------------------------- 51% ------ 31% ------ 10% ------- 6% -------- 3% 81% 16% [ ]b. Bottled water is tested before being

bottled -------------------------------------------------- 35% ------ 34% ------ 13% ------- 7% ------- 10% 70% 20% [ ]c. The bottled water source is safer

than my tap water ------------------------------------ 44% ------ 29% ------ 14% ------- 6% -------- 6% 73% 21% [ ]d. Bottled water must meet stricter

quality standards than tap water ------------------ 40% ------ 27% ------ 16% ------ 12% ------- 5% 67% 28%

(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)

MY NEXT QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH RECYCLED WATER. 7. Are you familiar with the concept of recycled water? (IF FAMILIAR ASK:) “Is that very familiar, or

just somewhat?” (IF NOT FAMILIAR ASK:) “Is that not too familiar, or not at all familiar?” TOTAL FAMILIAR ------------------------- 73% Very familiar -------------------------------------- 26% Somewhat familiar ------------------------------- 46% TOTAL NOT FAMILIAR ------------------ 27% Not too familiar ----------------------------------- 13% Not at all familiar --------------------------------- 14% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 0% (ASK Q8/9 IF CODES 1-3 IN Q7) 8. Do you support or oppose recycling water for local reuse on a community wide scale? (IF

SUPPORT/OPPOSE ASK:) “Is that strongly or just somewhat SUPPORT/OPPOSE?” TOTAL SUPPORT--------------------------- 78% Strongly support ---------------------------------- 47% Somewhat support -------------------------------- 31% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 15% Somewhat oppose --------------------------------- 7% Strongly oppose ------------------------------------ 8% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 7%


9. I am going to read you a list of potential uses for recycled water. Please indicate whether you consider each item to be a completely acceptable, somewhat acceptable, somewhat unacceptable, or completely unacceptable use for recycled water. If you are neutral, please tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE)

COMP SMWT SMWT COMP TOTAL TOTAL ACC ACC NEUT UNACC UNACC (DK/NA) ACC UNACC [ ]a. Irrigation --------------------------------- 72% ------ 18% ------- 4% -------- 3% -------- 2% -------- 2% 90% 5% [ ]b. Industrial uses -------------------------- 66% ------ 20% ------- 7% -------- 3% -------- 2% -------- 3% 86% 5% [ ]c. Household uses, such as

laundry, showers, and dishwashers ----------------------------- 34% ------ 31% ------- 8% ------- 12% ------ 15% ------- 1% 64% 26%

[ ]d. Gardening and landscaping ------------------------------ 77% ------ 15% ------- 3% -------- 2% -------- 2% -------- 1% 93% 4%

[ ]e. Drinking water -------------------------- 12% ------ 22% ------ 10% ------ 14% ------ 40% ------- 2% 34% 54% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 10. (T) Next, do you believe that it is possible to further treat recycled water used for irrigation to make the

water pure and safe for drinking? Yes --------------------------------------------------- 62% No ---------------------------------------------------- 23% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 14%

NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SOME WAYS THAT WATER MAY BE RECYCLED FOR ALL PURPOSES—INCLUDING DRINKING.

(SPLIT C: ASK Q11-12 THEN Q13) (SPLIT D: ASK Q13-14 THEN Q11) 11. The FIRST/NEXT approach is indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking. Indirect reuse of recycled

water involves taking wastewater that comes from the sewer system; treating and purifying it to high standards; and then adding it back to groundwater, reservoirs, or rivers, lakes and streams. From there, it is treated again, as all water supplies are, before being sent to homes and businesses for all purposes—including drinking. Would you support or oppose indirect reuse of recycled water in your community? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE ASK:) “Is that strongly or just somewhat SUPPORT/OPPOSE?”

SPLIT C: SPLIT D:

INDIRECT DIRECT FIRST FIRST TOTAL TOTAL SUPPORT ------------------------------ 61% ---------------------- 63% ---------------------- 62% Strongly support -------------------------------------- 32%------------------------- 37% ------------------------ 34% Somewhat support ------------------------------------ 29%------------------------- 26% ------------------------ 28% TOTAL OPPOSE -------------------------------- 32% ---------------------- 30% ---------------------- 31% Somewhat oppose ------------------------------------ 13%------------------------- 13% ------------------------ 13% Strongly oppose --------------------------------------- 19%------------------------- 17% ------------------------ 18% (DK/NA) ------------------------------------------------ 7%-------------------------- 7% ------------------------- 7% (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE—CODES 1-4—IN Q11, AND SPLIT C, ASK Q12)


12. Why would you (SUPPORT/OPPOSE) indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community? (RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE) a. Support

Water shortage/drought/limited clean water supply ----------------------------------------------------- 36% It’s a good use of resources/reduces waste ---------------------------------------------------------------- 18% Recycled water is/will/must be safe to drink -------------------------------------------------------------- 17% Trust filtering system/process to clean the water/filtered to high standards ------------------------ 16% There are multiple cleansings/including nature’s cleansing --------------------------------------------- 8% It’s necessary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7% Recycled water is already used for drinking --------------------------------------------------------------- 5% Don’t see a reason to oppose/seems logical ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5% Nature/rain filters/treats water the same way -------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Will save money/inexpensive --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Favor idea of reusing/recycling water ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Other --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%

b. Oppose Don’t trust/unfamiliar with filtering/quality standards -------------------------------------------------- 36% Unsafe/unclean/health concerns ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29% Just don’t want to drink it/personally reuse --------------------------------------------------------------- 11% Don’t want to drink sewer water ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10% No process is 100% effective/ some pathogens/toxins can never be removed (includes medications) ----------------------------- 9% Don’t know enough about it ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7% Chemicals are used in treatment of water ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Possible contamination of natural water sources/groundwater/rivers --------------------------------- 4% “Human factor”; potential for human error/negligence in water treatment -------------------------- 3% Mistrust of government ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Lack of available test/study/research results --------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Will taste bad ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Other --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Refuse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%


(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) (SPLIT C: ASK Q11-12 THEN Q13) (SPLIT D: ASK Q13-14 THEN Q11) 13. The FIRST/NEXT approach is direct reuse of recycled water for drinking. Direct reuse of recycled water

involves taking wastewater that comes from the sewer system; treating and purifying it to high standards; and then sending it directly to homes and businesses for all purposes—including drinking. Would you support or oppose the direct reuse of recycled water in your community? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE ASK:) Is that strongly or just somewhat SUPPORT/OPPOSE?

SPLIT D: SPLIT C:

DIRECT INDIRECT FIRST FIRST TOTAL TOTAL SUPPORT ------------------------------ 43% ---------------------- 37% ---------------------- 40% Strongly support -------------------------------------- 19%------------------------- 13% ------------------------ 16% Somewhat support ------------------------------------ 24%------------------------- 24% ------------------------ 24% TOTAL OPPOSE -------------------------------- 51% ---------------------- 56% ---------------------- 54% Somewhat oppose ------------------------------------ 17%------------------------- 18% ------------------------ 17% Strongly oppose --------------------------------------- 35%------------------------- 38% ------------------------ 36% (DK/NA) ------------------------------------------------ 6%-------------------------- 7% ------------------------- 7%


(IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE—CODES 1-4—IN Q13, AND SPLIT SAMPLE D, ASK Q14) 14. Why would you (SUPPORT/OPPOSE) direct reuse of recycled water in your community? (RECORD

VERBATIM RESPONSE) a. Support

Drought/lack of clean water supply ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44% Conservation/good use of resources/better than wasting water---------------------------------------- 26% Trust water quality/ filtering process/guidelines --------------------------------------------------------- 20% Recycled water has been used previously here/other places -------------------------------------------- 7% Makes economic sense; inexpensive/will lower water rates -------------------------------------------- 7% There is no reason to oppose (no reason not to)/the right thing to do --------------------------------- 6% It’s necessary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6% The technology exists to do so -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Recycled water is safe/clean ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% It would be good to use for gardening/irrigation ---------------------------------------------------------- 1% Other --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Refuse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0%

b. Oppose Don’t trust filtering process/system ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40% It would be unhealthy/unsafe to drink ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 26% Just don’t want to/feel comfortable drinking it ----------------------------------------------------------- 19% Don’t want to drink “sewer water” -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10% Don’t know enough about it ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7% Concerned of more chemicals in water (used to clean it) ------------------------------------------------ 3% “Human factor”; potential for human error/negligence in water treatment -------------------------- 3% No process is 100% effective/some pathogens/ toxins can never be removed (includes medications) -------------------------------------------------- 3% Lack of available test/study/research results --------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Will taste bad ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Too expensive ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Don’t trust city officials to ensure water quality ---------------------------------------------------------- 1% Mistrust of government ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% Other --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Refuse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0%


(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 15. (T) How would you feel about using advanced treated recycled water as an addition to the supply of

drinking water, that is water treated with ultra-filtration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation? (READ LIST)

TOTAL FAVOR ----------------------------- 62% Strongly favor ------------------------------------- 28% Somewhat favor ----------------------------------- 34% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 26% Somewhat oppose --------------------------------- 11% Strongly oppose ----------------------------------- 14% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 12% 16. Next, I am going to read you a list of concerns some members of the public have expressed about direct

reuse of recycled water for drinking. Please tell me whether you personally agree or disagree with that concern. (IF AGREE/DISAGREE, ASK: “Is that strongly (AGREE/DISAGREE) or just somewhat?”) (RANDOMIZE)

STR SMWT SMWT STR (DK/ TOTAL TOTAL AGREE AGREE DISAGR DISAGR NA) AGREE DISAGR [ ]a. Recycled water may taste bad -------------------- 23% ------ 30% ------ 22% ------ 16% ------ 10% 52% 38% [ ]b. Recycled water may fail to meet

water safety standards ------------------------------ 34% ------ 32% ------ 16% ------ 15% ------- 4% 66% 30% [ ]c. Recycled water may include

contaminants ----------------------------------------- 38% ------ 33% ------ 13% ------ 12% ------- 4% 72% 24% [ ]d. The concept of recycled water

just makes me uncomfortable--------------------- 25% ------ 25% ------ 22% ------ 27% ------- 1% 49% 49% 17. Next, I am going to read you a list of facts about direct reuse of recycled water. For each statement, please

indicate if it makes you much more confident, somewhat more confident, or it makes no difference to your confidence that direct reuse of recycled water is safe. (RANDOMIZE)

MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO MORE CONF CONF DIFF (DK/NA) CONF (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. The purification process produces water

that is purer than bottled water ----------------------------------- 30% -------- 32% --------- 33% --------- 5% 62% [ ]b. The quality of recycled water, once it has

been purified, will be strictly monitored by the California Department of Health ------------------------ 24% -------- 41% --------- 35% --------- 1% 64%

[ ]c. Methods regularly used to purify recycled water include microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light -------------------------------------- 21% -------- 32% --------- 40% --------- 6% 53%

MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO MORE CONF CONF DIFF (DK/NA) CONF (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]d. California’s drinking water standards are

among the strictest in the nation, and purified recycled water would comply with those standards -------------------------------------------------------------- 27% --------- 33% --------- 39% --------- 2% 60%

[ ]e. Drinking water could be tested constantly, in real-time, with online sensors ------------------------------------ 29% --------- 34% --------- 35% --------- 2% 63%

[ ]f. Methods regularly used to purify recycled water include microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light—similar to the purification process involved in removing salt from ocean water ---------------------------------------------------- 23% --------- 37% --------- 38% --------- 2% 60%

(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 18. Now that you’ve heard more about it, do you support or oppose direct reuse of recycled water in your

community for all household purposes, including drinking? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE ASK:) “Is that strongly or just somewhat SUPPORT/OPPOSE?”

TOTAL SUPPORT--------------------------- 56% Strongly support ---------------------------------- 25% Somewhat support -------------------------------- 31% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 39% Somewhat oppose -------------------------------- 17% Strongly oppose ----------------------------------- 22% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 5% 19. Next, I am going to read you some statements that have been made by supporters of direct reuse of

recycled water in your community. After you hear each one, please indicate whether it is very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support direct reuse of recycled water. If you do not believe the statement, please indicate that as well. (RANDOMIZE)

TOTAL VERY SMWT NOT DON'T VERY/ CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT [ ]a. (ADOPTION) Several California communities,

including Orange County, already use advanced purification processes to produce purified recycled water suitable for drinking and household use. There have been no problems whatsoever from this use of recycled water. --------------- 31% ------ 37% ------ 18% ------ 10% ------- 3% 69%


TOTAL VERY SMWT NOT DON'T VERY/ CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. (SUPPLY) We need to consider all options

to ensure a reliable and locally-controlled supply of water for ourselves and future generations that will not be dependent on decisions made by agencies in other parts of the state. ------------------------------------------------------------ 33% ------ 41% ------ 16% ------- 8% -------- 3% 73%

[ ]c. (SAFETY) Thanks to advances in modern technology, it no longer matters where water comes from. We have the ability to purify any water and make it healthy to drink. --------------------- 22% ------ 39% ------ 20% ------ 18% ------- 1% 61%

[ ]d. (RATES) With the economy just coming out of a recession and many families having a hard time making ends meet, we need to make the most of all of our water resources to avoid further rate increases. Over time, making better use of our existing water supplies through recycling will be one of the best ways to keep water rates low. ---------------------------- 30% ------ 36% ------ 18% ------ 13% ------- 2% 66%

[ ]e. (ENVIRONMENT) Using recycled water is good for our environment. The more recycled water we use, the less we have to take out of rivers and streams and our scarce groundwater supplies. That’s good for rivers, streams, and the fish, plants and wildlife that rely on them. -------------------------------------- 50% ------ 34% ------ 10% ------- 5% -------- 1% 84%

(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]f. (PURIFICATION) The water purification

process uses state-of-the-art multi-stage technology and monitoring. It cleans water to a very high standard, and ensures that drinking water produced is safe and free of harmful chemicals and toxins. --------------------------------- 26% ------ 45% ------ 18% ------- 9% -------- 2% 71%

[ ]g. (PRINCIPLE) We all recycle as often as we can—glass, plastic, paper, even yard waste. It’s the right thing to do. For the same reason, we should recycle and reuse as much of our limited water supplies as we possibly can. Water is too valuable to be used just once. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 40% ------ 33% ------ 19% ------- 7% -------- 1% 73%

TOTAL VERY SMWT NOT DON'T VERY/ CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY CONT.) [ ]h. (NATURAL PROCESS) The amount of fresh

water on the planet does not change. Through nature, all water has been used and reused since the beginning of time across every river system in the world. Using advanced technology to purify recycled water merely speeds up a natural process—and in fact, the water produced through advanced purification meets a much higher standard of quality than what occurs naturally. ----------------------------------------------------------- 28% ------ 36% ------ 19% ------ 14% ------- 2% 64%

[ ]i. (DROUGHT-PROOF) Recycling water is a drought-proof way to help ensure a reliable supply of water to meet local needs, independent of climate change or weather in other locations. ---------- 27% ------ 46% ------ 18% ------- 7% -------- 1% 73%

(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 20. Sometimes over the course of a survey like this, people change their minds—and sometimes they do not. Now

that you’ve heard more about it, do you support or oppose direct reuse of recycled water in your community for all household purposes, including drinking? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE ASK:) “Is that strongly or just somewhat SUPPORT/OPPOSE?”

TOTAL SUPPORT -------------------------- 59% Strongly support ---------------------------------- 30% Somewhat support -------------------------------- 30% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 36% Somewhat oppose -------------------------------- 17% Strongly oppose ----------------------------------- 19% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 5% 21. Next, would you be likely to accept the addition of advanced treated recycled water to supplement the sources

of our drinking water if you learned that: (RANDOMIZE) (DON’T

READ) YES NO DK/NA [ ]a. (T) California’s drinking water standards are among the most strict in

the nation, and advanced treated recycled water in the region would comply with those standards ---------------------------------------------------------------- 68% ---------- 27% ------------- 5%

[ ]b. (T) Recycled water is currently used to supplement drinking water in other U.S. communities ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 63% ---------- 30% ------------- 7%

[ ]c. (T) Recycled water could supply as much as ten percent of our local drinking water supplies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 65% ---------- 30% ------------- 6%

22. Next, I am going to read you a list of people and organizations that may provide information about recycled water. After you hear each one, please tell me if you would generally trust that person’s or organization’s opinion on this issue, or if you would be suspicious of it. If you have never heard of the person or organization, or do not have an opinion, you can tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE) (IF


“TRUST,” ASK: Would you trust them a great deal or just somewhat?) (IF “SUSPICIOUS,” ASK: “Would you be very suspicious or just somewhat suspicious?”)

TRUST NEVER DK/ A GREAT TRUST SMWT VERY HEARD NO TOTAL TOTAL DEAL SMWT SUSP SUSP OF OPIN TRUST SUSP [ ]a. A professor at a

local university ------------------------- 16% ------ 42% ------ 23% ------- 9% -------- 2% -------- 8% 58% 32% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. Scientists --------------------------------- 31% ------ 40% ------ 18% ------- 5% -------- 0% -------- 6% 71% 23% [ ]c. The Department of Public

Health ------------------------------------ 30% ------ 47% ------ 14% ------- 5% -------- 1% -------- 3% 77% 19% [ ]d. Your local water utility --------------- 13% ------ 46% ------ 23% ------ 11% ------- 1% -------- 5% 59% 35% [ ]e. Medical doctors ------------------------ 27% ------ 45% ------ 17% ------- 5% -------- 1% -------- 6% 72% 22% [ ]f. Environmental

organizations ---------------------------- 20% ------ 43% ------ 18% ------ 11% ------- 1% -------- 6% 63% 29% [ ]g. Independent lab studies --------------- 20% ------ 41% ------ 22% ------- 8% -------- 4% -------- 5% 61% 30% [ ]h. The Environmental

Protection Agency --------------------- 29% ------ 42% ------ 12% ------ 12% ------- 1% -------- 4% 71% 24% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]i. A taxpayer advocate

organization ------------------------------ 4% ------- 25% ------ 31% ------ 21% ------- 7% ------- 11% 29% 53% [ ]j. Local business owners ----------------- 5% ------- 25% ------ 38% ------ 19% ------- 3% ------- 10% 30% 57% [ ]k. Residents of community

that already have potable reuse -------------------------------------- 21% ------ 43% ------ 15% ------- 7% -------- 5% -------- 8% 65% 22%

[ ]l. Your local mayor------------------------ 8% ------- 29% ------ 29% ------ 22% ------- 3% -------- 9% 37% 51% [ ]m. Dentists ---------------------------------- 18% ------ 44% ------ 15% ------- 9% -------- 1% ------- 13% 62% 24% [ ]n. Medical researchers ------------------- 37% ------ 37% ------ 15% ------- 5% -------- 2% -------- 5% 74% 20% [ ]o. Nutritionists ----------------------------- 24% ------ 43% ------ 13% ------- 7% -------- 3% ------- 10% 67% 20%


(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 23. Next, I am going to read you a list of ways someone might try to get in touch with you with more

information about recycled water. For each item, please tell me if you would definitely pay attention, probably pay attention, or would not pay attention to that method of communicating with you. (RANDOMIZE)

DEF PROB NOT TOTAL PAY PAY PAY PAY ATTN ATTN ATTN (DK/NA) ATTN [ ]a. Inserts in water bills ------------------------------------------------ 21% --------- 41% --------- 35% --------- 3% 62% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]b. Newsletters mailed to your home -------------------------------- 15% --------- 37% --------- 47% --------- 1% 52% [ ]c. TV ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- 13% --------- 37% --------- 50% --------- 1% 49% [ ]d. News reports --------------------------------------------------------- 32% --------- 48% --------- 20% --------- 1% 80% [ ]e. Billboards ------------------------------------------------------------- 7% ---------- 36% --------- 56% --------- 1% 44% [ ]f. Information from community organizations of

which you are a member ------------------------------------------ 32% --------- 43% --------- 21% --------- 5% 74% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]g. Radio ads ------------------------------------------------------------- 14% --------- 38% --------- 46% --------- 2% 52% [ ]h. Your water agency’s website ------------------------------------- 16% --------- 32% --------- 49% --------- 3% 48% [ ]i. Facebook -------------------------------------------------------------- 4% ---------- 19% --------- 72% --------- 5% 24% [ ]j. Twitter ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2% ---------- 8% --------- 82% --------- 7% 10% [ ]k. Information sent home with children from

school ----------------------------------------------------------------- 21% --------- 30% --------- 38% --------- 11% 51%



HERE ARE MY FINAL QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE JUST FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 24. Do you ... Own a single family home ---------------------- 53% Own a condominium ------------------------------ 7% Rent an apartment or home --------------------- 35% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 5% 25. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes --------------------------------------------------- 28% No ---------------------------------------------------- 70% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 1% 26. What is the last grade of formal education that you completed? Grades 1-8 ------------------------------------------- 2% Grades 9-11 ----------------------------------------- 2% High school graduate ----------------------------- 11% Technical/vocational school --------------------- 2% Some college --------------------------------------- 20% College graduate (4 years) ---------------------- 35% Post-graduate -------------------------------------- 26% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 1% 27. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself? (READ CHOICES BELOW) Hispanic/Latino ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16% Black/African American --------------------------------------------------------------- 6% Anglo/White ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55% Asian/Pacific Islander ----------------------------------------------------------------- 12% Native American ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (DON’T READ) OTHER/MIXED Please Specify_________) -------------- 4% (DON'T KNOW/REFUSED) ------------------------------------------------------- 5% 28. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I mention the total combined income for

all the people in your household before taxes in 2013. $25,000 or less-------------------------------------- 9% $25,001 - $50,000 --------------------------------- 15% $50,001 - $75,000 --------------------------------- 16% $75,001 - $100,000 ------------------------------- 14% $100,001 or more --------------------------------- 31% (DON’T READ) Refused ----------------------- 15%


THANK AND TERMINATE SEX: Male ------------------------------------------------- 48% Female ---------------------------------------------- 52% LANGUAGE: English ---------------------------------------------- 93% Spanish ---------------------------------------------- 7% PARTY REGISTRATION: Democrat ------------------------------------------- 43% Republican ----------------------------------------- 25% No Party Preference ------------------------------ 26% Other ------------------------------------------------- 6% COMMUNITY: City of San Diego -------------------------------- 50% Santa Clara Valley Water District ------------- 50%

FLAGS P08 ---------------------------------------- 39% G08 ---------------------------------------- 71% P10 ---------------------------------------- 45% G10 ---------------------------------------- 64% P12 ---------------------------------------- 48% G12 ---------------------------------------- 86% BLANK ----------------------------------- 7%

AGE 18-29 -------------------------------------- 16% 30-39 -------------------------------------- 16% 40-49 -------------------------------------- 18% 50-64 -------------------------------------- 28% 65-74 -------------------------------------- 11% 75+ ---------------------------------------- 10% BLANK------------------------------------ 1%


3.3.2 Telephone Survey Results (Santa Clara Valley Water District)


N=600 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ±4.0% (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL)

Hello, I'm __________ from F-M-3, a public opinion research company. We are not telemarketers trying to sell you anything or ask for a donation. We're conducting a public opinion survey about some important issues that concern residents of your area. (IF RESPONDENT REPLIES IN SPANISH, OR DESIRES TO SPEAK IN SPANISH, FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE FOR HANDING OFF TO A SPANISH-SPEAKING INTERVIEWER.) May I please speak to __________? (MUST SPEAK TO VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED; OTHERWISE, TERMINATE.) A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can

talk safely? (IF NOT ON A CELL PHONE, ASK: “Do you own a cell phone?”)


(ASK QB ONLY IF CODES 1 OR 2 “OWN A CELL PHONE” IN QA) B. Would you say you use your cell phone to make and receive all of your phone calls, most of your phone calls, do

you use your cell phone and home landline phone equally, or do you mostly use your home landline phone to make and receive calls?



(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 29. Next, you would you say that you have a generally favorable, neutral, or unfavorable opinion of your local water

agency? (IF FAVORABLE/UNFAVORABLE ASK:) “Is that very FAVORABLE/ UNFAVORABLE or just somewhat?”

TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------- 45% Very favorable ------------------------------------- 18% Somewhat favorable ------------------------------ 27% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ------------------- 6% Somewhat unfavorable---------------------------- 4% Very unfavorable ----------------------------------- 2% NEUTRAL/DK/NA -------------------------- 49% Neutral ---------------------------------------------- 42% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 7% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 30. Next, I'd like to read you some problems facing your area that other people have mentioned. For each one I read,

please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, or not too serious a problem in your area. (RANDOMIZE)


[ ]h. Drinking water quality ------------------------------------------- 9% ------- 15% ------ 19% ------ 53% ------- 4% 24% [ ]i. The adequacy of local water supplies

to meet future demands ----------------------------------------- 19% ------ 34% ------ 25% ------ 15% ------- 8% 53% [ ]j. The statewide drought ------------------------------------------- 38% ------ 41% ------ 14% ------- 6% -------- 1% 79% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]k. Jobs and the local economy ------------------------------------ 11% ------ 29% ------ 30% ------ 27% ------- 3% 40% [ ]l. The amount people pay in local taxes ------------------------ 12% ------ 24% ------ 26% ------ 28% ------- 9% 36% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]m. Waste and inefficiency in local government ---------------- 20% ------ 27% ------ 28% ------ 16% ------- 9% 47% [ ]n. The quality of public education in local schools ----------- 20% ------ 23% ------ 26% ------ 22% ------- 9% 43%


MY NEXT QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH WATER USE IN YOUR AREA. 31. First, I am going to read you several different aspects of the service provided by your local water agency. Please

indicate whether you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with that aspect of your water agency’s service. (RANDOMIZE)

VERY SMWT SMWT VERY TOTAL TOTAL SAT SAT DISSAT DISSAT DK SAT DISSAT [ ]e. Providing high quality tap water ----------------- 41% ------ 35% ------ 11% ------ 10% ------- 3% 77% 20% [ ]f. Charging reasonable rates ------------------------- 18% ------ 46% ------ 17% ------- 8% ------- 12% 64% 25% [ ]g. Providing a dependable, reliable water

supply ------------------------------------------------- 53% ------ 38% ------- 5% -------- 3% -------- 1% 90% 8% [ ]h. Responding to customer questions or

concerns ----------------------------------------------- 26% ------ 30% ------- 6% -------- 2% ------- 36% 56% 7% 32. Next, thinking about the water that you drink at home, do you most often drink: (READ LIST)


(DON’T READ) DK/NA ---------------------------------- 0%

(IF CODE 2 OR 3 IN Q4—FILTERED TAP OR BOTTLED—ASK Q5) 33. Next, I am going to read some reasons other people have given for not usually drinking water directly from the

tap. Please indicate whether each item is a major reason why you don’t drink unfiltered tap water, a minor reason, or not a reason. (RANDOMIZE)

MAJOR MAJOR MINOR NOT A /MINOR REASON REASON REASON (DK/NA) REASON [ ]d. Poor taste or smell of tap water ---------------------------------- 41% -------- 25% --------- 33% --------- 1% 66% [ ]e. Safety or health concerns about tap water---------------------- 47% -------- 25% --------- 28% --------- 1% 72% [ ]f. Its more convenient to drink filtered or bottled

water ------------------------------------------------------------------- 28% -------- 21% --------- 50% --------- 0% 50%


(IF CODE 3 IN Q4—BOTTLED WATER—ASK Q6) 34. Next, I am going to read you a list of reasons why people think bottled water is safer than their tap water. Please

tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. (IF AGREE/DISAGREE, ASK: “Is that strongly (AGREE/DISAGREE) or just somewhat?”) (RANDOMIZE)


[ ]e. Bottled water is sealed and protected ----------- 49% ------ 31% ------- 9% -------- 7% -------- 4% 80% 17% [ ]f. Bottled water is tested before being

bottled ------------------------------------------------- 28% ------ 38% ------ 13% ------ 11% ------ 11% 66% 23% [ ]g. The bottled water source is safer than

my tap water ----------------------------------------- 43% ------ 30% ------ 14% ------- 8% -------- 6% 73% 22% [ ]h. Bottled water must meet stricter quality

standards than tap water --------------------------- 38% ------ 29% ------ 15% ------ 15% ------- 4% 67% 29% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)

MY NEXT QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH RECYCLED WATER. 35. Are you familiar with the concept of recycled water? (IF FAMILIAR ASK:) “Is that very familiar, or just

somewhat?” (IF NOT FAMILIAR ASK:) “Is that not too familiar, or not at all familiar?” TOTAL FAMILIAR ------------------------- 70% Very familiar --------------------------------------- 24% Somewhat familiar -------------------------------- 47% TOTAL NOT FAMILIAR ------------------ 29% Not too familiar ----------------------------------- 13% Not at all familiar --------------------------------- 17% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 0% (ASK Q8/9 IF CODES 1-3 IN Q7) 36. Do you support or oppose recycling water for local reuse on a community wide scale? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE

ASK:) “Is that strongly or just somewhat SUPPORT/OPPOSE?” TOTAL SUPPORT -------------------------- 80% Strongly support ----------------------------------- 47% Somewhat support -------------------------------- 33% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 13% Somewhat oppose ---------------------------------- 6% Strongly oppose ------------------------------------ 7% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 7%



COMP SMWT SMWT COMP TOTAL TOTAL ACC ACC NEUT UNACC UNACC (DK/NA) ACC UNACC [ ]f. Irrigation --------------------------------- 72% ------ 17% ------- 5% -------- 2% -------- 3% -------- 2% 89% 5% [ ]g. Industrial uses -------------------------- 65% ------ 19% ------- 8% -------- 4% -------- 1% -------- 2% 84% 5% [ ]h. Household uses, such as laundry,

showers, and dishwashers ------------ 29% ------ 33% ------- 9% ------- 11% ------ 16% ------- 2% 62% 27% [ ]i. Gardening and landscaping ---------- 76% ------ 16% ------- 3% -------- 2% -------- 2% -------- 1% 92% 3% [ ]j. Drinking water --------------------------- 7% ------- 23% ------ 10% ------ 14% ------ 43% ------- 3% 30% 57% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 38. (T) Next, do you believe that it is possible to further treat recycled water used for irrigation to make the water

pure and safe for drinking? Yes --------------------------------------------------- 61% No ---------------------------------------------------- 23% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 16%


(SPLIT C: ASK Q11-12 THEN Q13) (SPLIT D: ASK Q13-14 THEN Q11) 39. The FIRST/NEXT approach is indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking. Indirect reuse of recycled water

involves taking wastewater that comes from the sewer system; treating and purifying it to high standards; and then adding it back to groundwater, reservoirs, or rivers, lakes and streams. From there, it is treated again, as all water supplies are, before being sent to homes and businesses for all purposes—including drinking. Would you support or oppose indirect reuse of recycled water in your community? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE ASK:) “Is that strongly or just somewhat SUPPORT/OPPOSE?”

SPLIT C: SPLIT D:

INDIRECT DIRECT FIRST FIRST TOTAL TOTAL SUPPORT ------------------------------ 58% ---------------------- 63% ---------------------- 61% Strongly support -------------------------------------- 26%------------------------- 38% ------------------------ 32% Somewhat support ------------------------------------ 31%------------------------- 26% ------------------------ 28% TOTAL OPPOSE -------------------------------- 34% ---------------------- 28% ---------------------- 31% Somewhat oppose ------------------------------------ 16%------------------------- 13% ------------------------ 14% Strongly oppose --------------------------------------- 19%------------------------- 16% ------------------------ 17% (DK/NA) ------------------------------------------------ 8%-------------------------- 8% ------------------------- 8% (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE—CODES 1-4—IN Q11, AND SPLIT C, ASK Q12) 40. Why would you (SUPPORT/OPPOSE) indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community?

(RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE)


a. Support

Water shortage/drought/limited clean water supply ------------------------------------------------------ 32% Recycled water is/will/must be safe to drink -------------------------------------------------------------- 18% It’s a good use of resources/reduces waste ----------------------------------------------------------------- 18% Trust filtering system/process to clean the water/filtered to high standards ------------------------- 16% There are multiple cleansings/including nature’s cleansing --------------------------------------------- 8% It’s necessary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8% Don’t see a reason to oppose/seems logical ---------------------------------------------------------------- 6% Recycled water is already used for drinking ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5% Will save money/inexpensive --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Nature/rain filters/treats water the same way --------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Favor idea of reusing/recycling water ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%

b. Oppose Don’t trust/unfamiliar with filtering/quality standards -------------------------------------------------- 31% Unsafe/unclean/health concerns------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 30% Just don’t want to drink it/personally reuse ---------------------------------------------------------------- 11% No process is 100% effective/ some pathogens/toxins can never be removed (includes medications) ---------------------------- 10% Don’t know enough about it ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9% Don’t want to drink sewer water ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7% Possible contamination of natural water sources/groundwater/rivers --------------------------------- 4% Chemicals are used in treatment of water ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% “Human factor”; potential for human error/negligence in water treatment --------------------------- 3% Mistrust of government ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Lack of available test/study/research results---------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Will taste bad ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Refuse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%




SPLIT D: SPLIT C:





Drought/lack of clean water supply ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43% Conservation/good use of resources/better than wasting water ---------------------------------------- 21% Trust water quality/ filtering process/guidelines ---------------------------------------------------------- 19% There is no reason to oppose (no reason not to)/the right thing to do --------------------------------- 7% It’s necessary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7% Makes economic sense; inexpensive/will lower water rates--------------------------------------------- 5% Recycled water has been used previously here/other places -------------------------------------------- 4% Recycled water is safe/clean ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% The technology exists to do so -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% It would be good to use for gardening/irrigation----------------------------------------------------------- 2% Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Refuse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0%

b. Oppose Don’t trust filtering process/system ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34% It would be unhealthy/unsafe to drink ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 31% Just don’t want to/feel comfortable drinking it ------------------------------------------------------------ 22% Don’t want to drink “sewer water” --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7% Don’t know enough about it ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Concerned of more chemicals in water (used to clean it) ------------------------------------------------ 3% “Human factor”; potential for human error/negligence in water treatment --------------------------- 2% Don’t trust city officials to ensure water quality ----------------------------------------------------------- 2% Lack of available test/study/research results---------------------------------------------------------------- 2% No process is 100% effective/some pathogens/ toxins can never be removed (includes medications) --------------------------------------------------- 2% Too expensive ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Mistrust of government ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% Will taste bad ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Refuse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0%


(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 43. (T) How would you feel about using advanced treated recycled water as an addition to the supply of drinking

water, that is water treated with ultra-filtration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation? (READ LIST) TOTAL FAVOR ----------------------------- 60% Strongly favor ------------------------------------- 26% Somewhat favor ----------------------------------- 34% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 25% Somewhat oppose --------------------------------- 11% Strongly oppose ----------------------------------- 14% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 15% 44. Next, I am going to read you a list of concerns some members of the public have expressed about direct reuse of

recycled water for drinking. Please tell me whether you personally agree or disagree with that concern. (IF AGREE/DISAGREE, ASK: “Is that strongly (AGREE/DISAGREE) or just somewhat?”) (RANDOMIZE)

STR SMWT SMWT STR (DK/ TOTAL TOTAL AGREE AGREE DISAGR DISAGR NA) AGREE DISAGR [ ]e. Recycled water may taste bad -------------------- 23% ------ 31% ------ 22% ------ 14% ------ 11% 53% 35% [ ]f. Recycled water may fail to meet water

safety standards -------------------------------------- 35% ------ 35% ------ 15% ------ 11% ------- 4% 70% 26% [ ]g. Recycled water may include

contaminants ----------------------------------------- 39% ------ 34% ------ 12% ------ 11% ------- 5% 73% 22% [ ]h. The concept of recycled water just

makes me uncomfortable -------------------------- 25% ------ 27% ------ 23% ------ 23% ------- 1% 52% 46% 45. Next, I am going to read you a list of facts about direct reuse of recycled water. For each statement, please


MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO MORE CONF CONF DIFF (DK/NA) CONF (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]g. The purification process produces water that is

purer than bottled water -------------------------------------------- 27% -------- 33% --------- 36% --------- 5% 59% [ ]h. The quality of recycled water, once it has been

purified, will be strictly monitored by the California Department of Health --------------------------------- 24% -------- 40% --------- 35% --------- 1% 64%

[ ]i. Methods regularly used to purify recycled water include microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light ------------------------------------------------------ 18% -------- 34% --------- 40% --------- 8% 53%


MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO MORE CONF CONF DIFF (DK/NA) CONF (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]j. California’s drinking water standards are among

the strictest in the nation, and purified recycled water would comply with those standards --------------------- 28% -------- 32% --------- 39% --------- 1% 60%

[ ]k. Drinking water could be tested constantly, in real-time, with online sensors ------------------------------------------ 30% -------- 34% --------- 33% --------- 3% 64%

[ ]l. Methods regularly used to purify recycled water include microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light—similar to the purification process involved in removing salt from ocean water ------------------------------------------------------------------- 22% -------- 34% --------- 42% --------- 2% 56%

(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 46. Now that you’ve heard more about it, do you support or oppose direct reuse of recycled water in your community

for all household purposes, including drinking? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE ASK:) “Is that strongly or just somewhat SUPPORT/OPPOSE?”

TOTAL SUPPORT -------------------------- 54% Strongly support ----------------------------------- 21% Somewhat support -------------------------------- 34% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 39% Somewhat oppose --------------------------------- 16% Strongly oppose ----------------------------------- 24% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 6% 47. Next, I am going to read you some statements that have been made by supporters of direct reuse of recycled water

in your community. After you hear each one, please indicate whether it is very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support direct reuse of recycled water. If you do not believe the statement, please indicate that as well. (RANDOMIZE)

TOTAL VERY SMWT NOT DON'T VERY/ CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT [ ]j. (ADOPTION) Several California communities,

including Orange County, already use advanced purification processes to produce purified recycled water suitable for drinking and household use. There have been no problems whatsoever from this use of recycled water.---------------------------------------------------- 29% ------ 38% ------ 20% ------ 10% ------- 3% 67%


TOTAL VERY SMWT NOT DON'T VERY/ CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]k. (SUPPLY) We need to consider all options to

ensure a reliable and locally-controlled supply of water for ourselves and future generations that will not be dependent on decisions made by agencies in other parts of the state. ------------------------------------------ 31% ------ 43% ------ 15% ------- 8% -------- 4% 73%

[ ]l. (SAFETY) Thanks to advances in modern technology, it no longer matters where water comes from. We have the ability to purify any water and make it healthy to drink. ---------------------------------------- 23% ------ 37% ------ 19% ------ 20% ------- 1% 59%

[ ]m. (RATES) With the economy just coming out of a recession and many families having a hard time making ends meet, we need to make the most of all of our water resources to avoid further rate increases. Over time, making better use of our existing water supplies through recycling will be one of the best ways to keep water rates low. ------------------- 28% ------ 36% ------ 21% ------ 14% ------- 1% 64%

[ ]n. (ENVIRONMENT) Using recycled water is good for our environment. The more recycled water we use, the less we have to take out of rivers and streams and our scarce groundwater supplies. That’s good for rivers, streams, and the fish, plants and wildlife that rely on them. -------------------------------------- 50% ------ 33% ------ 10% ------- 6% -------- 1% 83%

(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]o. (PURIFICATION) The water purification process

uses state-of-the-art multi-stage technology and monitoring. It cleans water to a very high standard, and ensures that drinking water produced is safe and free of harmful chemicals and toxins. ------------------------ 25% ------ 47% ------ 17% ------- 9% -------- 2% 72%

[ ]p. (PRINCIPLE) We all recycle as often as we can—glass, plastic, paper, even yard waste. It’s the right thing to do. For the same reason, we should recycle and reuse as much of our limited water supplies as we possibly can. Water is too valuable to be used just once. ----------------------------------------------------------- 37% ------ 33% ------ 22% ------- 6% -------- 2% 70%


TOTAL VERY SMWT NOT DON'T VERY/ CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY CONT.) [ ]q. (NATURAL PROCESS) The amount of fresh

water on the planet does not change. Through nature, all water has been used and reused since the beginning of time across every river system in the world. Using advanced technology to purify recycled water merely speeds up a natural process—and in fact, the water produced through advanced purification meets a much higher standard of quality than what occurs naturally. ------------------------------------- 27% ------ 37% ------ 20% ------ 13% ------- 2% 64%

[ ]r. (DROUGHT-PROOF) Recycling water is a drought-proof way to help ensure a reliable supply of water to meet local needs, independent of climate change or weather in other locations. ------------------------ 23% ------ 48% ------ 18% ------- 8% -------- 2% 71%



TOTAL SUPPORT -------------------------- 57% Strongly support ----------------------------------- 25% Somewhat support -------------------------------- 31% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 39% Somewhat oppose --------------------------------- 20% Strongly oppose ----------------------------------- 19% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 5% 49. Next, would you be likely to accept the addition of advanced treated recycled water to supplement the sources of

our drinking water if you learned that: (RANDOMIZE) (DON’T READ) YES NO DK/NA [ ]d. (T) California’s drinking water standards are among the most strict in the

nation, and advanced treated recycled water in the region would comply with those standards ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65% ---------- 28% ------------- 7%

[ ]e. (T) Recycled water is currently used to supplement drinking water in other U.S. communities --------------------------------------------------------------------- 60% ---------- 32% ------------- 8%

[ ]f. (T) Recycled water could supply as much as ten percent of our local drinking water supplies --------------------------------------------------------------------- 61% ---------- 32% ------------- 7%

50. Next, I am going to read you a list of people and organizations that may provide information about recycled water. After you hear each one, please tell me if you would generally trust that person’s or organization’s opinion on this issue, or if you would be suspicious of it. If you have never heard of the person or organization, or do not have an opinion, you can tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE) (IF “TRUST,” ASK: Would you trust them a great deal or just somewhat?) (IF “SUSPICIOUS,” ASK: “Would you be very suspicious or just somewhat suspicious?”)


TRUST NEVER DK/ A GREAT TRUST SMWT VERY HEARD NO TOTAL TOTAL DEAL SMWT SUSP SUSP OF OPIN TRUST SUSP [ ]p. A professor at a

local university ------------------------- 15% ------ 43% ------ 22% ------- 8% -------- 2% -------- 9% 58% 30% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]q. Scientists --------------------------------- 30% ------ 42% ------ 16% ------- 6% -------- 0% -------- 6% 73% 21% [ ]r. The Department of Public Health --- 29% ------ 47% ------ 15% ------- 5% -------- 1% -------- 3% 76% 19% [ ]s. Your local water utility --------------- 15% ------ 48% ------ 21% ------- 9% -------- 1% -------- 6% 63% 30% [ ]t. Medical doctors ------------------------ 22% ------ 50% ------ 14% ------- 6% -------- 1% -------- 7% 72% 20% [ ]u. Environmental organizations -------- 16% ------ 46% ------ 18% ------- 9% -------- 2% -------- 9% 62% 27% [ ]v. Independent lab studies --------------- 18% ------ 42% ------ 19% ------ 10% ------- 5% -------- 7% 60% 29% [ ]w. The Environmental Protection

Agency ----------------------------------- 26% ------ 46% ------ 13% ------ 10% ------- 2% -------- 3% 72% 23% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]x. A taxpayer advocate organization --- 4% ------- 26% ------ 31% ------ 19% ------- 9% ------- 12% 30% 49% [ ]y. Local business owners ----------------- 5% ------- 25% ------ 36% ------ 19% ------- 3% ------- 11% 30% 56% [ ]z. Residents of community that

already have potable reuse ----------- 20% ------ 43% ------ 14% ------- 7% -------- 6% ------- 10% 63% 20% [ ]aa. Your local mayor------------------------ 6% ------- 31% ------ 28% ------ 21% ------- 4% ------- 11% 36% 49% [ ]bb. Dentists ---------------------------------- 18% ------ 41% ------ 16% ------- 9% -------- 2% ------- 15% 59% 25% [ ]cc. Medical researchers ------------------- 37% ------ 37% ------ 13% ------- 3% -------- 3% -------- 6% 75% 16% [ ]dd. Nutritionists ----------------------------- 22% ------ 43% ------ 14% ------- 6% -------- 4% ------- 11% 65% 21%


(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 51. Next, I am going to read you a list of ways someone might try to get in touch with you with more information

about recycled water. For each item, please tell me if you would definitely pay attention, probably pay attention, or would not pay attention to that method of communicating with you. (RANDOMIZE)

DEF PROB NOT TOTAL PAY PAY PAY PAY ATTN ATTN ATTN (DK/NA) ATTN [ ]l. Inserts in water bills ------------------------------------------------ 24% -------- 40% --------- 33% --------- 2% 64% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]m. Newsletters mailed to your home -------------------------------- 19% -------- 35% --------- 46% --------- 1% 53% [ ]n. TV ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- 12% -------- 34% --------- 52% --------- 2% 46% [ ]o. News reports --------------------------------------------------------- 34% -------- 45% --------- 21% --------- 0% 79% [ ]p. Billboards -------------------------------------------------------------- 7% --------- 36% --------- 56% --------- 1% 43% [ ]q. Information from community organizations of

which you are a member ------------------------------------------- 29% -------- 44% --------- 22% --------- 5% 73% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]r. Radio ads ------------------------------------------------------------- 14% -------- 40% --------- 44% --------- 2% 54% [ ]s. Your water agency’s website ------------------------------------- 18% -------- 34% --------- 44% --------- 4% 51% [ ]t. Facebook --------------------------------------------------------------- 4% --------- 18% --------- 73% --------- 6% 22% [ ]u. Twitter------------------------------------------------------------------ 2% --------- 10% --------- 80% --------- 8% 12% [ ]v. Information sent home with children from school ----------- 23% -------- 31% --------- 34% -------- 11% 54%



HERE ARE MY FINAL QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE JUST FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 52. Do you ... Own a single family home ---------------------- 58% Own a condominium ------------------------------ 7% Rent an apartment or home --------------------- 29% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 6% 53. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes --------------------------------------------------- 32% No ---------------------------------------------------- 65% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 2% 54. What is the last grade of formal education that you completed? Grades 1-8 ------------------------------------------- 2% Grades 9-11 ----------------------------------------- 3% High school graduate ----------------------------- 11% Technical/vocational school --------------------- 2% Some college --------------------------------------- 16% College graduate (4 years) ---------------------- 37% Post-graduate -------------------------------------- 29% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 1% 55. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself? (READ CHOICES BELOW) Hispanic/Latino ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15% Black/African American --------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Anglo/White ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53% Asian/Pacific Islander ----------------------------------------------------------------- 18% Native American ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% (DON’T READ) OTHER/MIXED Please Specify_________) -------------- 4% (DON'T KNOW/REFUSED) ------------------------------------------------------- 6% 56. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I mention the total combined income for all the

people in your household before taxes in 2013. $25,000 or less-------------------------------------- 7% $25,001 - $50,000 --------------------------------- 10% $50,001 - $75,000 --------------------------------- 13% $75,001 - $100,000 ------------------------------- 15% $100,001 or more --------------------------------- 36% (DON’T READ) Refused ----------------------- 18%


THANK AND TERMINATE SEX: Male ------------------------------------------------- 47% Female ---------------------------------------------- 53% LANGUAGE: English ---------------------------------------------- 93% Spanish ----------------------------------------------- 7% PARTY REGISTRATION: Democrat ------------------------------------------- 46% Republican ----------------------------------------- 23% No Party Preference ------------------------------ 26% Other -------------------------------------------------- 5% COMMUNITY: City of San Diego ---------------------------------- 0% Santa Clara Valley Water District ----------- 100% FLAGS P08 ---------------------------------------- 37% G08 ---------------------------------------- 73% P10 ---------------------------------------- 48% G10 ---------------------------------------- 68% P12 ---------------------------------------- 46% G12 ---------------------------------------- 88% BLANK ----------------------------------- 5%

AGE 18-29 -------------------------------------- 14% 30-39 -------------------------------------- 14% 40-49 -------------------------------------- 19% 50-64 -------------------------------------- 30% 65-74 -------------------------------------- 12% 75+ ---------------------------------------- 11% BLANK------------------------------------ 0%


3.3.3 Telephone Survey Results (City of San Diego)


N=600 CITY OF SAN DIEGO

MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ±4.0% (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL)

Hello, I'm __________ from F-M-3, a public opinion research company.We are not telemarketers trying to sell you anything or ask for a donation. We're conducting a public opinion survey about some important issues that concern residents of your area. (IF RESPONDENT REPLIES IN SPANISH, OR DESIRES TO SPEAK IN SPANISH, FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE FOR HANDING OFF TO A SPANISH-SPEAKING INTERVIEWER.) May I please speak to __________? (MUST SPEAK TO VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED; OTHERWISE, TERMINATE.) A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can

talk safely? (IF NOT ON A CELL PHONE, ASK: “Do you own a cell phone?”)


(ASK QB ONLY IF CODES 1 OR 2 “OWN A CELL PHONE” IN QA) B. Would you say you use your cell phone to make and receive all of your phone calls, most of your phone calls, do

you use your cell phone and home landline phone equally, or do you mostly use your home landline phone to make and receive calls?



(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 57. Next, you would you say that you have a generally favorable, neutral, or unfavorable opinion of your local water

agency? (IF FAVORABLE/UNFAVORABLE ASK:) “Is that very FAVORABLE/ UNFAVORABLE or just somewhat?”

TOTAL FAVORABLE --------------------- 34% Very favorable ------------------------------------- 14% Somewhat favorable ------------------------------ 20% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE ----------------- 20% Somewhat unfavorable--------------------------- 11% Very unfavorable ----------------------------------- 8% NEUTRAL/DK/NA -------------------------- 46% Neutral ---------------------------------------------- 37% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 9% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 58. Next, I'd like to read you some problems facing your area that other people have mentioned. For each one I read,

please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, or not too serious a problem in your area. (RANDOMIZE)


[ ]o. Drinking water quality ------------------------------------------ 12% ------ 16% ------ 24% ------ 43% ------- 5% 28% [ ]p. The adequacy of local water supplies

to meet future demands ----------------------------------------- 21% ------ 33% ------ 28% ------ 13% ------- 6% 54% [ ]q. The statewide drought ------------------------------------------- 35% ------ 41% ------ 15% ------- 7% -------- 2% 77% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]r. Jobs and the local economy ------------------------------------ 20% ------ 34% ------ 32% ------ 10% ------- 4% 53% [ ]s. The amount people pay in local taxes ------------------------ 18% ------ 26% ------ 31% ------ 19% ------- 6% 44% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]t. Waste and inefficiency in local government ---------------- 20% ------ 32% ------ 28% ------ 15% ------- 5% 52% [ ]u. The quality of public education in local schools ----------- 17% ------ 27% ------ 29% ------ 20% ------- 7% 44%


MY NEXT QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH WATER USE IN YOUR AREA. 59. First, I am going to read you several different aspects of the service provided by your local water agency. Please

indicate whether you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with that aspect of your water agency’s service. (RANDOMIZE)

VERY SMWT SMWT VERY TOTAL TOTAL SAT SAT DISSAT DISSAT DK SAT DISSAT [ ]i. Providing high quality tap water ----------------- 28% ------ 38% ------ 16% ------ 15% ------- 3% 66% 31% [ ]j. Charging reasonable rates ------------------------- 12% ------ 33% ------ 21% ------ 21% ------ 13% 45% 42% [ ]k. Providing a dependable, reliable water

supply ------------------------------------------------- 44% ------ 41% ------- 8% -------- 5% -------- 2% 85% 13% [ ]l. Responding to customer questions or

concerns ----------------------------------------------- 17% ------ 38% ------- 8% -------- 6% ------- 31% 55% 14% 60. Next, thinking about the water that you drink at home, do you most often drink: (READ LIST)


(DON’T READ) DK/NA ---------------------------------- 2%

(IF CODE 2 OR 3 IN Q4—FILTERED TAP OR BOTTLED—ASK Q5) 61. Next, I am going to read some reasons other people have given for not usually drinking water directly from the

tap. Please indicate whether each item is a major reason why you don’t drink unfiltered tap water, a minor reason, or not a reason. (RANDOMIZE)

MAJOR MAJOR MINOR NOT A /MINOR REASON REASON REASON (DK/NA) REASON [ ]g. Poor taste or smell of tap water ---------------------------------- 49% -------- 24% --------- 26% --------- 1% 73% [ ]h. Safety or health concerns about tap water---------------------- 45% -------- 25% --------- 30% --------- 0% 70% [ ]i. Its more convenient to drink filtered or bottled

water ------------------------------------------------------------------- 31% -------- 19% --------- 49% --------- 1% 50%


(IF CODE 3 IN Q4—BOTTLED WATER—ASK Q6) 62. Next, I am going to read you a list of reasons why people think bottled water is safer than their tap water. Please

tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. (IF AGREE/DISAGREE, ASK: “Is that strongly (AGREE/DISAGREE) or just somewhat?”) (RANDOMIZE)


[ ]i. Bottled water is sealed and protected ----------- 52% ------ 31% ------ 10% ------- 5% -------- 2% 83% 15% [ ]j. Bottled water is tested before being

bottled ------------------------------------------------- 40% ------ 32% ------ 13% ------- 4% ------- 10% 72% 18% [ ]k. The bottled water source is safer than

my tap water ----------------------------------------- 45% ------ 28% ------ 15% ------- 6% -------- 6% 73% 20% [ ]l. Bottled water must meet stricter quality

standards than tap water --------------------------- 41% ------ 26% ------ 16% ------ 11% ------- 6% 67% 27% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)

MY NEXT QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH RECYCLED WATER. 63. Are you familiar with the concept of recycled water? (IF FAMILIAR ASK:) “Is that very familiar, or just

somewhat?” (IF NOT FAMILIAR ASK:) “Is that not too familiar, or not at all familiar?” TOTAL FAMILIAR ------------------------- 75% Very familiar --------------------------------------- 29% Somewhat familiar -------------------------------- 46% TOTAL NOT FAMILIAR ------------------ 25% Not too familiar ----------------------------------- 12% Not at all familiar --------------------------------- 12% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 0% (ASK Q8/9 IF CODES 1-3 IN Q7) 64. Do you support or oppose recycling water for local reuse on a community wide scale? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE

ASK:) “Is that strongly or just somewhat SUPPORT/OPPOSE?” TOTAL SUPPORT -------------------------- 76% Strongly support ----------------------------------- 48% Somewhat support -------------------------------- 29% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 17% Somewhat oppose ---------------------------------- 8% Strongly oppose ----------------------------------- 10% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 6%



COMP SMWT SMWT COMP TOTAL TOTAL ACC ACC NEUT UNACC UNACC (DK/NA) ACC UNACC [ ]k. Irrigation --------------------------------- 73% ------ 18% ------- 3% -------- 3% -------- 2% -------- 1% 91% 5% [ ]l. Industrial uses -------------------------- 66% ------ 20% ------- 6% -------- 2% -------- 2% -------- 3% 87% 4% [ ]m. Household uses, such as laundry,

showers, and dishwashers ------------ 38% ------ 28% ------- 8% ------- 12% ------ 13% ------- 1% 66% 25% [ ]n. Gardening and landscaping ---------- 79% ------ 15% ------- 3% -------- 2% -------- 2% -------- 0% 94% 4% [ ]o. Drinking water -------------------------- 18% ------ 20% ------ 10% ------ 15% ------ 36% ------- 1% 38% 51% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 66. (T) Next, do you believe that it is possible to further treat recycled water used for irrigation to make the water

pure and safe for drinking? Yes --------------------------------------------------- 64% No ---------------------------------------------------- 23% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 13%


(SPLIT C: ASK Q11-12 THEN Q13) (SPLIT D: ASK Q13-14 THEN Q11) 67. The FIRST/NEXT approach is indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking. Indirect reuse of recycled water

involves taking wastewater that comes from the sewer system; treating and purifying it to high standards; and then adding it back to groundwater, reservoirs, or rivers, lakes and streams. From there, it is treated again, as all water supplies are, before being sent to homes and businesses for all purposes—including drinking. Would you support or oppose indirect reuse of recycled water in your community? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE ASK:) “Is that strongly or just somewhat SUPPORT/OPPOSE?”

SPLIT C: SPLIT D:

INDIRECT DIRECT FIRST FIRST TOTAL TOTAL SUPPORT ------------------------------ 64% ---------------------- 62% ---------------------- 63% Strongly support -------------------------------------- 37%------------------------- 35% ------------------------ 36% Somewhat support ------------------------------------ 26%------------------------- 27% ------------------------ 27% TOTAL OPPOSE -------------------------------- 30% ---------------------- 32% ---------------------- 31% Somewhat oppose ------------------------------------ 11%------------------------- 14% ------------------------ 12% Strongly oppose --------------------------------------- 19%------------------------- 18% ------------------------ 19% (DK/NA) ------------------------------------------------ 7%-------------------------- 6% ------------------------- 6% (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE—CODES 1-4—IN Q11, AND SPLIT C, ASK Q12) 68. Why would you (SUPPORT/OPPOSE) indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community?

(RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE)


a. Support

Water shortage/drought/limited clean water supply ------------------------------------------------------ 38% It’s a good use of resources/reduces waste ----------------------------------------------------------------- 18% Recycled water is/will/must be safe to drink -------------------------------------------------------------- 16% Trust filtering system/process to clean the water/filtered to high standards ------------------------- 16% There are multiple cleansings/including nature’s cleansing --------------------------------------------- 9% Recycled water is already used for drinking ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5% It’s necessary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5% Don’t see a reason to oppose/seems logical ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Nature/rain filters/treats water the same way --------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Will save money/inexpensive --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Favor idea of reusing/recycling water ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%

b. Oppose Don’t trust/unfamiliar with filtering/quality standards -------------------------------------------------- 42% Unsafe/unclean/health concerns------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 29% Just don’t want to drink it/personally reuse ---------------------------------------------------------------- 12% Don’t want to drink sewer water ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12% No process is 100% effective/ some pathogens/toxins can never be removed (includes medications) ----------------------------- 9% Don’t know enough about it ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5% Chemicals are used in treatment of water ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% “Human factor”; potential for human error/negligence in water treatment --------------------------- 3% Possible contamination of natural water sources/groundwater/rivers --------------------------------- 3% Mistrust of government ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Lack of available test/study/research results---------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Will taste bad ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Other --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Refuse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0%




SPLIT D: SPLIT C:





Drought/lack of clean water supply ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45% Conservation/good use of resources/better than wasting water ---------------------------------------- 30% Trust water quality/ filtering process/guidelines ---------------------------------------------------------- 20% Recycled water has been used previously here/other places -------------------------------------------- 9% Makes economic sense; inexpensive/will lower water rates--------------------------------------------- 9% There is no reason to oppose (no reason not to)/the right thing to do --------------------------------- 5% It’s necessary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4% The technology exists to do so -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Recycled water is safe/clean ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% It would be good to use for gardening/irrigation----------------------------------------------------------- 0% Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0% Refuse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0%

b. Oppose Don’t trust filtering process/system ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46% It would be unhealthy/unsafe to drink ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 21% Just don’t want to/feel comfortable drinking it ------------------------------------------------------------ 17% Don’t want to drink “sewer water” -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12% Don’t know enough about it ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10% “Human factor”; potential for human error/negligence in water treatment --------------------------- 5% No process is 100% effective/some pathogens/ toxins can never be removed (includes medications) --------------------------------------------------- 4% Concerned of more chemicals in water (used to clean it) ------------------------------------------------ 3% Will taste bad ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3% Lack of available test/study/research results---------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Too expensive ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Mistrust of government ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Don’t trust city officials to ensure water quality ----------------------------------------------------------- 0% Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4% Don’t know/NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% Refuse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%


(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 71. (T) How would you feel about using advanced treated recycled water as an addition to the supply of drinking

water, that is water treated with ultra-filtration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation? (READ LIST) TOTAL FAVOR ----------------------------- 64% Strongly favor ------------------------------------- 30% Somewhat favor ----------------------------------- 33% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 26% Somewhat oppose --------------------------------- 11% Strongly oppose ----------------------------------- 15% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 10% 72. Next, I am going to read you a list of concerns some members of the public have expressed about direct reuse of

recycled water for drinking. Please tell me whether you personally agree or disagree with that concern. (IF AGREE/DISAGREE, ASK: “Is that strongly (AGREE/DISAGREE) or just somewhat?”) (RANDOMIZE)

STR SMWT SMWT STR (DK/ TOTAL TOTAL AGREE AGREE DISAGR DISAGR NA) AGREE DISAGR [ ]i. Recycled water may taste bad -------------------- 23% ------ 28% ------ 23% ------ 18% ------- 8% 51% 40% [ ]j. Recycled water may fail to meet water

safety standards -------------------------------------- 33% ------ 29% ------ 16% ------ 19% ------- 3% 62% 35% [ ]k. Recycled water may include

contaminants ----------------------------------------- 38% ------ 33% ------ 14% ------ 13% ------- 3% 70% 27% [ ]l. The concept of recycled water just

makes me uncomfortable -------------------------- 24% ------ 22% ------ 21% ------ 31% ------- 1% 47% 53% 73. Next, I am going to read you a list of facts about direct reuse of recycled water. For each statement, please


MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO MORE CONF CONF DIFF (DK/NA) CONF (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]m. The purification process produces water that is

purer than bottled water -------------------------------------------- 33% -------- 31% --------- 30% --------- 6% 64% [ ]n. The quality of recycled water, once it has been

purified, will be strictly monitored by the California Department of Health --------------------------------- 23% -------- 41% --------- 35% --------- 1% 65%

[ ]o. Methods regularly used to purify recycled water include microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light ------------------------------------------------------ 24% -------- 30% --------- 41% --------- 5% 54%


MUCH SMWT TOTAL MORE MORE NO MORE CONF CONF DIFF (DK/NA) CONF (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]p. California’s drinking water standards are among

the strictest in the nation, and purified recycled water would comply with those standards --------------------- 26% -------- 33% --------- 39% --------- 2% 59%

[ ]q. Drinking water could be tested constantly, in real-time, with online sensors ------------------------------------------ 29% -------- 33% --------- 37% --------- 1% 62%

[ ]r. Methods regularly used to purify recycled water include microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light—similar to the purification process involved in removing salt from ocean water ------------------------------------------------------------------- 24% -------- 39% --------- 35% --------- 2% 63%

(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 74.

Sunnyvale San Diego 75. Next, I am going to read you some statements that have been made by supporters of direct reuse of recycled water

in your community. After you hear each one, please indicate whether it is very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support direct reuse of recycled water. If you do not believe the statement, please indicate that as well. (RANDOMIZE)

TOTAL VERY SMWT NOT DON'T VERY/ CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT [ ]s. (ADOPTION) Several California communities,

including Orange County, already use advanced purification processes to produce purified recycled water suitable for drinking and household use. There have been no problems whatsoever from this use of recycled water.---------------------------------------------------- 34% ------ 37% ------ 17% ------ 10% ------- 3% 70%


TOTAL VERY SMWT NOT DON'T VERY/ CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]t. (SUPPLY) We need to consider all options to

ensure a reliable and locally-controlled supply of water for ourselves and future generations that will not be dependent on decisions made by agencies in other parts of the state. ------------------------------------------ 35% ------ 38% ------ 16% ------- 7% -------- 3% 73%

[ ]u. (SAFETY) Thanks to advances in modern technology, it no longer matters where water comes from. We have the ability to purify any water and make it healthy to drink. ---------------------------------------- 22% ------ 41% ------ 21% ------ 16% ------- 1% 62%

[ ]v. (RATES) With the economy just coming out of a recession and many families having a hard time making ends meet, we need to make the most of all of our water resources to avoid further rate increases. Over time, making better use of our existing water supplies through recycling will be one of the best ways to keep water rates low. ------------------- 32% ------ 37% ------ 16% ------ 13% ------- 2% 69%

[ ]w. (ENVIRONMENT) Using recycled water is good for our environment. The more recycled water we use, the less we have to take out of rivers and streams and our scarce groundwater supplies. That’s good for rivers, streams, and the fish, plants and wildlife that rely on them. -------------------------------------- 50% ------ 36% ------ 10% ------- 4% -------- 1% 86%

(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]x. (PURIFICATION) The water purification process

uses state-of-the-art multi-stage technology and monitoring. It cleans water to a very high standard, and ensures that drinking water produced is safe and free of harmful chemicals and toxins. ------------------------ 27% ------ 44% ------ 18% ------- 8% -------- 3% 71%

[ ]y. (PRINCIPLE) We all recycle as often as we can—glass, plastic, paper, even yard waste. It’s the right thing to do. For the same reason, we should recycle and reuse as much of our limited water supplies as we possibly can. Water is too valuable to be used just once. ----------------------------------------------------------- 43% ------ 32% ------ 16% ------- 8% -------- 0% 75%


TOTAL VERY SMWT NOT DON'T VERY/ CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY CONT.) [ ]z. (NATURAL PROCESS) The amount of fresh

water on the planet does not change. Through nature, all water has been used and reused since the beginning of time across every river system in the world. Using advanced technology to purify recycled water merely speeds up a natural process—and in fact, the water produced through advanced purification meets a much higher standard of quality than what occurs naturally. ------------------------------------- 30% ------ 34% ------ 18% ------ 15% ------- 3% 64%

[ ]aa. (DROUGHT-PROOF) Recycling water is a drought-proof way to help ensure a reliable supply of water to meet local needs, independent of climate change or weather in other locations. ------------------------ 31% ------ 44% ------ 18% ------- 6% -------- 0% 75%



TOTAL SUPPORT -------------------------- 62% Strongly support ----------------------------------- 34% Somewhat support -------------------------------- 28% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 34% Somewhat oppose --------------------------------- 15% Strongly oppose ----------------------------------- 18% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 4% 77. Next, would you be likely to accept the addition of advanced treated recycled water to supplement the sources of

our drinking water if you learned that: (RANDOMIZE) (DON’T READ) YES NO DK/NA [ ]g. (T) California’s drinking water standards are among the most strict in the

nation, and advanced treated recycled water in the region would comply with those standards ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70% ---------- 26% ------------- 4%

[ ]h. (T) Recycled water is currently used to supplement drinking water in other U.S. communities --------------------------------------------------------------------- 66% ---------- 27% ------------- 6%

[ ]i. (T) Recycled water could supply as much as ten percent of our local drinking water supplies --------------------------------------------------------------------- 69% ---------- 27% ------------- 4%

78. Next, I am going to read you a list of people and organizations that may provide information about recycled water. After you hear each one, please tell me if you would generally trust that person’s or organization’s opinion on this issue, or if you would be suspicious of it. If you have never heard of the person or organization, or do not have an opinion, you can tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE) (IF “TRUST,” ASK: Would you trust them a great deal or just somewhat?) (IF “SUSPICIOUS,” ASK: “Would you be very suspicious or just somewhat suspicious?”)


TRUST NEVER DK/ A GREAT TRUST SMWT VERY HEARD NO TOTAL TOTAL DEAL SMWT SUSP SUSP OF OPIN TRUST SUSP [ ]ee. A professor at a

local university ------------------------- 17% ------ 40% ------ 24% ------ 10% ------- 1% -------- 7% 58% 34% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]ff. Scientists --------------------------------- 32% ------ 37% ------ 20% ------- 5% -------- 0% -------- 5% 70% 25% [ ]gg. The Department of Public Health --- 31% ------ 47% ------ 13% ------- 6% -------- 0% -------- 2% 78% 19% [ ]hh. Your local water utility --------------- 12% ------ 44% ------ 26% ------ 14% ------- 0% -------- 4% 56% 39% [ ]ii. Medical doctors ------------------------ 32% ------ 40% ------ 19% ------- 4% -------- 1% -------- 4% 71% 24% [ ]jj. Environmental organizations -------- 25% ------ 39% ------ 18% ------ 14% ------- 1% -------- 3% 64% 32% [ ]kk. Independent lab studies --------------- 23% ------ 40% ------ 25% ------- 6% -------- 3% -------- 3% 62% 31% [ ]ll. The Environmental Protection

Agency ----------------------------------- 31% ------ 39% ------ 12% ------ 13% ------- 1% -------- 5% 70% 25% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]mm. A taxpayer advocate organization --- 5% ------- 24% ------ 32% ------ 24% ------- 5% ------- 10% 29% 56% [ ]nn. Local business owners ----------------- 5% ------- 26% ------ 39% ------ 19% ------- 2% -------- 9% 31% 58% [ ]oo. Residents of community that

already have potable reuse ----------- 23% ------ 43% ------ 16% ------- 7% -------- 4% -------- 7% 66% 23% [ ]pp. Your local mayor----------------------- 11% ------ 27% ------ 30% ------ 23% ------- 2% -------- 7% 38% 54% [ ]qq. Dentists ---------------------------------- 19% ------ 46% ------ 14% ------ 10% ------- 0% ------- 11% 65% 24% [ ]rr. Medical researchers ------------------- 37% ------ 36% ------ 17% ------- 6% -------- 0% -------- 3% 73% 24% [ ]ss. Nutritionists ----------------------------- 27% ------ 43% ------ 12% ------- 8% -------- 1% -------- 9% 69% 20%


(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 79. Next, I am going to read you a list of ways someone might try to get in touch with you with more information

about recycled water. For each item, please tell me if you would definitely pay attention, probably pay attention, or would not pay attention to that method of communicating with you. (RANDOMIZE)

DEF PROB NOT TOTAL PAY PAY PAY PAY ATTN ATTN ATTN (DK/NA) ATTN [ ]w. Inserts in water bills ------------------------------------------------ 18% -------- 41% --------- 36% --------- 4% 60% (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]x. Newsletters mailed to your home -------------------------------- 11% -------- 40% --------- 48% --------- 1% 51% [ ]y. TV ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- 14% -------- 39% --------- 47% --------- 1% 52% [ ]z. News reports --------------------------------------------------------- 30% -------- 51% --------- 18% --------- 1% 81% [ ]aa. Billboards -------------------------------------------------------------- 7% --------- 37% --------- 55% --------- 1% 44% [ ]bb. Information from community organizations of

which you are a member ------------------------------------------- 34% -------- 41% --------- 20% --------- 5% 75% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]cc. Radio ads ------------------------------------------------------------- 14% -------- 37% --------- 48% --------- 2% 50% [ ]dd. Your water agency’s website ------------------------------------- 14% -------- 30% --------- 54% --------- 2% 44% [ ]ee. Facebook --------------------------------------------------------------- 5% --------- 21% --------- 71% --------- 3% 26% [ ]ff. Twitter------------------------------------------------------------------ 2% ---------- 6% ---------- 85% --------- 6% 9% [ ]gg. Information sent home with children from school ----------- 20% -------- 28% --------- 42% -------- 10% 48%



HERE ARE MY FINAL QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE JUST FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 80. Do you ... Own a single family home ---------------------- 48% Own a condominium ------------------------------ 8% Rent an apartment or home --------------------- 41% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 4% 81. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes --------------------------------------------------- 24% No ---------------------------------------------------- 75% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 0% 82. What is the last grade of formal education that you completed? Grades 1-8 ------------------------------------------- 3% Grades 9-11 ----------------------------------------- 2% High school graduate ----------------------------- 11% Technical/vocational school --------------------- 3% Some college --------------------------------------- 24% College graduate (4 years) ---------------------- 32% Post-graduate -------------------------------------- 24% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 0% 83. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself? (READ CHOICES BELOW) Hispanic/Latino ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17% Black/African American --------------------------------------------------------------- 8% Anglo/White ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58% Asian/Pacific Islander ------------------------------------------------------------------ 7% Native American ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2% (DON’T READ) OTHER/MIXED Please Specify_________) -------------- 4% (DON'T KNOW/REFUSED) ------------------------------------------------------- 4% 84. I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I mention the total combined income for all the

people in your household before taxes in 2013. $25,000 or less------------------------------------- 12% $25,001 - $50,000 --------------------------------- 20% $50,001 - $75,000 --------------------------------- 20% $75,001 - $100,000 ------------------------------- 13% $100,001 or more --------------------------------- 25% (DON’T READ) Refused ----------------------- 11%


THANK AND TERMINATE SEX: Male ------------------------------------------------- 48% Female ---------------------------------------------- 52% LANGUAGE: English ---------------------------------------------- 92% Spanish ----------------------------------------------- 8% PARTY REGISTRATION: Democrat ------------------------------------------- 41% Republican ----------------------------------------- 27% No Party Preference ------------------------------ 26% Other -------------------------------------------------- 6% COMMUNITY: City of San Diego ------------------------------- 100% Santa Clara Valley Water District -------------- 0% FLAGS P08 ---------------------------------------- 40% G08 ---------------------------------------- 70% P10 ---------------------------------------- 41% G10 ---------------------------------------- 60% P12 ---------------------------------------- 50% G12 ---------------------------------------- 85% BLANK ----------------------------------- 9%

AGE 18-29 -------------------------------------- 17% 30-39 -------------------------------------- 18% 40-49 -------------------------------------- 17% 50-64 -------------------------------------- 27% 65-74 -------------------------------------- 11% 75+ ----------------------------------------- 9% BLANK------------------------------------ 1%

3.4 Summary of Findings: Fostering Public Acceptance of DPR of Recycled Water—Key Findings from Opinion Research

(PowerPoint slides and charts providing an easy-to-follow summary of key findings.)

Analyses and research findings were conducted and prepared by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3), a California corporation that has specialized in public opinion research since 1981. See Appendix E.


Chapter 4

State-Level Communication Plan

4.1. Background and Purpose

4.1.1. Background

The WateReuse Research Foundation’s Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse research project (WRRF-13-02) is intended to increase understanding and support of direct potable reuse (DPR) projects. This particular communication plan is aimed at state-level regulators, legislators, and opinion leaders. Successful implementation of potable reuse projects, whether DPR or indirect (IPR), by local utilities and municipalities requires a statewide environment of support to serve as the foundation of support for local outreach efforts. This communication plan will help to create an atmosphere of awareness and foster acceptance among state-level policy makers and opinion leaders. Chapter 5 will offer a framework for local-level outreach efforts to be implemented by utilities and municipalities throughout the state.

4.1.2. Communication Challenges

Studies by the WateReuse Research Foundation show some common challenges to potable reuse acceptance. These challenges include the following:

• the belief that additional water supply sources are not needed • the perception that water supply deficiencies can be solved solely with conservation • the lack of public understanding of potable reuse processes and the associated science • the perception that potable reuse is not safe • the sometimes distracting or uncomfortable feelings toward the source of the water • lack of understanding of the limiting factors associated with other water supplies, such as

energy demand, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, cost, and limited availability; when residents truly understand water management and some of the non-obvious limitations, potable reuse becomes more appealing

4.1.3. Purpose

Raising awareness occurs at many levels and in a wide variety of ways but is most efficiently and effectively accomplished when there is a well-defined path forward. State Sections of the WateReuse Association (hereafter referred to as State Sections) and other statewide organizations will find here a framework for comprehensive, coordinated, and sustained outreach to advance the undeniable benefits of and support for potable reuse by individuals and organizations with a credible, statewide perspective. The plan can be customized for the specific situation and needs of any statewide organization in any state. The co-principal investigators conducted in-depth interviews with various water agencies across the United States and Australia as well as one-on-one meetings with legislators in California in 2014. In addition, the investigators conducted focus groups and public opinion


surveys. This plan is based on the aggregate data collected from the research, which was presented in Chapter 3.

The plan that follows sets a context in which potable reuse is a valuable and valued water supply source—and acknowledged as such by leaders in statewide organizations, legislators, and associations outside the water reuse industry. This guide is aimed at aiding organizations to attain the following overarching goals:

• fostering an understanding of the need to continue expanding and creating water supplies among key statewide water policy makers

• building awareness, acceptance, and support of existing and planned potable reuse projects and their associated benefits among key statewide water policy makers

The following guide offers State Sections a framework of suggested target audiences and communication outreach strategies as well as some effective tools.

4.1.4. Objectives

State Sections should use this plan to meet the following objectives:

• to create a coalition of experts, state leaders, and trusted advisors to establish a platform that enhances public trust of potable reuse

• to foster relationships with key audiences and stakeholders across the state • to educate target audiences about the benefits and process of potable reuse • to create and maintain two-way dialogues with target audiences • to facilitate the adoption of statutes and/or regulations allowing potable reuse • to facilitate implementation of potable reuse projects at the local level • to provide statewide organizations with the resources necessary to disseminate accurate

and effective potable reuse messages • to minimize psychological barriers to potable reuse acceptance and implementation

among key statewide policy makers

4.2. Messaging

The following messages can be used to describe potable reuse, or purified water as it is called in the following, and how it uses advanced, multi-stage treatment to provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable drinking water supply.

• Proven engineered treatment processes are used to purify water to a level that is safe to drink.

• Purifying water is a “multi-barrier process” designed to separate water from pollutants. There are various treatment processes to accomplish this objective.

• Purified water is tested, in real-time, with online sensors and will be strictly monitored by the Department of Health.

• Purified water will comply with or exceed strict state and federal drinking water standards.

• The purification process produces water that is more pure than most bottled waters.


• Purified water is currently used to supplement drinking water in many communities in the United States and around the world. There have been no problems from using purified water to augment drinking water supplies.

At times it may be advantageous to include a more detailed description of the advanced technological processes used to purify recycled water. In such instances, the following language is an example of how to describe the microfiltration (MF)/RO/UV-light treatment train:

• The water first goes through microfiltration, a pretreatment process in which water is pumped through tubes filled with tiny membranes. Each membrane is made up of hollow fibers, perforated with holes 1/300th the width of a human hair! As the water moves through the tubes, solids and bacteria are caught in the fibers.

• The water then goes through reverse osmosis, where it’s forced through membranes that remove salt and microorganisms, including viruses, bacteria, and most chemicals of emerging concern.

• Now the water is very clean, but one more step ensures its safety: exposing the water to ultraviolet light to cause any remaining organic molecules to break down.

The following messages show how using purified recycled water is good for the environment:

• The more recycled water we use for whatever purpose, the less we have to take out of rivers, streams, and our scarce groundwater supplies. This is good for rivers and streams and the fish, plants, and wildlife that rely upon them.

• We all recycle as often as we can—glass, plastic, paper, and even yard waste—which is the right thing to do. For the same reason, we should recycle and reuse as much of our limited water supplies as we possibly can—water is too valuable to be used just once.

The following messages show that potable reuse or purified water, provides a locally controlled, drought-proof water supply:

• Purified water is independent of climate or weather in other locations.

• Purified water enhances water supply reliability and helps protect us from droughts by diversifying supply sources—keeping us from relying too much on any one source of water that may run low in a drought.

• Purified water provides a community with a constant source of water.

If additional information is needed regarding the potable reuse concept, the following points provide some good background information: • Water reuse—including potable reuse—happens naturally all over the planet.1

• Water reuse happens daily in rivers and other water bodies everywhere. If you live in a community downstream of another, chances are you are reusing that community's water;

1 This message language and supporting points are derived from proposed recycled water terminology developed by the WateReuse Association’s Public Education and Outreach Committee in 2014.


likewise, communities downstream of you are most likely reusing your water. This has been called “de facto” or unacknowledged/unplanned potable reuse.

• Planned potable reuse is publicly acknowledged as an intentional project to recycle water for drinking water. It can be either direct or indirect (see the following). It commonly involves a more formal public process and public consultation program than is observed with de facto or unacknowledged reuse.

• How potable reused water is delivered determines if it is called Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) or Direct Potable Reuse (DPR).

o IPR means the water is delivered to you indirectly. After it is purified, the reused water blends with other supplies and/or sits awhile in storage, man-made or natural, before it gets delivered to a pipeline that leads to a water treatment plant or distribution system. That storage could be a groundwater basin or a surface water reservoir.

o DPR means the reused water is put directly into pipelines that go to a water treatment plant or distribution system. DPR may occur with or without “engineered storage” such as underground or aboveground tanks.

• The amount of fresh water on the planet does not change, so through nature all water has been used and reused since the beginning of time. Using advanced technology to purify recycled water merely speeds up a natural process. In fact, potable reuse provides a needed water supply that is of higher quality than what occurs naturally.

4.3. Audiences/Stakeholders

Key audiences will vary by individual State Section and by each statewide structure. Stakeholders will take many shapes and forms. The following section outlines some stakeholder groups for State Sections to consider when identifying their respective state’s target outreach list. Multicultural considerations should be made throughout all groups depending on the state and its demographics and cultural environment. All stakeholder groups should have a statewide reach or other significant communication impact. Ensure that one person is tracking all the meetings and outcomes/feedback so that you do not have gaps and so that your efforts appear as coordinated as possible. Communication strategies and groups are summarized in Table 4.1 at the end of this section. Suggested state-level stakeholder groups should include, but are not limited to, the following (in no particular order of importance):

• government leaders • water supply and wastewater associations • state-level civic associations and interest groups • academic and engineering-related associations and leaders • employer and trade associations, as well as business/development interests • state-level environmental groups and leaders • state-level health care industry members • media outlets with statewide reach


4.3.1. Government Leaders

Each State Section of the WateReuse Association should develop and maintain a comprehensive database of elected officials and appropriate executive staff. The elected officials that are the target audience of this plan include those that have statewide influence or influence over state-level decisions affecting potable reuse.

The technology clearly exists to advance potable reuse programs, but political will and public perception challenges have had a most significant impact at thwarting successful potable reuse project implementation. Often, constituents will come to an elected official to discuss a concern or question. Whereas local water agencies should provide information about a specific project, the State Section should ensure that state and federal elected officials are kept up to date with relevant and accurate information about the potable reuse process, particularly with regard to DPR, and about progress in implementing projects throughout a specific state and country. Some suggested effective communication methods to employ with this group include, but are not limited to, the following:

• letters and proclamations of support • one-on-one meetings • formal presentations • social media • e-mail updates • briefing binders • tours of successful projects that are near by

4.3.2. Water Supply and Wastewater Associations

The statewide associations that are involved with water supply management and quality in the region should be considered important stakeholders. The WateReuse Association’s relevant research and cutting-edge progress updates should serve as a vital resource to these stakeholders to aid them in making informed decisions. This key stakeholder group should include, but is not limited to, sections of the American Water Works Association and other statewide/regional water and wastewater associations. State Sections should reach out to the relevant water or wastewater industry associations and ask for potable reuse support letters or resolutions. Presenting papers at conferences of various water or wastewater associations or placing template articles in their journals are also good opportunities to expand the reach of information dissemination.

As evidenced by the successful Orange County GWRS and the San Diego Pure Water Program, hands-on exposure to potable reuse facilities has proven effective in increasing support for potable reuse. If a local agency has an operational potable reuse facility, the State Section should aim to partner with that agency and cosponsor a visitor’s center at the location. The visitor’s center would serve as an effective illustration of potable reuse technology and should be leveraged as an up-close-and-personal look at the process to offer to all target state-level stakeholders. Investment in a visitor’s center can be an expense, but the benefits far outweigh the cost. For the water industry, State Sections should provide information that provides partner agencies with credibility beyond their own borders while still being locally adapted to support specific potable reuse projects. Some strategies applicable to this stakeholder group include the following:


• letters and proclamations of support • pre-drafted and regularly distributed potable reuse articles • partnerships with local agencies (for facility tours) • one-on-one meetings • formal presentations (including expert panels) • social media • e-mail updates

4.3.3. State-Level Civic Associations and Interest Groups

Each State Section should identify prominent associations and individuals in positions of non-elected leadership throughout the state. Each state should have representatives of their respective planning and elected regional bodies as well as other entities that help shape and form public policy. For example, in California some of these groups are the San Diego Association of Governments, the San Bernardino Association of Governments, and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Other California groups that have strong voices and a statewide platform include, but are not limited to, the California League of Cities, the California Municipal Utilities Association, the County Supervisors Association, and statewide civic associations.

Some strategies applicable to this stakeholder group include the following:

• letters and proclamations of support • pre-drafted and regularly distributed potable reuse articles • one-on-one meetings • formal presentations • e-mail updates

4.3.4. Academic and Engineering-Related Associations and Leaders

Academic groups and engineering associations should be included as key audiences and stakeholders. Associations that are water- and/or science-related and their leaders are influential and vital to building trust within the community.

Consider establishing an academic advisory group that can offer expert testimony and opinion to further strengthen public support and trust in potable reuse.


• letters and proclamations of support • pre-drafted and regularly distributed potable reuse articles • one-on-one meetings • formal presentations (i.e., include them on expert panels) • interviews with them that are then shared via podcasts or websites

• e-mail updates


4.3.5. Employer and Trade Associations and Business/Development Interests

Depending on the business environment, industry variance, and statewide structure in place, each State Section should identify the most prevalent and active business and industry-related associations. Groups that have an interest in the water supply and/or its associated costs and/or that are affected by statewide infrastructure should include, but are not limited to, the following:

• statewide chambers of commerce • statewide or regional economic development corporations • trade unions • real estate associations and building associations • farm bureaus • trade and industry associations • manufacturing associations • home builder associations • statewide biotech and tech companies • taxpayers' associations • local think tanks and/or research groups (e.g., Equinox in San Diego, California)


• letters and proclamations of support • pre-drafted and regularly distributed potable reuse articles • one-on-one meetings • formal presentations • e-mail updates

4.3.6. State-Level Environmental Groups and Leaders

Each State Section should consider prominent state-level environmental groups, including sustainable planning groups, and their leaders as a group that is most integral to the successful acceptance and implementation of potable reuse. Public trust is strengthened when environmental leaders are supportive of this new water supply source and in agreement with its benefits. It is imperative that this group be kept abreast of recent studies and additional information resources if they are to provide statewide support.


• letters and proclamations of support • one-on-one meetings • formal presentations • e-mail updates


4.3.7. Media Outlets with Statewide Reach

Statewide and region-wide media outlets are both an audience as well as an informational tool. Reporters, editors, and publishers of print, online, radio, and television media should be considered a top-tier stakeholder group as they have the most effective platform for communicating. These opinion leaders should be updated frequently with both top-level and detailed reports to ensure the accuracy of information disseminated. It is important to be mindful of multi-language media outlets and to communicate accordingly and equally to all platforms.

Each state will have a list of media outlets that serve to influence the majority of the market share. These outlets have a statewide readership versus a local-level reach. The editorial boards, publishers, and key reporters of these outlets (print, broadcast, radio, and online sources) will require a tailored approach. Some strategies applicable to this stakeholder group include the following:

• pre-drafted and regularly distributed potable reuse articles • one-on-one meetings • facility tours • frequent e-mail updates • social media • e-mail updates • prompt responses to their requests

4.3.8. State-Level Health Care Industry

Associations that are focused on medicine or public health issues can be instrumental in a potable reuse support initiative. It is imperative that they are provided with accurate data and the latest research findings. In addition to state-level public heath associations, support from statewide organizations in the medical industry, including medical associations and hospital associations (physicians, nurses, dentists, etc.) will strengthen public awareness and trust in potable reuse.


• letters and proclamations of support • pre-drafted and regularly distributed potable reuse articles • one-on-one meetings • formal presentations • interviews with them that are then shared via podcasts • e-mail updates


Table 4.1. Communication Strategies per State-Level Audience

Gov

ernm

ent L

eade

rs

Wat

er S

uppl

y an

d W

aste

wat

er

Ass

ocia

tions

Stat

e-L

evel

Civ

ic A

ssoc

iatio

ns a

nd

Inte

rest

Gro

ups

Aca

dem

ic a

nd E

ngin

eeri

ng-R

elat

ed

Ass

ocia

tions

and

Lea

ders

Em

ploy

er a

nd T

rade

Ass

ocia

tions

, B

usin

ess/

Dev

elop

men

t Int

eres

ts

Stat

e-L

evel

Env

iron

men

tal G

roup

s and

L

eade

rs

Med

ia O

utle

ts w

ith S

tate

wid

e R

each

Stat

e-L

evel

Hea

lth C

are

Indu

stry

M

embe

rs

Letters and proclamations of support

•

•

•

•

•

•

• Pre-drafted and regularly distributed potable reuse articles • • • • • One-on-one presentations • • • • • • • • Partnerships with local agencies/facility tours • Formal presentations/expert panels • • • • • • Social media • • • • E-mail updates

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

4.4 Framework

State Sections should consider contracting with a professional outreach consultant or utilizing people who are highly experienced in outreach to implement an effective communication plan. An issue such as potable reuse is vital to our future and complicated to communicate, and it faces pre-existing negative perceptions. For a communication program to be successful, time and resources need to be dedicated to a consistent and sustained outreach effort.

4.4.1 Strategies

The most effective communication strategies vary depending on the stakeholder group. The following section outlines some general strategies in no particular order of importance. • letters and proclamations of support • pre-drafted and regularly distributed potable reuse articles • one-on-one meetings • partnerships with sister agencies • formal presentations • social media


4.4.2 Letters and Proclamations of Support

When an individual lends his/her name to a cause and publicly pledges support of an issue, he/she is most likely to exhibit behaviors consistent with the issue to which he/she has pledged support. For example, if an individual dons an anti-pollution sticker on his vehicle, he is less likely to litter on the road. Pledge and letter writing campaigns have proven to be effective when supporters’ names are published on a public platform such as a website. When someone pledges support, his/her name is published as a supporter. Similarly, if a letter is submitted with a supporter’s name, the letter is published. This tactic is said to have contributed to Orange County Water District’s successful implementation of IPR within its community. A potable reuse letter of support or resolution should be strongly recommended to all stakeholder groups as an illustration of support. A print and digital version of this method should be made convenient and available to all stakeholders. An example of a proclamation of support follows.

The Los Angeles Times is a proud supporter of using potable reuse to create and maintain a sustainable water source for our state. Based on technological advances and proven research, we are confident that this method produces a safe, high-quality, purified water supply for regions that have limited water sources. We pledge to support statewide potable reuse projects that are committed to upholding the high standards associated with potable reuse and applaud their dedication to securing our water future.

4.4.3 Predrafted and Regularly Distributed Potable Reuse Articles

State Sections should work to craft a series of potable reuse articles that speak to the benefits, safety, and progress of proven reuse systems and technologies. These articles should be distributed to all stakeholder groups, and those groups should be encouraged to distribute the articles to their membership base via their regular communication vehicles (newsletters, websites, etc.). Stakeholder groups with an established membership base and regular communications should receive the predrafted articles along with a direct request to publish them. These groups should include, but are not limited to, the following:

• water supply and wastewater associations • state-level civic associations and other interest groups • academic and engineering-related associations and leaders • employer and trade associations and business/development interests • state-level environmental groups • media outlets with statewide reach • state-level health care groups • government leaders

4.4.4 One-on-One Meetings

At times, it may be appropriate to meet individually with some stakeholders. This is most appropriate with higher-level elected officials and leaders of statewide environmental, health


care, or business groups. Discussions with stakeholders at this level oftentimes require details and data that are not necessary with other stakeholder groups. State Sections should prepare supporting reference materials to leave with stakeholders. A briefing book (print or digital) is an effective tool to leave with higher-level opinion leaders. More information on the suggested contents of a briefing book is given in section 4.4.14. Stakeholders that may warrant one-on-one meetings include, but are not limited to the following:

• governor’s office and appropriate staff • state legislators and their staff or policy committees • environmental groups with a statewide presence • statewide medical, hospital, or dental associations • chambers of commerce or statewide/large regional business associations • high-level editors and publishers of statewide or major regional media outlets

4.4.5 Partnerships with Local Agencies

State Sections should create a partnership with a local water agency that has a potable reuse visitor’s center and work to promote facility tours. A full sensory experience is extremely effective when it pertains to water reuse processes. Any communication programs should include tours of facilities so that target stakeholders can see facilities up close and potentially taste the water. A visitor’s center for hands-on learning is highly recommended.

This communication method can be used for all stakeholder categories. When appropriate, invite stakeholders on tours of operating potable reuse projects so that they can see the technology in use and the quality of the product water for themselves. If appropriate, ask legislators to be a part of a special event that focuses on potable reuse benefits and value to the statewide water supply portfolio. Maybe ask them to drink the water on camera, too!

4.4.6 Formal Presentations

Some state-level civic groups, business groups, and industry associations offer opportunities to speak to committees, boards, and the general membership. Formal presentations are effective in giving a broad overview of a potable reuse program. These presentations should consist of a PowerPoint, Prezi, or comparable presentation that gives an overview and understanding of the program and allows the opportunity for questions and open discussion. The types of groups appropriate for formal presentations include, but are not limited to, the following:

• state-level water, energy, and environmental committees • statewide chambers of commerce and similar business associations • statewide water-related associations • academic and engineering-related associations and leaders • employers and trade associations and business/development interests • state-level health care groups • state-level environmental groups


4.4.7 Social Media

Some key stakeholder groups including the media, civic groups, and association or community leaders are effectively communicated with via social media. Twitter and Facebook accounts should be set up by each State Section. A comprehensive content schedule should be developed that includes quick facts, seasonal insight, “did you know” facts, and any progress reports on potable reuse implementation. It is essential that an active engagement plan is in place to ensure that the appropriate stakeholders are engaged via social media (e.g., following, friending, reposting, and participating in discussion threads).

4.4.8 E-mail Updates

Use e-mail updates to offer updates to a database of individuals and organizations at a statewide level that have expressed an interest in potable reuse information. An effective e-mail communication program necessitates a robust and current contact database. Although it takes considerable effort to build a comprehensive and accurate stakeholder contact database, it is essential for convenient and effective e-mail communication. These e-mails can include updates on potable reuse technology progress, information about the statewide water supply, white papers, benefits of potable reuse, and/or any other water-related information that would be beneficial to your readership.

4.4.9 Communication Tools

Effective communication relies on an array of tools that are implemented in a consistent and sustained manner. Tools should be specifically targeted to stakeholder needs and interests. Each stakeholder group does not require or even desire the same level of information or interaction. These tools include the following:

• website • basic presentation of facts: fact sheet, FAQs, presentation materials • visuals library • e-mail updates • background and white papers • briefing book/digital program briefs • media content

4.4.10 Website

All external communication efforts should be aimed at driving key audiences to an easily navigable yet informative website. The WateReuse Association website should be used as the information hub for primary references and facts. The site should include basic education about potable reuse examples of potable reuse projects throughout the world, and other appropriate informational materials as well as presentations, video clips, and other useful tools to raise awareness.

4.4.11 Basic Presentation of Facts

For many, potable reuse processes are complex and not easily understood. The essential information about potable reuse, its processes, and its benefits should be succinctly crafted into easily digestible and sharable documents. Concise, simple, yet compelling graphics and


illustrations should be incorporated into communication materials to further explain the sometimes confusing processes.

The documents should include the following:

• fact sheet • frequently asked questions • presentation materials (table displays and digital presentations)

A fact sheet, routinely updated, should be a mainstay of the communication plan. This succinct yet effective tool should include core messages and should efficiently communicate the benefits of potable reuse. One of the objectives of a fact sheet is to establish useful data points to reduce confusion and foster consistency.

Presentation materials might include informational boards to use when presenting about potable reuse to audiences for which use of video or computer presentations is not possible, as well as PowerPoint/Prezi presentations. All presentations should convey key information points using easy-to-understand information and graphics.

An additional element that can further complicate audience understanding is the fact that the industry currently uses different terminology for certain elements of the process and related topics. The WateReuse Association’s State Sections should establish finite terminology, advance it through statewide efforts, and embed it in local and regional efforts.

4.4.12 Visuals Library

Photographs, graphics, videos, and virtual tours should be included on the WateReuse Association website so that they are readily available for use in any location when a need arises. Short video presentations can be prepared about water management issues, groundwater supplies, water treatment, types of water reuse, specific infrastructure projects, and other topics to convey key information points and provide memorable visuals. Excerpts could also be used as background footage for television coverage of water issues or for online posting such as postings via YouTube. Take advantage of videos already produced as part of other WRRF projects or similar research projects in Australia like their National Demonstration Education and Engagement Program (NDEEP).

Infographics are an effective way to illustrate potentially complicated messages in a comprehensible and lively way. Some general infographics depicting the process, the need, and any other findings and/or pertinent information should be created and made available in this library for supporting organizations to use in their membership communications.

4.4.13 Background Papers and White Papers

State Sections should develop easily accessible and understandable summaries of current research findings about the safety of potable reuse. White papers on the history of potable reuse and examples of projects throughout the country or world are also effective. These papers should be prepared with specific audiences in mind. For example, papers should be framed individually for each group, including, but not limited to, the following:

• environmental groups • scientific and technology-focused groups • safety and health organizations • water-resource-compatibility-focused groups • associations focused on sustainability


4.4.14 Briefing Books/Digital Program Briefs

A briefing book serves as a reference guide for stakeholders during conversations with members of the public and other stakeholders. A well-organized printed copy of the potable reuse program details can be useful to ensure accuracy when leaders are informing others. Depending on the stakeholder, it may be useful to include the program information on a zip drive as opposed to, or in addition to, the printed copy. A briefing book should include the following sections:

• introduction and contact information • support letter and return information, including information for submitting digital support

letters • reference information regarding the website and other online program resources • background and situation analysis (i.e., the need for potable reuse) • overview of how potable reuse works • scientific research on the quality and impact of potable reuse

4.4.15 Media Content

Many states have a few high-profile publications that are widely read across the state. State Sections should draft valuable content on a regular basis for use by media outlets that have a statewide reach. Well-crafted and newsworthy press releases, story pitches, commentaries, opinion editorials, and letters to the editor should be included as part of the media outreach effort. State Sections should ensure that the media are kept abreast of all pertinent progress and research findings. The articles that are distributed to other stakeholder groups should be distributed to this group as well.

4.5 Conclusion

State Sections of the WateReuse Association are in a unique position to lead and champion a statewide communication program that will aid in creating a replicable framework for successful public outreach resulting in a supportive and positive public perception of potable reuse technologies and projects. This program will help set the stage and build the platform for cities and agencies to universally advance potable reuse in local jurisdictions.

Learning from the successes of other operating potable reuse outreach programs, including the Orange County Water District’s GWRS, this guide has laid out a concise statewide communication program that will effectively increase the probability of local potable reuse implementation.

It is imperative to note that for an effort such as this to have long-term and lasting effects, it cannot be a one-time effort; it must be a long-term effort to educate and advocate what is poised to be a key water resource strategy. Potable reuse can be a cost-effective method that could provide a locally controlled, climate independent, reliable, and environmentally sustainable water resource option. A key outreach activity is demonstrating successful use and comparing the water quality that can be generated through potable reuse with what people are drinking. That is, show that not only is the water quality as good as what people already have but that it is better.


Opposition will exist and often arises from strong emotions or an imagined issue that is meant to facilitate an unseen agenda. For local projects, opposition can enter late into project development. Developing and nurturing statewide champions as well as developing succinct and effective messages that connect with stakeholders and the public are essential to fostering acceptance and aggressively dispelling misinformation and unclear perceptions.


Chapter 5

Community-Level Communication Plan

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 About This Plan

The Community-Level Communication Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan) provides a framework document for agency staff to use when developing their own communication plan for potable reuse projects. The Plan provides approaches and techniques that can be applied to inform stakeholders throughout the community service area about the opportunities and benefits of potable reuse, whether indirect (IPR) or direct (DPR), to meet future water supply needs.

The Plan includes model goals and objectives derived from WRRF-13-02 to foster acceptance of potable reuse. The Plan includes public communication strategies and recommendations, target audience groups, key messages, and suggested language to be used in an outreach campaign. The Plan incorporates a solid foundation of experience and “lessons learned” from successful recycled water and potable reuse outreach programs within the United States and around the world. On the basis of research an agency would conduct in its own community, the Plan can be modified to reflect the knowledge, needs, and understanding of the community at large and the diverse population segments within the community.

5.1.2 Basis for Development of the Community-Level Communication Plan

The Community-Level Communication Plan is founded on a thorough literature review of public outreach programs for potable reuse (see Chapter 2). In addition, research for this effort included interviews, focus groups, and public opinion surveys conducted specifically as part of WRRF-13-02 in two carefully selected model communities located in California: the City of San Diego and the service area of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The findings, which are covered in detail in Chapter 3, were used as the basis for the communication goals and objectives, strategies, activities, and message plan development of this Plan.

Although public outreach is critically important to the successful implementation of potable reuse projects, some agencies have difficulty funding the outreach component. Because project implementation goes hand-in-hand with support from an informed public, one method to ensure that an agency has an adequate level of funding is to include outreach within the design, environmental evaluation, and engineering contract as “program support services.” Including outreach support in this way also helps to achieve the coordination, collaboration, and information sharing among agency staff that is referred to in the following paragraph.

5.1.3 How to Use the Community-Level Communication Plan

Because this Plan was written based on a demographic that is representative of California, each agency will need to consider its specific demographics, issues, or unique challenges and tailor elements of the Plan accordingly. It is important for the agency to ensure that strategies included in its final Communication Plan are fully integrated into the agency’s overall communication goals and coordinated with other projects and efforts occurring within the


agency. To successfully achieve integration, the entire agency (business units, staff, management, and board members) must coordinate, collaborate, and share information.

Table 5.2 at the end of this chapter provides a priority list for key plan elements along with an estimated timeline for successful implementation.

5.2 Communication Premise

Proven treatment technology exists that will allow communities to utilize potable reuse as a reliable source of water. Experience has shown, however, that public acceptance is one of the primary challenges facing potable reuse. Therefore, developing and implementing a Community Outreach Plan is a critical step toward building public awareness of the needs, benefits, and opportunities of potable reuse and the high-quality water it offers, to achieve acceptance of this technology and successful implementation of potable reuse projects.

5.3 Research-Based Guidance

5.3.1 Secondary Research

There is a plethora of literature discussing recycled water issues, including public outreach. Only some of this literature mentions potable reuse. Because this project’s focus is to foster acceptance of potable reuse, we have primarily examined literature dealing with public outreach for potable reuse, whether direct or indirect.

See Chapter 2 in this document, Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse (WRRF-13-02), for the full literature review report.

5.3.2 Primary Research

In addition to the literature review, primary qualitative and quantitative research was conducted for this effort. The qualitative methods were composed of in-depth interviews with various audiences of interest as well as focus groups containing members of the general public in two selected communities. As noted previously, the findings and research methods are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this document, Model Communication Plans for Increasing Awareness and Fostering Acceptance of Direct Potable Reuse (WRRF-13-02).

These research efforts can and should be replicated in communities either contemplating or in the early planning stages of potable reuse projects. The survey document and focus group and interview discussion guides found in the Appendices of this report are designed to be easily modified or adapted to the specifics of any potable reuse project in any community.

That being said, there are many costly mistakes an inexperienced research team can make that can result in misleading, faulty, or unreliable data and/or analyses. For this reason, it is highly recommended that an agency turn to research professionals to assist in the planning and execution of their primary research efforts.

Typically, the findings from both the secondary and primary research would appear in this Communication Plan, as those efforts serve as the basis for developing key messaging and, to a certain extent, inform the team regarding effective communication tools and tactics.


However, because these reports appear previously in the document, it seemed redundant and wasteful to repeat them here.

5.4 Challenges and Opportunities

The increased visibility of recycled water and its uses, as well as overall public knowledge and perspectives about a community’s water agency, will provide both challenges and opportunities for communication efforts.

This Plan includes strategies that take advantage of opportunities to raise awareness about potable reuse and its associated benefits. The following section notes challenges, as identified through research efforts, to ensure that the best available methods are in place to overcome them.

5.4.1 Challenges

5.4.1.1 Trust in Drinking Water Quality

Past and present market research shows that many people do not believe their tap water is safe to drink and therefore turn to bottled or filtered water.

This finding points to the challenge of convincing the public that potable reuse is a good idea; therefore, it may prove effective to initiate public outreach with strong messaging about the quality of the current water supply and the superior quality of highly treated water intended for potable reuse, as compared with lower quality and loosely regulated bottled water.

5.4.1.2 Service Area Demographics

Most communities are diverse and include people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds, varying levels of education, and different perceptions about water. From a communication standpoint, this range of audiences makes for some challenges.

Research for this project indicates that specific groups in the model communities are less likely to support potable reuse. These groups include women (especially those with children living at home), communities of color, less educated and less affluent communities, non-English speakers, and senior citizens.

For various ethnic groups, prior experience may have led to drinking bottled water because of a lack of trust in a consistently safe supply of water from the tap. For those from other countries, bottled water may have been the only source of safe water. This situation can result in mistrust of the message or the message carrier. Communicating through the established and trusted channels in multicultural communities can help to build trust among these ethnic communities.

The same is true for other less-than-supportive groups; identifying trusted messengers can be valuable to gaining support from women, seniors, and less educated or less affluent members of the public.

In addition, highly educated and well-informed community members are typically hungry for more information about their water and any new water source, including the technology,


science, and safety behind it. They will often check information provided to them with other sources and compare their own knowledge on the subject to the information presented.

Communication with any audiences will benefit from third-party, industry-specific experts to communicate the potable reuse messages and support the information presented by the water agency. This involvement will provide additional credibility and represent an unbiased source.

5.4.1.3 Public Perception and Knowledge

The water agency’s staff must take extra care in responding to issues known to generate negative public perception about potable reuse and must help to assure the public that issues and concerns are addressed so that the water can be accepted widely within the community. Providing timely, easily accessible, transparent, and simple-to-understand information—that is also technical enough to provide credibility—about the purity of the water produced is of paramount importance in addressing public perceptions.

5.4.1.4 Competing Issues

There are often many important issues, decisions, and choices facing any community, from the economy to pollution to education and beyond. Water quality and having a reliable source of water are just a couple of such issues. Without careful planning, messages about water might be seen as a distraction to other issues. However, with careful thought, the water issues can be linked to other current events. The agency’s messages about potable reuse must therefore look for synergies between, and adapt to, other important issues in the region. It will be necessary to have a multifaceted communication program aimed at various audiences through a variety of means.

Today’s social media platforms can generate conversations about a program or facility that can move through the community with lightning speed. Being prepared to monitor and quickly address any misinformation about potable reuse is critically important to achieving the program goal of raising awareness, understanding, and trust.

5.4.1.5 Internal Communication

There are many agency staff members who will be required to answer constituents’ questions about potable reuse or who will be asked questions by friends and neighbors. It is important that staff members are knowledgeable about the agency’s potable reuse efforts and where to get additional information about them. The communication plan must include an internal outreach component to address concerns and questions of this important internal audience.

In some communities, water retailers will also be communicating directly with potable reuse customers, the general public, and other stakeholders. Member agency staff, even those not directly involved with potable reuse, should have sufficient knowledge and understanding about the topic to be able to communicate positively and effectively.

It will also be important that the efforts undertaken to communicate about potable reuse do not jeopardize or diminish other agency communication efforts as they relate to current water quality or sources. Communication about the potable reuse program must fit into the agency’s overall community water supply communication efforts. The strategy outlined in this plan related to potable reuse outreach needs to be incorporated into the agency’s overall


communication efforts about other major issues such as flood protection, water supply challenges, and water conservation.

5.4.1.6 Longevity of the Project

The potable reuse plan will continue to be a long-term effort that brings with it the challenge of sustaining an informational program over many years and through various terms of office of local and regional policymakers. As turnover occurs, it is critical to maintain the consistency of messaging and sustained public outreach required to raise public awareness of the benefits of potable reuse and to foster public understanding and support for the program. In addition, as politicians/decision-makers change, the agency staff needs to engage with them to ensure their understanding and valuing of the long-term program.

5.4.1.7 Communicating the Need for Potable Reuse

If the majority perception is that the region’s water supply is currently reliable, many will question why the community needs potable reuse. Many will ask if the agency has exhausted all other options. It is necessary to define the benefits of potable reuse as well as to illuminate the constraints on the community’s water supply. The team must develop consistent messages that explain current and future water supply challenges and that clearly describe the role of potable reuse as a local, drought-resistant water supply while not denigrating the community’s other water supplies. These messages should also mention the benefit of keeping jobs and ratepayer dollars in the local economy. The team must continue to discuss water management in terms of a diversified supply, of which potable reuse is just one component. This can be particularly challenging in cycles of dry and wet years as the public can have a short-term memory and these are long-term projects. Nothing kills a recycled water project faster than a flood. Similarly, it would be unwise to rely solely on a drought situation to push a project to public acceptance, as the messaging could backfire in subsequent wet years. It is best to take a long-term approach to communicating the needs and benefits of potable reuse.

5.4.1.8 Water Quality Concerns

Concerns about water quality have been the focus of media attention in recent years. Reports of fluoride, chromium-6, pharmaceuticals, hormones, personal care products, and other contaminants in many water supplies have raised public awareness about water quality and, in some cases, created a sense of distrust of tap water. Media emphasis on constituents of concern may lead residents to question the safety of the water. Recycled water has been the subject of fear and stigma in many communities for both nonpotable and proposed potable uses. It is critical to provide clear explanations about the technology that will be used to produce this water, as well as to reinforce information about its safety and the level of monitoring that will be incorporated in the program such that the program will likely result in a much higher water quality than current supplies.

5.4.1.9 Cost of the Water

Potable reuse customers, as well as ratepayers in general, will have questions during the outreach phase about how much a project will affect drinking water costs. Because of the advanced treatment technology used, the cost of water may increase. Cost may be one of the major concerns you will need to address. It is important here to compare potable reuse to the other potential sources. Water recycling, although it will cost money to implement, will


generally be cheaper than ocean desalination because of the difference in salt concentrations and the lower energy requirements for potable reuse.

5.4.2 Opportunities

5.4.2.1 Timing

The timing of embarking on potable reuse may aid in communication efforts. Several years of historic dry periods and drought in certain regions have heightened awareness of water supply issues. In many communities, there has been an increased focus on recycled water, including potable reuse. However, it would be unwise to rely solely on a drought situation (or any fear-based and/or single-note messaging) to push a project to public acceptance, as the messaging could backfire in subsequent wet years. If messaging consists primarily of, “We are in an emergency situation and must have this water now,” what will occur when the “emergency” passes? The public is likely to push back, saying, “This source is no longer needed and should be eliminated from the water portfolio.” Therefore, it is best to take a long-term, multi-pronged approach to communicating the needs and benefits of potable reuse.

5.4.2.2 The Water Agency as an Environmental Steward and Industry Leader

In general, the environmental community supports recycled water for many reasons including limiting imported water supplies and lowering the amount of treated effluent that is discharged into local waterways, thus improving the habitats for endangered species. They also appreciate reduced energy demand and GHG emissions compared with other alternatives. If this support for recycled water can be extended to potable reuse, the environmental community can help build credibility and support with the general public. Exploring potable reuse also establishes the water agency as a leader in the industry. With a successful outreach and education program, the agency’s efforts can serve as a model to other agencies throughout the United States.

There is also a link between recycled water and sustainability, an idea that has become more and more important to people—the idea of a better and more sustainable future for children and grandchildren is crucial. Recycled water use (and, by extension, potable reuse) makes the region more sustainable through improving water reliability with a drought-proof and locally controlled source. Additional messages can promote that the technology produces the safest water—water that is safe, secure, and sustainable.

5.4.2.3 Economic Development

People understand that having a sustainable and reliable water supply is a key component of a strong economy—water helps bring industry and jobs to the region. As the water supply in the area becomes more reliable, there is an increased potential for more businesses (and jobs) to locate to the region. In addition, a more reliable water supply can allow the agricultural sector to diversify crops and, potentially, grow more valuable crops.

5.4.2.4 Agencies Working Together

The agency’s potable reuse efforts don’t need to be done alone. Forming beneficial and smart partnerships with other agencies demonstrates that large agencies can work together to address and solve regional issues in a fiscally responsible and advantageous manner. Look for


opportunities to share the success stories of the agency partnership, which may lead to working with additional agencies or water retailers.

5.4.2.5 We Aren’t the First and We Are Not the Last

Past research and other potable reuse projects provide a plethora of information that can help agencies succeed. For example, messaging should include the following tactics: it helps to discuss quality of life issues in relation to water, using RO elicits trust in treating water, and “purified” is the most accepted word or term in talking about potable reuse. Words and images make a difference, and tours and visitor experiences enhance understanding. Because other agencies have successfully implemented potable reuse projects, there is a solid history of projects that can be showcased as positive examples.

5.5 Message Plan

5.5.1 Getting Ready for Public Engagement

It is important to develop the potable reuse “project story” that will answer the following questions, at a minimum: what is potable reuse, where does it fit in the water supply portfolio, why is the potable reuse project needed, what purpose will it serve, how safe is the water, how will it be monitored to ensure safety, how much will it cost, and when will it be implemented?

Develop key messages that tell the potable reuse story in terms understandable to a non-technical or layperson audience. Forego the use of jargon, which can be a barrier to gaining understanding of the project. Create informational materials that include a standard community presentation. Train project spokespeople to effectively present to a lay audience and to respond to questions about potable reuse in general and the agency project specifically.

Identify key community leaders and the groups they represent and then build a mailing list database for distribution of e-mail or direct mail updates. Generate graphics that describe the treatment process and how the potable reuse project fits into the larger water supply portfolio. Infographics are also an effective way to convey a complex story in an easy-to-understand way and should be part of the package that is developed to support the public information and outreach program.

5.5.2 Effective Messaging to Advance Understanding of Potable Reuse

Enhancing public understanding of the critical role that potable reuse, engineering, and technology play in the community is of paramount importance. Effective messaging consistently applied in communications can help improve technological literacy—a key competency that will be needed for understanding sustainable water management solutions.

Effective messaging, however, is not enough. According to the view introduced by Dr. Paul Slovic in The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception, 2010, information must also convey emotion or feeling to be meaningful. The following messages combine technical accuracy with values and/or benefits, creating a meaningful and comprehensive message.

The topics and tenor of these messages are also based on findings from the focus groups and telephone surveys conducted in the two model communities.


5.5.3 Messaging Goals

The goal of messages included in this plan is to provide coordinated, consistent, effective communication ideas about the role and importance of potable reuse that can be uniformly used with a variety of stakeholders, from children to parents and health professionals to business interests. The plan endeavors to fill three basic objectives:

• to identify messages that can help to create public understanding of water use, treatment, and potable reuse in a water cycle context

• to establish the messages in the context of the water agency’s mission • to establish common terminology and approaches that resonate with the public and

broaden acceptance for potable reuse projects

In general, messages frequently are developed to convince a stakeholder to make a particular decision. The messages provided in this plan depart from this approach. Rather, these messages facilitate exploration of ideas and possibilities. This approach emphasizes the agency’s concern for the future, for health and the environment, and for its partnership with the community. This approach changes the tone and context of the conversation. This will emphasize sharing facts with the public to facilitate informed decision-making about the various types of reuse and how AWT might be used for potable reuse in the community.

Although the messages offered here may not reflect the priorities of every community, they can be used to start the conversation and can be modified, as needed, based on project specifics, community feedback, and public opinion research. Feedback and research may reveal that additional or different messaging priorities exist, such as construction issues, rate concerns, or social/environmental justice perceptions. For example, in the ensuing messages, future population/economic growth is cited as a reason for turning to potable reuse. In many communities, growth is viewed negatively; in that case, the messaging should be modified to reflect that situation.

5.5.4 Water Terminology

The messages here introduce new terminology for potable reuse—namely, “advanced purified water” or more succinctly, “purified water.” This reflects the preferred terminology that emerged from the focus groups and telephone surveys conducted in this WRRF-13-02 project. The research clearly demonstrates that the terms “potable reuse” and “direct potable reuse” are not understood by the mainstream population and that, even when explained, they do not resonate well.

In this document we reference both direct potable reuse (DPR) and indirect potable reuse (IPR) as “potable reuse.” This is fine when talking among those in your agency and members of the industry, but the public neither recognizes nor understands the term.

In addition, the WateReuse Research Foundation conducted research that resulted in a glossary “simple enough to understand, but technical enough to trust.” This glossary is found at the WateReuse Association website (http://www.watereuse.org/information-resources/about-water-reuse/glossary-1). This glossary should be employed as a basic way to explain and understand water recycling. The research work recommends that terms such as “treated wastewater” be avoided but further recommends that it is important for all stakeholders to understand how we all put contaminants into water during use and how the


“pollutants” can be taken out again. There is no need to hide the fact that water has been used and reused—all water is used water. Communicators must maintain perspective and not simply talk about one slice of the water cycle—all aspects function together.

5.5.5 Suggested Messages

The following messages can be used to describe potable reuse, or purified water as it is called in the following, and how it uses advanced, multi-stage treatment to provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable drinking water supply.

• Proven engineered treatment processes are used to purify water to a level that is safe to drink.

• Purifying water is a “multi-barrier process” designed to separate water from pollutants. There are various treatment processes to accomplish this objective.

• Purified water is tested, in real-time, with online sensors and will be strictly monitored by the Department of Health.

• Purified water will comply with or exceed strict state and federal drinking water standards.

• The purification process produces water that is more pure than most bottled waters. • Purified water is currently used to supplement drinking water in many communities in the

United States and around the world. There have been no problems from using purified water to augment drinking water supplies.

At times it may be advantageous to include a more detailed description of the advanced technological processes used to purify recycled water. In such instances, the following language is an example of how to describe the MF/RO/UV-light treatment train:

• The water first goes through microfiltration, a pretreatment process in which water is pumped through tubes filled with tiny membranes. Each membrane is made up of hollow fibers, perforated with holes 1/300th the width of a human hair! As the water moves through the tubes, solids and bacteria are caught in the fibers.

• The water then goes through reverse osmosis, where it’s forced through membranes that remove salt and microorganisms, including viruses, bacteria, and most chemicals of emerging concern.

• Now the water is very clean, but one more step ensures its safety: exposing the water to ultraviolet light to cause any remaining organic molecules to break down.

The following message shows how using purified water is good for the environment:

• The more recycled water we use for whatever purpose, the less we have to take out of rivers, streams, and our scarce groundwater supplies. This is good for rivers and streams and the fish, plants, and wildlife that rely upon them. We all recycle as often as we can—glass, plastic, paper, and even yard waste—which is the right thing to do. For the same reason, we should recycle and reuse as much of our limited water supplies as we possibly can—water is too valuable to be used just once.

The following messages show that potable reuse or purified water provides a locally controlled, drought-proof water supply:

• Purified water is independent of climate or weather in other locations.


• Purified water enhances water supply reliability and helps protect us from droughts by diversifying supply sources—keeping us from relying too much on any one source of water that may run low in a drought.

• Purified water provides a community with a constant source of water. If additional information is needed regarding the potable reuse concept, the following points provide some good background information: • Water reuse—including potable reuse—happens naturally all over the planet.2

• Water reuse happens daily in rivers and other water bodies everywhere. If you live in a community that is downstream of another community, chances are you are reusing that community's water, and likewise, communities downstream of you are most likely reusing your water. This has been called “de facto” or unacknowledged/unplanned potable reuse.

• Planned potable reuse is publicly acknowledged as an intentional project to recycle water for drinking water. It can be either direct or indirect (see the following). It commonly involves a more formal public process and public consultation program than is observed with de facto or unacknowledged reuse.

• How potable reused water is delivered determines if it is called IPR or DPR. o IPR means the water is delivered to you indirectly. After it is purified, the reused

water blends with other supplies and/or sits awhile in storage, man-made or natural, before it is delivered to a pipeline that leads to a water treatment plant or distribution system. That storage could be a groundwater basin or a surface water reservoir.

o DPR means the reused water is put directly into pipelines that go to a water treatment plant or distribution system. DPR may occur with or without “engineered storage” such as underground or aboveground tanks.

• The amount of fresh water on the planet does not change, so through nature all water has been used and reused since the beginning of time. Using advanced technology to purify recycled water merely speeds up a natural process. In fact, potable reuse provides a needed water supply that is of higher quality than what occurs naturally.

5.5.6 Using Messages to Communicate More Effectively

The following approaches are recommended to ensure that messages are used most effectively:

• ensure that all project spokespeople are well trained and informed • review the messages before presentations, interviews, or meetings with stakeholders • use the messages in crafting speeches • repeat, repeat, repeat—it is important to make sure you consistently state the messages in

response to questions so that listeners can gain a better understanding of this complex process; part of consistent message delivery is to bridge back to these messages whenever you answer a question

2 This message language and supporting points are derived from proposed recycled water terminology developed by the WateReuse Association’s Public Education and Outreach Committee in 2013.


• end every written article or meeting with a message that is appropriate for the audience and subject matter

• commit to answer all questions—don’t guess at a response; if you don’t know an answer, ask for contact information and follow up

5.5.7 Overall Anticipated Message Outcomes

The following are anticipated message outcomes:

• An appreciation for the agency’s goals and mission • An understanding that the agency treats and cleans the wastewater for a large population

and that the resulting clean water is a resource that can be a key to a sustainable future • A realization that the agency can create water that is purer than drinking water—it is

nearly of distilled water quality • An understanding that the agency is partnering with the community to explore sustainable

solutions for the future and that sustainable solution decisions require an informed community

• An understanding that the agency is committed to providing information to assist the community in making appropriate infrastructure investment decisions and to instill confidence that the proposed system will provide sustainable and safe drinking water

• An internal mindset that provides truthful and timely information, which is a key to enhancing trust

5.6 Audience Identification

Outreach strategies have been developed to communicate with distinct audiences to help accomplish the communication goals and objectives as well as to address potential outreach challenges. The Community-Level Communication Plan is “audience-driven” in that public outreach strategies and tactics or activities are provided for each audience category. This plan provides outreach strategies for the following audience categories:

• opinion leaders • internal/staff • water wholesalers and retailers (if relevant) • youth Individuals in the different audience categories should be compiled into a database that will be continually updated and maintained as the outreach program is implemented.

5.7 Strategies and Activities

The strategies and activities in this plan are audience driven and are included under each audience category to clearly designate the range of outreach activities recommended for each audience.

Suggested effectiveness measurements are described at the end of each audience section. These may vary slightly by community.


There are numerous outreach strategies and activities an agency can perform to educate and gain community support for potable reuse. Those appearing in this plan serve as a menu of strategies and activities with a proven track record when undertaken in a thoughtful and timely manner. Not all of the activities here will apply to all situations or audience segments at all times. It is up to the project management and communication teams to determine which activities are needed, where and when, as the project progresses.

5.8 Opinion Leader Outreach

Opinion leaders are a singularly important group as they influence the attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and behaviors of others. They influence opinions in the community by raising awareness, persuading others, establishing or reinforcing norms, and leveraging resources. They usually have high visibility in the community and have a defined constituency, which increases the likelihood that others will adopt their behavior. Opinion leader outreach builds strong relationships and garners third-party involvement in disseminating information to a broader network of the interested public.

Figure 5.1 illustrates the target audience in relation to other categories of community members. As a core community group, from which information spreads to other community members, opinion leaders must be made aware of the need to increase water supply sources and should be knowledgeable about potable reuse as an option.

The overall goals of opinion leader outreach include the following:

• establish or enhance the relationship between the opinion leader and the agency proposing/considering a potable reuse project

• build awareness, trust, and confidence in the potable reuse treatment technology processes among community leaders

• inform community leaders of water supply demands and shortages as well as of how potable reuse can meet demands

• listen to these targeted stakeholders and be responsive to concerns related to potable reuse project implementation

• secure written support of potable reuse projects from strategic community and opinion leaders

5.8.1 Identifying Opinion Leaders

Each agency and municipality will have its own unique set of influencers, and the list will likely change and grow as the project progresses. Keeping an accurate database of opinion leaders, contact information, preferred communication methods, and other pertinent notes is imperative to a successful outreach program.

Although time consuming, it is important to identify the appropriate leaders and their staff. An opinion leader can be identified by a few characteristics: the person’s appointed or elected position, his or her values and traits, his or her competence or expertise, and his or her social position (e.g., who knows him, how accessible he is). Opinion leaders can include, but are not limited to, the following (in alphabetical order):

• academic/education leaders


• business organizations • civic groups • environmental entities • media • medical, public health, and water quality experts • multicultural and faith-based leaders and groups (note that these leaders/groups are likely

to be found within the other audiences listed here) • state and local elected officials and their staff

Figure 5.1. Relationship of opinion leaders to other target audiences.

5.8.2 Menu of Opinion Leader Outreach Activities

For simplification, the following list of activities is categorized, though there is overlap between some of the categories and items. Later in this plan, suggested activities for each audience type will be identified.

Project Proponents: Supporters of the potable reuse project

Knowledgeable Opinion Leaders: Aware of the need for additional water supply options and are knowledgeable about potable reuse. Often get called by the media for their opinions. Interested community members: Look toward Knowledgeable Leaders for guidance. Read about issue in the media.

General public. Limited engagement.


These activities should not be confused with communications tools, which will be discussed later in this plan. However, the tools are key elements of most of these activities; as such, there is some overlap between the tools and activities.

5.8.2.1 Written Communication Activities

♦Prepare and distribute briefing binders

A briefing binder serves as a reference guide for opinion leaders during conversations with members of the public and other stakeholders. (Learn more about briefing binders in the next section of this plan).

♦Send regular e-mail updates

Periodic updates via e-mail should be disseminated to opinion leaders to keep them up to date on project progress and relevant information. The updates should remain succinct yet effective at communicating progress and plans. If necessary, the e-mail should contain links and attachments to project documents. Opinion leaders’ time is valuable and limited, and e-mail communication is an effective method of delivering updates after an in-person meeting has established a relationship.

♦Send event invitations

When appropriate, invite public opinion leaders to tours or to be part of the celebration at project milestones, such as groundbreaking and dedication events. This will allow them to show their support for potable reuse.

♦Distribute informational materials

Distribute informational materials at all presentations and events so that attendees have a take-home piece to share with family or friends or to refer to when asked about the program. (See the Menu of Informational Materials in the following Communication and Outreach Tools section of this plan).

♦Submit newsletter articles and press releases

Develop potable reuse articles with content aimed at a specific target audience and submit the articles to stakeholder organizations (including traditional and online news media) for publication in their newsletters or publications.

♦Build mailing list

Continue to refine and update the mailing list database by collecting contact information from participants of outreach activities including presentations, stakeholder meetings, school open houses, meetings of neighborhood council groups, community events, and more.

5.8.2.2 Face-to-Face Activities

♦Conduct one-on-one briefings

At times, it may be appropriate to meet individually with some opinion leaders. This is most appropriate with higher-level elected officials, business and environmental groups,


multicultural community leaders, health community representatives, and others as identified in a specific locale. Discussions with stakeholders at this level oftentimes require details and data that are not necessary with other stakeholder groups. Agencies should prepare supporting reference materials to leave with stakeholders. A briefing binder (print or digital) is an effective tool to leave with higher-level opinion leaders. More information on the suggested contents of a briefing binder is given in section 5.8.3.

♦Hold small group/roundtable discussions

It is also effective to gather representatives from similar groups for a small group presentation and discussion. Recognizing that it can be challenging to gather multiple parties because of scheduling and location restrictions, the small group presentations can be held at the agency and simultaneously broadcast via Webex, Skype, or a telephone conference.

The small group discussions should consist of participants from similar or related stakeholder categories, and presentations should be tailored to the specific interests of the group.

Small group meetings should provide key project schedule announcements and inform representatives and their staff of next steps. These meetings should take up to a half hour and should provide the opportunity for one more communication point prior to major project announcements. All briefings should be leveraged with strategic involvement from the principals and project management team.

♦Organize neighborhood meetings

In addition to meetings with specific organizations and associations, the agency could also offer to meet with small, informal neighborhood groups to talk about all of the issues mentioned earlier. These could be groups of senior citizens at senior centers, moms’ clubs, homeowners’ associations, and others. Because there are so many community enclaves throughout a county, these small groups could be promoted through advertising in local community newspapers.

The purpose of these gatherings is twofold: first, they will nurture and build trust in the agency while conveying the key messages of potable reuse; and second, they will provide an opportunity for the agency to discuss other activities in the community.

♦Deliver formal presentations

Some civic groups, business groups, and industry associations offer opportunities to speak to committees, boards, and memberships. Formal presentations are effective in giving a broad overview of a potable reuse project to opinion leaders. These presentations should consist of a PowerPoint, Prezi, or comparable presentation that gives an overview and understanding of the project and allows the opportunity for questions and open discussion.

Often these groups have a formal review process and an established group such as an environment or public policy committee to consider whether to support or oppose a project. It may be necessary to conduct a staff briefing and then present to such a committee before an audience with the Board of Directors can be secured.

♦Maintain an active speakers bureau


Identify and train speakers to discuss the benefits of potable reuse at various stakeholder meetings and with civic/service groups. (See Speakers Bureau in the following Communication and Outreach Tools section for additional information.)

♦Conduct facility tours

A full sensory experience, during and after plant construction, is extremely effective when it pertains to water reuse processes. Any communication program should include tours of operating facilities, where possible, so that stakeholders can see facilities up close and taste the water, if that is allowed. A visitor’s center for hands-on learning is highly recommended. Although this might be seen as an unplanned investment, the longer-term rewards have been proven in those jurisdictions where IPR projects have been introduced (i.e., Orange County Water District’s Ground Water Replenishment System and the City of San Diego’s Water Purification Demonstration Project). In cases in which a full-scale visitor’s center is not achievable, an effort to create user-friendly visual simulations and on-line tours would be a place to start. This communication method could be used for all stakeholder categories.

5.8.2.3 Web Activities

♦Direct stakeholders to project-related web pages/website

All presentations and communications tools should feature a URL that will lead users to web pages or to a dedicated website that includes up-to-date information about the project and potable reuse.

♦Communicate via social media

Some key stakeholder groups including the media, civic groups, and other community leaders are effectively communicated with via social media. Twitter and Facebook accounts should be set up by each agency and/or owner of the potable reuse project. (See more about social media in the following Communication and Outreach Tools section of this plan.)

♦Work with web reporters and bloggers

Reach out to local bloggers (specifically science and environmental bloggers) with project information and updates to ensure that they have accurate and current project information.

5.8.2.4 External Events

♦Sponsor local events

Sponsor local events throughout the service area to demonstrate the agency’s commitment to the region and to share information about potable reuse activities and efforts.

♦Participate and exhibit at community events

Attend community events and festivals that attract a broad audience and are appropriate for an exhibit about potable reuse. Use a tabletop display or traveling kiosk and staff the exhibit with project team members. Provide informational materials and project mementos to youth (if appropriate). Explore opportunities to partner with other agencies or city exhibits, such as those related to water conservation, to achieve economies of scale.


♦Participate in civic groups

Participate in civic groups, such as the chamber of commerce or Kiwanis club, and attend monthly meetings and events. This continued involvement allows staff to discuss and share the agency’s potable reuse efforts with those interested in other civic issues.

5.8.2.5 Activities for Garnering/Demonstrating Support

♦Encourage board member involvement

Engage with board members to identify community leaders for one-on-one briefings or group presentations. When appropriate, the board member will provide all or part of the presentation along with staff.

♦Create beneficial partnerships

Ask environmental and other organizations to be project “partners.” Besides giving their support, they would be advocates and would help spread the word to their members and to the larger population. Seek opportunities to cosponsor community events with environmental organizations.

♦Ask for letters of support

After a presentation or briefing, request letters of support from leaders or the president of the organization or group. These letters, which will support potable reuse in the region, will be used on the program website and during future presentations. Social Marketing Theory posits that when an individual lends his/her name to a cause and publicly pledges support of an issue, he or she is most likely to exhibit behaviors that are consistent with the issue to which he or she has pledged support. For example, if an individual displays an anti-pollution sticker on his vehicle, he is less likely to litter on the road.

In addition, it has proven to be successful in outreach campaigns to include an “ask” in communication materials. Once a target community leader list is developed, a support letter campaign should be strongly recommended to each stakeholder group as an illustration of support. To make it easy and convenient for target stakeholders to give their support, a letter should be drafted and available for easy download on the project website.

As evidenced in the outreach efforts of the Orange County Water District’s GWRS, letter writing campaigns have proven to be most effective when supporters’ names are published on a public platform such as a website. All supporters’ names should be made public on the project’s website.

5.8.3 Briefing Binders/Digital Program Briefs

A briefing binder serves as a reference guide for opinion leaders during conversations with members of the public and other stakeholders. A well-organized printed copy of the potable reuse project details can be useful to ensure accuracy when leaders are informing others. Depending on the stakeholder, it may be useful to include the project information on a zip


drive as opposed to, or in addition to, the printed copy. A briefing binder should include the following sections:

• introduction and contact information • support letters and cards and return information, including information for digital pledges • reference information regarding the website and other online program resources • background and situation analysis (i.e., the need for potable reuse) • overview of how potable reuse works • scientific research on the quality and impact of potable reuse • an overview of a specific project planned for the agency and its service area • an overview of how potable reuse complements other water supply sources • the funding details and plan • the project description, schedule, and next steps

Quarterly updates to the briefing binder are recommended to keep community leaders up to date, and the updates can be leveraged for additional in-person meetings. This can’t be seen as a simple check-off-the-box assignment. Making a commitment to keeping key opinion leaders up to date on the purpose and need of this program is critical to maintaining their overall trust. It is part of the “brand” for the water utility.

5.8.4 Academic/Education Leaders

Leaders in the academic arena can range from superintendents of school districts to deans of colleges to engineering, health, or environmental professors. They each hold a position of influence within their academic and/or residential community. As educators, they are sought after for advice and counsel. In addition, parent groups and PTAs should be considered an important stakeholder group.

5.8.4.1 Targets

Education leader targets include the following:

• local and regional university or college administrators • local and regional university or college professors, with an emphasis on science,

environmental, and health professors • K–12 district superintendents and educators • parent groups and PTAs

5.8.4.2 Strategies

Strategies for communicating with education leaders include the following:

• Clearly articulate the need for and benefits of potable reuse projects; emphasize the reliability aspects of the project and the benefit to the region’s economy.

• Provide information about the agency’s potable reuse plans and processes. • seek assistance from educators in communicating with the public about potable reuse

reliability and safety and request their endorsement of potable reuse project concepts; this


will provide credible, third-party support that can be integrated into the overall outreach program.

• Emphasize water quality and safety to parent groups.

5.8.4.3 Activities

The following activities can be used with academic/education leaders. For details about each activity, see the previous section, Menu of Opinion Leader Outreach Activities.

• distribute briefing binders • send periodic e-mail updates • build a mailing list • conduct one-on-one briefings with higher-level stakeholders, such as superintendents and

deans • hold small group meetings/roundtable discussions with professors and research experts • organize “neighborhood” meetings for parent groups • conduct facility tours

5.8.4.4 Measurable Objectives

The following are measurable objectives:

• brief academic/education leaders about the agency’s potable reuse efforts • provide presentations to education-related organizations • secure letters of support from academic/education leaders, especially those involved with

health, science, or environmental studies • obtain permission to use quotes from academic/education leaders, especially those

involved with health, science, or environmental studies

5.8.5 Business Organizations

Every community has organizations that advocate for economic stimulation and business growth. They are generally concerned with job growth and real estate value. These organizations include chambers of commerce (including minority-based chambers), economic development corporations, development and planning organizations, and unions.

The types of businesses that embrace potable reuse and their motivations to do so could vary greatly from region to region. In an area like Silicon Valley, money might not be the driving issue; instead, being on the cutting edge of technology and/or doing something green could be major motivators. In areas where industry uses a lot of water, cost may be of great concern. And some industries require a certain quality of water to maintain their processes and equipment or to ensure product quality.

5.8.5.1 Targets

Business organization targets include the following:

• board officers


• chief executive officers • presidents • committees and subcommittees (e.g., water, energy, power, infrastructure, planning) • public policy directors, public information officers, or other individuals responsible for

organization communication • businesses that have significant water requirements (e.g., biotech, agriculture) • businesses seeking LEED certification • schedulers and assistants

5.8.5.2 Strategies

Strategies for communicating with business organizations include the following:

• Articulate why potable reuse and a reliable water supply are valuable for business and the local economy.

• Reach out to a broad range of businesses and tie the need for and benefits of the potable reuse project to topics that relate to the businesses’ missions.

• Provide information about the agency’s potable reuse plans and processes. • Calm “new technology” fears that may arise from the introduction of recycled water for

potable reuse. • Provide assurances in the form of hard data to businesses that are concerned about the

effect that potable reuse may have on their facilities or products. • Partner with businesses that need/want to communicate with concerned customers and

staff.

5.8.5.3 Activities

The following activities can be used with business organizations. For details about each activity, see the previous section, Menu of Opinion Leader Outreach Activities.

• distribute briefing binders • send periodic e-mail updates • build mailing list • conduct one-on-one briefings • hold small group/roundtable discussions • deliver formal presentations • conduct facility tours



• Brief business leaders about the agency’s potable reuse efforts. • Provide presentations to business-related organizations.


• Provide sufficient materials and resources to businesses to allow them to effectively communicate with their staff and customers about potable reuse.

5.8.6 Civic Groups

Opinion leaders are often highly involved with organizations that are concerned with the growth, planning, and leadership of their communities. Cultivating and maintaining strong relationships with civic and community groups will increase knowledge and understanding about recycled water and potable reuse throughout the community. Civic and community groups often provide a forum for discussion and dissemination of information about local issues and events. Therefore, it will be crucial to the program’s success to continue to reach civic groups and leaders to provide them with information as well as to enhance existing relationships.

5.8.6.1 Targets

Civic group targets include the following:

• community and civic organizations, such as Kiwanis, Rotary, and Lions clubs • taxpayers associations • neighborhood associations • homeowners' associations • agricultural and landscaping industries

5.8.6.2 Strategies

Strategies for communicating with civic groups include the following:

• Reach out to a broad range of interests and tie the need for and benefits of the potable reuse project to topics that relate to each group’s mission.

• Enhance relationships in the community through presentations and attending/sponsoring community events.

• Provide timely information to civic and community group leaders so that information spreads through the community as they discuss recycled water and potable reuse with their constituencies.

• Foster two-way communication between interested parties and the agency. • Partner with outreach efforts of other community organizations and agencies, such as

water conservation, to reach a wider audience and broaden the reach of potable reuse information dissemination.

• Calm “new technology” fears that may arise from the introduction of recycled water for potable reuse.

5.8.6.3 Activities

The following activities can be used with civic groups. For details about each activity, see the previous section, Menu of Opinion Leader Outreach Activities.


• Build a mailing list • Send periodic e-mail: periodically draft and send a letter or e-mail signed by the

organization’s board chair or chief executive officer, updating interested parties (those identified on the mailing list mentioned earlier) on the recent potable reuse developments or news about the agency.

• Send event invitations. • Distribute informational materials. • Submit newsletter articles. • Hold small group/roundtable discussions: invite civic and community group leaders to

roundtable discussions with the board members and key water agency staff; host a series of meetings with up to 10 community leaders at a time to discuss the benefits of potable reuse target early meetings that individuals can attend on their way to work and serve refreshments if possible.

• Organize “neighborhood” meetings. • Deliver formal presentations. • Maintain an active speakers bureau. • Conduct facility tours. • Sponsor local events. • Participate and exhibit at community events. • Participate in civic groups. • Encourage board member involvement. • Ask for letters of support.



• Αcquire presentation skills training for all members of the speakers bureau. • Write and distribute monthly or quarterly e-updates to the interested parties list. • Schedule and conduct community presentations. • Coordinate publication of recycled water articles in targeted external organization

newsletters. • Take civic/professional or special interest groups and schools on tours of the advanced

treatment facility. • Track the number of project inquiries received and responded to monthly. • Staff an exhibit focused on potable reuse at a variety of community events.

5.8.7 Environmental Organizations

Organizations that concentrate on environmental issues and impacts should be a high-level stakeholder in a potable reuse implementation program. Groups such as the Surfrider Foundation and Coastkeeper should be included from the onset of the planning process. Support from environmental advocates is vital to the success of a potable reuse project, and strong opposition from this group could make for a significant negative impact on public perception.


The environmental community historically supports increasing recycled water efforts over other water resource options such as seawater desalination or increasing imported supplies. This overarching support, which may extend to the agency’s potable reuse efforts, could be fostered to gain additional support throughout the region. The outreach efforts associated with increased recycled water use for potable reuse can emphasize certain environmental benefits.

5.8.7.1 Targets

Environmental organization targets include the following:

• local environmental groups and organizations • regional environmental groups and organizations • state environmental groups and organizations • national environmental groups and organizations

5.8.7.2 Strategies

Strategies for communicating with environmental organizations include the following:

• Raise awareness about recycled water and potable reuse efforts among environmental advocacy groups and organizations.

• Articulate how potable reuse projects are a benefit to the environment and are complimentary to each specific group’s mission.

• Enhance or establish relationships with environmental groups. • Provide timely information to environmental groups. • Foster two-way communication between the organizations and the water agency. • Partner with outreach efforts of existing environmental organizations.

5.8.7.3 Activities

The following activities can be used with environmental organizations. For details about each activity, see the previous section, Menu of Opinion Leader Outreach Activities.

• Send frequent e-mail updates • Send event invitations; encourage attendance • Submit newsletter articles and press releases • Build a mailing list • Conduct one-on-one briefings • Deliver formal presentations • Conduct facility tours • Sponsor local events • Participate and exhibit at community events • Work with web reporters and bloggers: reach out to local science and environmental

reporters and bloggers with project information and updates to ensure that they have accurate and current project information


• Create beneficial partnerships: ask environmental organizations to be project “partners”—besides giving their support, they would be advocates and would help spread the word to members and the larger population; seek opportunities to cosponsor community events with environmental organizations

• Ask for letters of support.



• When possible, participate in region-wide community events sponsored by environmental groups.

• Meet with environmental group leaders to provide background on the agency’s potable reuse efforts.

• Provide presentations at regularly scheduled environmental group meetings, luncheons, or mixers.

• Identify potential partnering opportunities. • Collect letters of support for potable reuse in the community from environmental groups

or leaders. • Pitch ideas or provide articles to environmental- or science-focused reporters or bloggers.

5.8.8 Medical, Public Health, and Water Quality Experts

The most frequently asked question or concern associated with recycled water use, especially when in close contact with the human body, is about its safety. There have been many advances made in the technology associated with treating recycled water for both nonpotable and potable uses, making it safe for both purposes with the appropriate level of treatment. However, many people in the general community have preconceived ideas about recycled water. In some cases, there may also be a distrust of government, resulting in public skepticism about statements made by local governments and agencies.

Because of these two factors, it will be increasingly important to educate and cite water quality and public health experts, including doctors, nurses, and scientists. If community members hear from a respected health professional that purified water is safe for potable use, as well as hearing from scientists or water quality experts that the technology behind it is sound, it can greatly help broaden public acceptance and support of the project.

5.8.8.1 Targets

Expert targets include the following:

• doctors and nurses • scientists • academia/university personnel • experts in the local and state Department of Public Health • experts in medical organizations • experts in nursing associations • experts at hospitals and clinics


• State Water Resources Control Board • Regional Water Quality Control Boards

5.8.8.2 Strategies

Strategies for communicating with expert targets include the following:

• Provide information about the agency’s potable reuse plans and processes to local, state, and national public health and water quality professionals and experts.

• Seek the assistance of public health and water quality professionals and experts in communicating with the public about potable reuse reliability and safety and request their endorsement of potable reuse project concepts; this will provide credible, third-party support that can be integrated into the overall outreach program.

• Public health and water quality experts will be interested in more detailed and technical information than most other audiences; bring independent experts to presentations to answer detailed and technical questions.

5.8.8.3 Activities

The following activities can be used with experts:

• Identify associations and organizations: create a comprehensive database of medical professionals, associations and organizations, and health care experts.

• Send periodic e-mail updates. • Conduct one-on-one briefings with the identified professionals and experts about current

and future potable reuse efforts. • Deliver formal presentations: research speaking opportunities throughout the region and

schedule presentations for staff and/or board members; be prepared to answer detailed and technical questions.

• Submit newsletter articles to health-related newsletters and publications. • Build a mailing list. • Garner public health community endorsements: seek the assistance of public health and

water quality experts in communicating with the public about drinking water reliability and safety; ask for their endorsement of the potable reuse concept, if applicable, and enlist their participation in roundtable discussions with community leaders and media interviews if appropriate.

• Ask for letters of support. • Create a quote/cite bank: develop a comprehensive list of quotes from water quality and

health professionals and experts that can be used in written materials; request permission from the individuals to cite their quotes in printed pieces prepared by the agency.



• Brief water quality experts about the agency’s potable reuse efforts. • Brief health experts/professionals about the agency’s potable reuse efforts.


• Provide presentations to health-focused organizations. • Secure letters of support from health or water quality experts/professionals. • Obtain permission to use quotes from health or water quality experts/professionals. • Submit an article to health-focused publications about expanding recycled water use,

specifically potable reuse, in the community.

5.8.9 Media

Reporters, editors, and publishers of print, online, radio, and television media should be considered a top-tier stakeholder as they have the most effective platform for influencing public opinion. When they are included in the planning stages and are well informed about the potable reuse process and the agency’s project approach, they are more likely to become and remain supportive of the project. These opinion leaders should be updated frequently with both top-level and detailed reports to ensure the accuracy of the information disseminated. It is important to be mindful of multi-language media outlets and to communicate accordingly and equally to all platforms

5.8.9.1 Activities

The following activities can be used with the media. For details about each activity, see the previous section, Menu of Opinion Leader Outreach Activities.

• Distribute briefing binders. • Send frequent e-mail updates. • Build a mailing list. • Conduct one-on-one briefings. • Hold small group/roundtable discussions. • Conduct facility tours. • Communicate updates via social media; many media representatives prefer using Twitter

for news tips and stories. • Send event invitations.

Because the media are both an audience segment and a communication tool, Media Outreach is discussed in greater detail in the following Communication and Outreach Tools section of this plan.

5.8.10 Multicultural Leaders and Groups

Most communities have culturally diverse populations, with many residents who are immigrants or children of immigrants. These residents not only bring their cultures with them to the community but may also bring varying perceptions about water—both quality and source.

It is important to recognize that different cultures are more receptive to certain types of outreach. Because such a diverse population exists, building third-party support will need to be tailored to the specific cultures.


5.8.10.1 Targets

Multicultural leader and group targets include the following. Tailor your target lists to match the demographic makeup of your community.

• Latino organizations and leaders • African-American organizations and leaders • Asian-American organizations and leaders • faith-based organizations and leaders • disadvantaged community outreach organizations and leaders

5.8.10.2 Strategies

Strategies for communicating with multicultural leaders and groups include the following:

• Identify the different communities within the agency’s jurisdiction that may need specific and tailored outreach and connect with leaders in these communities to understand some of their issues surrounding water

• Develop/tailor materials to address some of the specific issues with an appropriate level of detail and have materials translated by a native speaker; share materials with multicultural elected officials, leaders, organizations, and faith-based leaders and organizations.

• Work with multicultural elected officials, leaders, organizations, and faith-based leaders and organizations to build credibility and trust and generate earned media in ethnic and faith-based media.

• Inform general multicultural audiences and faith-based communities about the benefit of potable reuse in the community.

5.8.10.3 Activities

The agency should employ the same activities identified with the other opinion leader audience groups but should ensure a focus on multicultural organizations and leaders as it does so.



• Brief the most influential multicultural leaders about the agency’s potable reuse efforts. • Provide presentations to multicultural groups and organizations. • Incorporate potable reuse messages in planned displays at local, multicultural events.

5.8.11 State and Local Elected Officials and Their Staff

Local-, state-, and sometimes federal-level elected officials must be kept informed about potable reuse activities and updated on a regular basis through verbal and written communication. Keeping them informed is important as they can serve as indirect project spokespeople.


It is vital to brief elected and appointed officials early in the process. They are typically the first to receive questions from community members, even if a project is not controlled by the entity that an official represents, and are significantly influential on the opinions and attitudes of other leaders as well as the general public. Ensuring that elected officials have the correct and most up-to-date information about the project allows them to pass along project information to members of their communities.

Meeting with elected officials at the beginning of the program will also set the foundation for solid, two-way communication. This also allows elected officials and their staff to ask questions directly of agency staff, thus avoiding hearsay and misinformation. Early, clear, and accurate information from the agency will help elected officials and their staff form favorable opinions.

Briefings scheduled early and often also work to keep city and county resolutions of opposition at a minimum because they establish a working relationship between the state and local government bodies whereby an open and honest exchange of project-level information can take place. For each briefing, an elected-official briefing binder with project materials, maps, and key information will provide them with concise information to answer constituent concerns.

The project should also be responsive to city council and county board of supervisors requests for presentations, with presentations scheduled as requested prior to each major project milestone.

Gaining support from local, state, and federal elected officials is an important objective. Once support is received, continued communication will ensure that support is maintained. The potable reuse communication efforts should be integrated into existing and planned governmental communication efforts.

5.8.11.1 Targets

Elected official targets include the following:

• state legislators, committee chairs, and chiefs of staff • county boards of supervisors and chiefs of staff • city mayors, members of city councils, and chiefs of staff • United States Senate and House of Representatives

5.8.11.2 Strategies

Strategies for communicating with elected officials include the following:

• Clearly articulate the need for and benefits of potable reuse projects; emphasize the reliability aspects of the project and the benefit to the region’s economy.

• Inform elected officials about both project proponents and opponents and about any project issues so that they can understand concerns that may be brought to their attention and can be prepared to address them.

• Continue to keep elected officials and their staff updated on potable reuse activities with written and oral communication.


• Leverage distribution of potable reuse information through elected officials’ offices. • Provide regular updates about the potable reuse program to avoid surprise questions from

city, county, state, and federal representatives. • Provide all of the necessary resources to potable reuse water retailers to maintain a high-

quality, consistent brand that is related to the use of the water. • Recognize potential champions and strategize with them on how to maximize their

influence; elected officials can be influential on regulatory, legislative, and/or funding issues, as well as in outreach.

5.8.11.3 Activities

The following activities can be used with elected officials:

• Prepare and distribute briefing binders: include potable reuse informational materials in existing briefing binders and packets.

• Send periodic e-mail updates. • Send event invitations: elected officials should be part of groundbreaking events,

festivals, and tours to show their support for potable reuse. • Distribute informational materials: provide each elected official’s office with

informational materials (fact sheets, brochures, FAQs) to distribute directly to their constituents.

• Submit newsletter articles: many elected officials have printed or electronic newsletters that they send to their constituents; the agency can make use of these materials by drafting articles focused on potable reuse for placement in these newsletters/publications; providing articles to elected officials for publication is another way the program information will go from a community leader to the end water user.

• Build a mailing list. • Conduct one-on-one briefings: incorporate potable reuse messages into existing one-on-

one and roundtable briefings conducted by government relations staff and the board. • Hold small group/roundtable discussions. • Deliver formal presentations: include potable reuse messages in the annual presentations

and briefings to the city councils and boards within the service area. • Maintain an active speakers bureau: integrate potable reuse messages into the agency’s

government relations speakers bureau program; once a potable reuse project is selected or identified, contact the groups that received potable reuse information through a government relations presentation and schedule a follow-up presentation focused solely on the project.

• Ask for letters of support: after a presentation or briefing, request letters of support for potable reuse in the community from elected officials; these support letters will be used on the program website and during future presentations.



• Brief all county, city, state, and federal legislators about the plans for potable reuse in the community


• Conduct a minimum of two advanced treatment facility construction tours for county, state, and elected officials or their aides.

• Collect letters of support for potable reuse in the community from city, county, state, or federal representatives.

• Provide sufficient materials and resources to the water retailers to allow them to successfully connect to potable reuse customers.

5.9 Other Key Audiences

5.9.1 Internal Audience

Effective communication plans depend on the involvement of the entire organization, not just the communication and management staff. Every water agency employee—as well as board members, other governing bodies, and water/wastewater service provider staff—is an ambassador for the organization.

However, there are varying levels of information needed depending on an individual’s position and role. Even staff that do not deal directly with the potable reuse project—the payroll clerk and the receptionist, for example—still need to be very aware and informed of the agency’s potable reuse efforts. Although they are not providing a formal, scheduled presentation, it is important to the success of activities related to potable reuse that each employee knows about the program and has the most up-to-date information. Employees at all levels should be aware of the potable reuse communication objectives and the key messages. At any time as they go about their daily lives, an agency employee may be asked a question about potable reuse or an ongoing program. Whether it is at the grocery store or a backyard barbecue, they may be presented with a question about potable reuse simply because they work at the agency, even if their role is an administrative one not dealing with potable reuse, recycled water, or water supply in any capacity.

5.9.1.1 Targets

Internal targets include the following:

• board members • staff • agency management • project managers and staff • administrative staff

5.9.1.2 Strategies

Strategies for communicating with internal audiences include the following:

• When possible, inform employees first, before external audiences, about issues or initiatives.

• Encourage two-way communication about potable reuse among staff. • Consider employees as important an audience as external audiences. • Provide constant and updated information to existing and new board members. • Create an environment of employee confidence in potable reuse.


• Create some excitement and pride in the important projects to which staff are contributing, even if their involvement is indirect.

5.9.1.3 Activities—Board Members (or City Council, etc.)

The following activities can be used with internal audiences such as board members:

• Individual board member briefings: At the onset of the program and then semiannually, conduct one-on-one briefings with board members about planned activities. This one-on-one interaction allows board members to ask clarifying questions.

• Board presentations: At key milestones during the course of the program, make progress presentations to the board. This helps to ensure that board members have the latest program information, allowing them to speak to their peer groups about the program developments.

• Board orientation packet: As new board members are elected, provide background materials on the agency’s potable reuse efforts in their board orientation packets. These new board members should also receive a one-on-one briefing to allow them to ask clarifying questions. New board members need to have the background and to get up to speed on efforts quickly.

5.9.1.4 Activities—All Staff

The following activities can be used with all internal staff:

• New employee orientation: Provide all new employees with informational materials about the agency’s potable reuse efforts. Develop a simple flyer and coordinate with the HR department to include this with other on-boarding materials.

• Informational materials: Provide electronic newsletter or e-mail updates and informational materials, including images, infographics, fact sheets, brochures, a program DVD, bookmarks, quotes from real people, and white papers to all agency staff so that each staff member has the same information that is made available to the public. Create pocket-size, printed information cards for the project team with key points about the program. This will help to reinforce information and consistency in delivery.

• Employee meetings: Offer to provide information at regular agency employee meetings to raise awareness about the progress and/or challenges of the potable reuse efforts or programs. Potential meetings include brown bag lunches or “all-hands” meetings with a presentation to reach the employees that work in the field and may not have regular access to employee e-mail messages. This is a key step in making sure that employee questions, issues, and concerns are addressed so that employees can be knowledgeable about the program. Employees are program ambassadors when they are interacting with friends, family, and neighbors—they need to understand the benefits of the program, have their questions answered, and know how to get responses from the project team, if needed.

• Employee-specific events and site tours: Host employee-only tours of the advanced treatment facility both during and after construction. The post-construction tour can coincide with the events surrounding the public dedication of the facility/project and could include a family day picnic to allow employees and their families to join in the successes of the agency.


5.9.1.5 Activities—Project Management and Project Staff

The following activities can be used with internal audiences such as project management and project staff:

• Supervisor briefings: Brief all supervisors about the communication and potable reuse efforts. Encourage them to foster discussions among their staff and to let staff know who is available to answer questions from employees. Use question and answer sessions to discover if there are concerns. If concerns are evident, they must be addressed.

• Staff updates: Provide regular staff updates at staff meetings, in internal communication pieces, and via e-mail. Distributing theses updates at project milestones will keep the staff informed about the program.



• Obtain internal agreement among 100% of management about the overall approach to the agency’s potable reuse program.

• Provide informational materials about the agency’s potable reuse efforts to 100% of agency employees.

• Provide project team contact information accessible to all employees through the website or on bulletin boards.

• Provide project updates quarterly to ensure that employees have up-to-date information. • Provide project updates semiannually to board members.

5.9.2 Water Wholesalers and Retailers

In some cases, water agencies may be characterized as retailers or wholesalers. If the agency provides water to cities, other water agencies, or companies, it is usually considered a water wholesaler. Wholesalers do not typically deal with the end-users of water—their customers are the city, water agency, or company that does provide water to residents and businesses in that retailer’s service area. Water retailers, on the other hand, deal with the end-users.

If the wholesaler is the potable reuse project proponent, it is important that the water retailers be an integrated part of the potable reuse communication effort and have the tools necessary to disseminate the agency’s potable reuse message to their customers: the water users. Because retailers have direct contact with the end water user, most often through water bills, customers don’t often understand the wholesaler/retailer relationship. They most likely recognize only the agency that is the source of their water and that sends them a bill. Therefore, it is important that the wholesale and retail agencies talk with each other and provide the potable reuse project communication tools, messaging, marketing tactics, and customer service brand to avoid undermining the credibility of the quality and source of the water.

The following information assumes that the wholesaler is the project proponent and needs to keep the retail agencies up-to-date on key aspects of the project, including purpose/need and progress. If the retail agency is the project proponent, most of the strategies and tactics listed in the following need to be conducted by the retail agency. The retailer should review this list


and adopt strategies and outreach activities as appropriate to ensure awareness at the wholesaler level.

5.9.2.1 Targets

Water wholesalers or retailers are the target, depending on who is the project proponent.

5.9.2.2 Strategies

Strategies for communicating with water retailers include the following:

• Provide up-to-date potable reuse information to retailers so that they can easily pass it along to their customers and so that they can help maintain a consistent brand throughout the entire jurisdiction.

• Brand potable reuse water as high quality, environmentally beneficial, and water efficient.

• Encourage cross-promotional communication opportunities between the agency and retailers.

5.9.2.3 Activities

The following activities can be used with water retailers:

• Member agency needs assessment: Conduct an initial needs assessment to determine how best to serve retailers while providing consistency throughout the wholesale agency’s jurisdiction.

• Introductory retailer meetings: Have agency liaisons and any other key recycled water staff meet with management and with communication staff at each retailer to introduce the wholesale agency’s potable reuse efforts. At this meeting, the wholesale agency staff should present current progress in the reuse program, outline its communication goals with customers, and discuss what the retailer’s role will be.

• Sharing of information about potable reuse customer service with retailers: Even though retailers may have been producing recycled water for customers for some time, they might benefit from receiving information that will help them improve their service to their potable reuse customers. The wholesale agency liaison’s meeting with retailer staff will help ascertain if it would be helpful to share some common “customer lessons learned” from other potable reuse programs.

• Regular updates to retailers: The wholesale agency liaison should continue to provide regular updates to the communication staff at each retailer about the wholesale agency’s potable reuse efforts. This may be done through regular e-mail updates, telephone calls, or in-person meetings.

• Informational materials: Provide electronic templates of the basic potable reuse informational materials to all retailers. These templates should maintain the overall design and relevant information about potable reuse developed by the wholesale agency but provide space for the retailer’s logo and company information. The native files of the informational materials should be provided so that the retailer can personalize the documents. Once personalized, the wholesale agency should encourage the retailer to distribute the materials to its customers through that retailer’s typical communication channels.


• Newsletter articles: Write articles about potable reuse and its benefits in the region, the wholesale agency’s efforts, and other topics related to potable reuse. The articles should be provided to retailers for publication in their newsletters or communications with their customers.

• Website spotlights: Highlight the retailers’ efforts related to potable reuse on the wholesale agency’s website on the potable reuse/recycled water page.

• Presentations: Provide presentations about potable reuse efforts to the retailers’ boards and councils. In some cases, a retail agency might be concerned about the wholesale agency making presentations in its service area. In this instance, the wholesale agency staff will need to clearly explain the potable reuse program in the initial meeting with the retailers. This might include explaining the importance of water supply reliability and what the wholesale agency is doing to ensure that potable reuse is safe and available for all areas and uses.

• Industry workshops: Continue to partner with industry associations and conduct industry workshops for potential customers.

• Customer service workshops: Conduct customer service workshops for the retailers to assist them with marketing and ongoing customer service issues in a manner that maintains the brand.



• Make sure retailers are aware of the wholesale agency’s potable reuse efforts in the region.

• Provide Potable reuse informational materials to all retailers • Publish wholesale agency-developed newsletter articles in retailers’ newsletters. • Provide presentations to all retailers’ boards or councils.

5.9.3 Youth

Educating young people about the value of water, recycled water, and potable reuse will ultimately result in increased understanding of how reusing water is an important part of water supply planning. If individuals are taught the importance of water and about the urban water cycle at a young age, these same individuals will use water more wisely as adults. These young learners also become ambassadors for water stewardship in local communities and to their families.

5.9.3.1 Strategies

Strategies for communicating with youth include the following:

• Continue to encourage learning and water appreciation through expansion of existing youth education and school programs.

• Provide information about potable reuse to children, who can pass it along to their families.

• Work with schools to understand how education about water can be integrated into the curriculum.


5.9.3.2 Activities

The following activities can be used with youth:

• Informational materials: The method of distribution of and type of information included in adult informational materials is drastically different than the distribution of and information that should be included in youth-friendly materials. Develop youth-friendly informational materials for use during tours, education programs, and other events. These materials should be highly graphic.

• Take-home materials: Work with schools to provide take-home materials for families, including brochures and fliers.

• Library exhibit: Create an interactive, water-focused library display for rotation at libraries throughout the region. The exhibit will be at each library for one month.

• Scout water badge: Research existing water badge programs and work with the Boy and Girl Scouts to include potable reuse in the programs; then help scouts achieve that badge.

• Contests: Sponsor art, video, or essay contests for children to explain potable reuse to other young people and to express their views of the benefits of potable reuse. Use the art, videos, or essays on the website, in newsletters, and at exhibits.

• Tours: Offer tours of recycled water facilities to students of all ages.



• Inform all school outreach program staff about the agency’s potable reuse efforts. • Update existing school outreach programs to include potable reuse messages and

information. • Send quarterly updates home with school children. • Secure a library exhibit at libraries in the agency’s service area.

5.10 Communication and Outreach Tools

5.10.1 Menu of Informational Materials

Informational materials and tools should address specific concerns, information needs, and a varying knowledge base as well as convey program messages in a consistent manner. These materials should provide objective, general information about potable reuse and should be written and illustrated using understandable terminology and images for the layperson. All materials should be brief and visually appealing. All informational materials should be reviewed for cultural sensitivity and appropriateness and translated as necessary. Materials should be distributed in print and electronic formats to reach diverse audiences in appropriate languages.


5.10.1.1 Strategies

The following are strategies for informational materials:

• Make available easy-to-understand informational materials highlighting key messages that are appropriate for target audiences and provide them in both print and electronic formats; consider using QR codes and social media platform strategies.

• Develop informational materials tailored to the interests of specific audiences as appropriate..

• Ensure that all informational materials are responsive to multicultural, multiethnic, and age-specific audiences; translate key items into other languages as needed.

• Consistently update all informational materials (both electronic and print) to make sure designated audiences, including agency employees, have timely and accurate materials.

• Link to other places that provide water for potable reuse..

5.10.1.2 Materials and Tools

Collaterals

Potable reuse fact sheet: Develop a simple fact sheet, geared to all lay audiences, about potable reuse, the treatment process, and the water’s potential to meet any future water need in the region.

Potable reuse FAQ: Develop a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet about potable reuse aimed at lay audiences.

Pocket brochure: After the creation of the general materials (fact sheet and FAQ sheet), develop a pocket-sized brochure that all agency employees, especially those out in the field, can carry in their shirt pockets. If there are questions about potable reuse or the agency’s plans, the staff can offer the questioner a pocket brochure that includes basic information, a couple of FAQs, and—most importantly—information about where to get more information: website, social media sites, project manager, information telephone line, and more.

Bill Inserts: Include information and messages about potable reuse in bill inserts; this is still an economical method to get information to ratepayers and people in your service area.

Posters and banners: Consider producing posters and banners that can be used in exhibit booths or at other venues to attract attention to the water cycle and to showcase the benefits of potable reuse in a local context. These banners and posters can be featured in the lobby of the agency’s headquarters when not in use at an event or presentation.

Materials for children: Community events that attract large crowds will include children; therefore, having informational materials directed specifically toward children will be very helpful at an exhibit booth. Canvas what is currently available to avoid reinventing an existing product. Most agencies are willing to share their templates or to make them available for a small fee. In addition, consider developing a memento that appeals to children and youth whose parents might bring them to the exhibit booth. These materials should be water relevant and should brand the agency’s programs.

White papers: Develop a series of white papers on a variety of topics about which residents or elected officials may want more technical information. Topics could include


• similar projects in other areas • other uses of recycled water, including where and how it is used in the United States and

around the world • water quality and safety and how to address such issues as pharmaceuticals • a description of the advanced treatment facility and the treatment process

There could also be links on the website to technical papers and organizations where people can get technical studies and reports.

Template articles: Develop a series of template articles about the urban water cycle that put potable reuse in perspective; then seek to place these articles in community newspapers or newsletters of external organizations.

Web and Digital

Website: Develop web pages on the agency’s existing website that include up-to-date information about the project and potable reuse. Include clickable/printable PDFs of appropriate informational tools listed in this section. The web pages should be updated frequently as new information becomes available. The web pages could also showcase the urban water cycle as shown at www.athirstyplanet.com/your_h20/our_water_cycle.

Presentations: Create a standard presentation about the agency and potable reuse in the region. The presentation can be revised as needed for specific interest groups or audiences by adding or removing slides. The standard presentation should not exceed 15 minutes in length and can be created using a variety of programs, such as Prezi or PowerPoint.

Because all groups cannot accommodate this format or timeframe, an eight-minute presentation should also be created. In addition, there should be a presentation that relies solely on one to two informational poster boards, as well as a speaking-notes-only presentation. This will ensure that all presentations, regardless of the format, convey similar messages using easy-to-understand informational visual aids.

No matter which program is used to create the presentations, a version should be saved as a PDF (modifying graphics as needed) so that it can be posted to the website and made available for download.

E-newsletter: If one does not already exist, create an agency electronic newsletter. Include articles on potable reuse. Update the distribution database regularly with new e-mail addresses from speaking engagements, events, and briefings.

Program DVD: Individuals absorb information in different ways. Some learn by reading, others by listening, and some by watching. Information has to be accessible to all audiences. For those visual learners, produce a program DVD for showing at speaking engagements and in exhibit booths at community events and for distribution to stakeholders. The video could also be placed on YouTube and added as video clips on the website.

Quarterly videos: Develop and produce short (three minutes or less) videos on specific topics related to recycled water and potable reuse. Post these on the agency website and on the agency’s YouTube channel. Share the link to these videos through social media tools (see Social Media Tools in the Media Outreach section of this plan) and traditional tools such as


the agency e-newsletter. Consider taping comments from people who tour a facility to post on your website.

Libraries and Databases

Graphics “catalog”: Design a catalog of understandable graphics demonstrating the water cycle and the process of purifying water. These graphics can be used on any of the informational materials listed in the following. The graphics should be developed for both print and electronic formats and for use in both presentations and written materials.

Quote/Cite bank: Develop a comprehensive list of quotes from water quality and health professionals and experts that can be used in written materials. Request permission from the individuals to cite their quotes in printed pieces prepared by the agency.

Mailing list: Use existing mailing lists from other water agency outreach efforts to develop a comprehensive list. Refine and update the mailing list database from outreach activities, including presentations, stakeholder meetings, school open houses, meetings of neighborhood council groups, community events, and more. Use this list to send project updates and other information as appropriate. In addition to information such as contact name, address, and telephone number, collect e-mail addresses wherever possible to facilitate electronic distribution of project information.

Centralized internal information station: Establish a centralized area (room, bookcase, cubical) where all informational materials and tools are housed for all communication purposes. This centralized location allows for easy access to information. All materials from fact sheets to giveaway items to banners and DVDs should be readily accessible. There should be a request form for materials and a log of all available items for inventory purposes.

Other

Learning/Visitor’s center at the AWT facility: A learning or visitor’s center is a key tool in the communication effort and an integral part of the tours mentioned previously in this plan. It provides a transparent, stimulating, and interactive educational experience that will engage visitors in learning about potable reuse. A learning center helps visitors learn about the key concepts of recycling water and potable reuse. The learning center should be open to the public and designed to appeal to a range of ages, levels of education, and cultural/ethnic backgrounds. To appeal to multiple learning styles, use a variety of technologies (both “high-tech” and “low-tech”) and tools, including printed displays, multimedia interactive stations, experiential demonstrations, and video/DVD presentations. During the planning and development process, enlist the help of teachers and students from local schools as well as members of local environmental groups to provide their perspective and to pilot-test ideas.

Key messages card: Create a business-card-sized key message card and provide it to all members of the project team and speakers bureau.

Supporter/Comment cards: Create a card that contains a brief description of the purpose and need for potable reuse as a key element in the agency’s future water supply. The card should allow an individual to check boxes to receive more information or to indicate their support for planned expanded recycled water use and should include an area for a brief comment or question.


In addition to the supporter sign-up section on the website, an option of written support should also be available. A supporter card should be developed for distribution at speaking engagements and events. This card makes it easy for interested parties to sign their name in support and to request presentations to their organizations.

5.10.2 Speakers Bureau

An active speakers bureau program is a vital component of public outreach. A speakers bureau program can facilitate opportunities to provide information to a large number of groups with varying interests and project awareness levels. Reaching out to civic, business, environmental, multicultural, and other community groups and their leaders through speaking engagements provides a way to reach community leaders and their constituent audiences at the same time. A speakers bureau program can also serve to ensure that messages are standardized.

Providing speaking engagements at existing meeting locations and familiar venues adds to audience receptivity—and this strategy doesn’t require anyone to come to a separate meeting and is respectful of people’s busy schedules. Trained speakers provide face-to-face opportunities for audience members to ask questions and learn more about the agency and potable reuse in a relaxed setting. Speaking engagements provide an opportunity to measure audience knowledge of and receptivity to the project as well as to distribute information/interest cards to audience members and/or the group leadership.

5.10.2.1 Strategies

The following strategies can be used with a speakers bureau:

• Reach broadly into the community and ensure that presentations reach underserved population groups and multicultural audiences.

• Articulate the problem or challenge being addressed and how the project is a key component of the solution; as much as possible, and if appropriate, relate the problem being solved by potable reuse to the mission of the group of whose meeting you are joining.

• Explain the project’s technical aspects in layperson’s terms using easy-to-understand visual aids and leave-behind materials; tailor the technical level to the audience.

• Demonstrate transparency by discussing pertinent aspects of the project, such as water quality, cost, regulatory oversight, fail-safe methods, etc.

• Ensure that all speakers are effective presenters and that they have an opportunity to practice making presentations, answering tough questions, and using consistent project messages.

• Refine presentations through the use of presentation evaluation forms provided to the groups’ leadership or program coordinator.

• Enhance or establish relationships in the community and provide open channels of communication for questions throughout the project.

• Tailor information to groups and address their specific perspectives and potential concerns.

• Seek to engage and interest members of key community groups and their leaders. • Partner with the groups receiving presentations to distribute project information through

their own communication channels, such as websites or publications.


• Partner with local water education providers to reach elementary and high school students with information.

• Increase the project contact database and the list of other groups to approach for presentations.

• Prepare proper follow-up documentation (i.e., the types of questions received and portions of the presentation or material that were of particular interest to the group); all of this information can help to prepare for future presentations and to make modifications to materials to keep them current and relevant.

• Follow up promptly with promised additional information or answers to questions that could not be adequately addressed at the presentation.

5.10.2.2 Activities

The following activities can be used with a speakers bureau:

• Presentation contact list: Develop an extensive list of key organizations and groups to contact for presentations, based on identified audiences. Collect referrals for additional speaking engagements from other outreach activities.

• Presentation development: See Presentations in the Menu of Informational Materials section of this document.

• Presentation scheduling: Determine the list of project speakers and their availability. Coordinate details of each presentation with the group leader or program chairperson. Follow up to confirm the presentation details with the group. Maintain communication with the speaker prior to and on the day of the presentation.

• Speaker recruitment and training: Determine which project team members will be members of the speakers bureau and provide presentation skills training. Ensure that they have up-to-date recycled water and potable reuse information and other materials, such as the fact sheet, treatment graphic, key messages card, and FAQ document.

• Speaker tracking form: Create a form to be used by each speaker to be completed immediately following each presentation. This provides key information about the presentation, any needed follow-up, audience size, audience questions, and commentary. Track this information as part of management activities.

• Supporter cards: See Supporter/Comment cards in the Menu of Informational Materials section of this document.

• Presentation evaluation form: Develop a speakers bureau presentation evaluation form. Distribute the form to the group leader or program chairperson immediately following the presentation. Follow up to obtain the completed form, if needed. Revise the presentation or other aspects of the program as needed based on feedback. Provide neutral two-way communication with the group so that feedback can be provided to the speakers bureau coordinator without directly including the speaker. Inform the speaker of relevant feedback from the evaluation form.

• Evaluation and refinement: Gather feedback from presenters and groups and refine the speakers bureau program as needed. Update the presentation and handout materials as needed.


5.10.3 Media Outreach

The media are both an audience and an outreach strategy. The agency should take a proactive approach with the media, keeping them informed about the progress of potable reuse efforts. Timely and accurate media coverage informs residents, businesses, and others about water, recycled water, potable reuse, and the agency. A positive, proactive media outreach program plays a pivotal role in ensuring overall communication success.

5.10.3.1 Strategies

The following strategies can be used with the media:

• Provide timely, accurate information to reporters. • Ensure that agency media spokespeople are experienced and effective communicators. • Respond quickly to inaccurate articles or reports. • Respond quickly to reporters’ requests. • Engage and brief editorial boards.

More details of things to do and not to do are summarized in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Dos and Don’ts

Do

Don’t

Know the reporters’ agendas Avoid reporters Know your key messages Say, “No comment” Remember your audience Speak “off the record” Be the expert, but don’t be condescending Use industry jargon Be prepared with graphics and handouts Delay in responding: be prompt Post news releases on the program website Respect deadlines Be accessible

5.10.3.2 Activities

The following activities can be used with the media:

• Spokespeople: Identify agency spokespeople—those people who can speak about the potable reuse program on behalf of the agency to the media (in addition to board members). Spokespeople should have experience communicating with media and/or should receive necessary training.

• Media training: Conduct media training for program spokespeople to ensure that they have the opportunity to learn how the media works and to practice techniques for conducting an interview and conveying key program messages; then begin to identify opportunities to obtain media coverage for the program and its specific satellite plants.

• Staff workshops: Conduct workshops with media spokespeople and board members. Workshops provide time for spokespeople to practice delivering potable reuse messages and responding to questions to become more comfortable and effective communicators.


• Editorial briefings: Schedule briefings with editors of local papers to ensure editorial boards and reporters have information directly from agency staff.

• Contact information: Develop a comprehensive and up-to-date media contact database. Ensure that elected officials and key stakeholders who want to submit letters to the editor and/or opinion editorials have accurate media contact information.

• B-roll: Develop program and agency background video footage (b-roll) about potable reuse and distribute it to broadcast media as needed.

• Media pieces: At key milestones, or as soon as new information about the program or a project is available, distribute news releases, media advisories, letters to the editor, and/or opinion editorials.

• Feature articles: Pitch feature articles about water supply challenges and the benefits of potable reuse to local publications.

• Tours: Invite media to attend special facility tours. • Website: Place recent water-related media stories and agency-issued media pieces in a

media section on the program website and in information packets. • Train staff on responding to media requests: The media and reporters will often call

several different people in one organization when trying to get information or develop a story. However, only the agency’s media spokespeople should speak to the media to ensure that accurate information is provided. Remind staff to follow agency protocol and to politely refer the reporter to the spokespeople.

5.10.4 Social Media Platforms

Until recent years, government agencies largely avoided social media as a public outreach tool. Although social media can reach a large audience with a minimal financial investment, it also has some perceived stumbling blocks, including

• labor intensiveness: monitoring activity and keeping content fresh and interesting requires an investment of time

• negative feedback: the give and take nature of social media provides a public forum in which naysayers can offer negative opinions or commentary

Now, more public agencies are recognizing the potential power of social media, if it is well managed. Among social media’s strengths are 1) it is a growing information resource for many audiences, including traditional media (reporters), 2) it allows for real-time updates, 3) it includes web-based and mobile technologies, and 4) it is free, user-friendly, and interactive.

To successfully manage a social media effort, a comprehensive content schedule should be developed that includes quick facts, seasonal insight, “did you know” facts, and any progress reports on potable reuse implementation. It is essential that an active engagement plan is in place (e.g., following, friending, reposting, and participating in discussion threads) to ensure that the appropriate stakeholders are engaged via social media. A social media plan should include

• designating one person to monitor and update the various accounts; this is not to say the designee has to be responsible for developing all of the content—help can be solicited from other staff members, but only the designee should post to the sites

• selecting your social media—Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are among the popular choices at this time; however, social media is a moving target and care should be taken to


stay current and to be certain that you have a presence on platforms that are frequented by your target audience and that you are not wasting time on platforms that have become tired or passé

• determining how often you will post to each account and how and when to respond to posts

• developing guidelines for removing offensive material • determining a way to track and report posts • developing strategies for building fans/followers • interlinking your website and social media accounts

Although you will want to remove offensive posts, you do not want to remove or ignore negative ones. Typically, highly negative posts will contain inaccurate or one-sided information. Use such posts as opportunities to set the story straight. Respond quickly, confidently, and politely.

In all communications, look for positive positioning; you must walk the fine line between being overly technical and being perceived as talking down to your audience in a way that may come off as too simplistic or condescending.

5.10.5 Independent Advisory Panel/Stakeholder Working Group

Many potable reuse project proponents have worked with third-party organizations, such as the National Water Research Institute (NWRI), to assemble independent advisory panels (IAPs). These panels usually include experts in water quality, health, water reuse technology, and more. Members of the panel review data about a proposed project and provide scientific and technological opinions regarding the proposal. The IAP provides an independent viewpoint and, at times, recommends project or process changes. In addition, a project proponent might choose to assemble a stakeholder working group whose members would represent perspectives related to specific project aspects, such as science, technology, health, community perceptions, cost, and water supply reliability. The main purpose of any type of IAP/stakeholder working group is to ensure that staff and board members consider independent viewpoints and/or community values as part of their project evaluation.

As the agency’s potable reuse effort progresses through various studies and milestones, it may be appropriate to consider and establish a panel or panels, such as those mentioned previously. An advisory group is particularly appropriate once the agency pursues a specific potable reuse project. This type of review and endorsement of the agency’s proposal will be an important tool to address concerns expressed by participants in the stakeholder interview process.

Agency staff should coordinate timelines and milestones for ongoing studies to identify whether an IAP/working group is appropriate and when a group would be the most helpful and then establish it accordingly.

5.11 Monitoring and Evaluation

The measurable objectives suggested at the end of each group of strategies and tactics should be compiled quarterly or semiannually after the outreach program actively begins. The entire outreach team should set a timetable for evaluation and review, to evaluate what


communication activities are working and what areas need improvement. An individual agency’s community communication plan should be revised annually based on that agency’s evaluations.

For example, for this model Community-Level Communication Plan, baseline telephone surveys and focus groups were conducted. As outreach efforts progress in the two model communities, subsequent research will be conducted to assess areas of strength and weakness in the communication program, and necessary adjustments will be made.

Continue implementing the revised plan until potable reuse is successfully established throughout the agency’s service area. Celebrate the achievement of agency-wide efforts to provide a reliable source of water that is accepted by everyone in the region.

5.11.1 Plan Measurement and Adaptive Management

Each strategy in this plan has suggested measurable objectives that are described in the appropriate sections. However, the ultimate measurement of success will occur when your agency implements a potable reuse project approved by its board or council. Another measure is the willingness of early adopters to share their views of potable reuse benefits to others in the community. It must be recognized that there may always be some individuals who will continue to oppose potable reuse.

Supportive stakeholders can help to develop other program advocates by interaction on social media platforms, participation in community advisory group meetings, and drafting letters of support. This plan should minimize any surprises among water agency employees and policymakers because public outreach activities are clearly identified.

This plan includes specific measurements in each tactical section. Other opportunities for measuring success include

• ongoing customer surveys and personal interviews showing that support is maintained (or improved) at the level documented in baseline surveys

• comment/survey cards collected following speakers bureau presentations, public outreach meetings, and community events showing strong support (at least 75%) for the agency’s potable reuse project

• feedback being balanced; this includes feedback received from constituents, who correspond directly with the agency’s board, and from the mayors and councils of the cities served by the agency

• social media and web metrics showing success • media coverage being balanced and accurate

5.11.2 Counting the Numbers

Tracking the following data will help provide additional measures of plan success:

• Attendance at various speakers bureau presentations, public outreach meetings, and community events; results of this data, including monitoring and documenting oral comments received at each activity, will be compiled in a summary report.

• Quantity of letters of support received from local agencies and stakeholder groups.


• Quantity of public input via phone calls, e-mail through the website, and various social media platforms.

• Evaluation of media and special interest coverage—is coverage balanced and proactive?

5.11.3 Rapid Response Plan

When unexpected events occur, the agency must be prepared to respond quickly. During emergency and unplanned events, it is the project team’s responsibility to communicate promptly, effectively, and efficiently with affected internal and external stakeholder groups. If the team is prepared and executes the plan appropriately, consistently, and often, vital information will be provided and lasting effects on the organization’s reputation and credibility will be positive.

This Rapid Response Plan is intended to be a living document that provides guidelines and recommendations for how the agency should work to provide a consistent and prompt communication response.

5.11.3.1 Strategy

The strategy behind the Rapid Response Plan is to

• respond quickly to unexpected events by identifying the affected stakeholders, the messages that need to be conveyed, and the most effective and efficient methods to convey those messages

• respond quickly to misinformation in the news or circulating within the community

5.11.3.2 Activities

Activities related to the Rapid Response Plan include the following:

• Rapid response team: Identify a core team within the agency that is designated as the rapid response team. This team should include the board chair, the CEO, legal counsel, operations staff, communication staff, and customer service staff. This group should meet periodically to review potential scenarios and strategize responses. When a crisis occurs, convene the team immediately to develop a specific response.

• Message development: Develop three key messages in response to the situation or event and share those with key staff and board members. These are the three messages that should be included in all written and verbal communication about the event.

• Employee communication: Employees are one of the most important stakeholders in a crisis or rapid response situation, and they are often forgotten because of other pressing issues, such as responding to media inquiries and ensuring the safety of the agency’s customers. An all-employee e-mail should be developed and distributed with the details of the event and the agency’s response. This communication should also include the contact information for someone at the agency who can answer employee questions. This needs to be the assigned responsibility of a member of the rapid response team.

• Board or council communication: Another function of a member of the rapid response team is to update the board on the activities that are occurring or have occurred and the agency’s response. This communication should be done via telephone and with a follow-up e-mail. The board members should also be given the developed messages or talking


points as they may be called by media or other elected officials for a response or statement.

• “Dark” web pages and public notices: Create web pages and public notices for potential crisis situations and keep them ready to upload/print in the event of an actual crisis.

• Phone lists: Keep up-to-date phone lists (both hard and electronic versions) with home and cell phone numbers of board members, agency management and elected officials, and top staff from other local agencies.

• Op-eds and letters to the editor: Address inaccurate news coverage by writing letters to the editor and submitting op-ed articles stating the agency’s position. Always include appropriate agency messages to leverage any opportunity for providing correct information about potable reuse.

• Media outreach: Identify one spokesperson or select spokespeople for the agency staff (the board members will likely be contacted and speak for themselves) and ensure that all employees know to direct any inquiries to that designated person or persons. The identified spokesperson/people should be aware of the key messages developed and should incorporate them as they respond to media questions.

• Social media: Develop short statements based on the developed messages that can be quickly disseminated through the agency’s social media channels while more information is gathered and checked. Identify links to trusted and relevant sites that can be sent out where interested parties can find more information.


Table 5.2. Key Plan Element Prioritization and Timeline

ACTIVITY

MONTH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Review existing communication materials (internal and external)

Review the literature Develop draft key messages for testing Identify key stakeholders Ongoing Build mailing list/contact database Ongoing Conduct in-depth interviews Ongoing as needed Conduct focus groups and baseline survey Finalize key messages Develop or modify Community-Level Communication Plan

Ongoing as needed

Create communication tools • info materials • speakers bureau and training Ongoing • media training Ongoing • webpages and social media Ongoing • IAP Ongoing

Create a Rapid Response Plan • identify a core team Ongoing as needed • conduct spokesperson training Initial Key messages Ongoing as needed • create template articles for media

Initial Key messages Ongoing as needed


References

Atwater, R.; Cook, J.; Holliman, T.; Humphreys, L. How to Develop a Water Reuse Program; WateReuse Association: Alexandria, VA, 2009.

University of New South Wales, Lead Organisation; Building a National Demonstration,

Education and Engagement Program—Goal 3: Reclaimed Water is Viewed as an Acceptable ‘Alternative Water’ for Augmenting Drinking Water Supplies; Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence. Brisbane, Australia, 2014. (In progress).

Pepper, I. Monitoring for Reliability and Process Control of Potable Reuse Applications;

Report No. WRRF-11-01; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA (in progress).

Rimer, A. Evaluation of Source Water Control Options and the Impact of Selected Strategies

on DPR; Report No. WRRF-13-12; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA (in progress).

Rock, C.; Bell, K.; da Silva, A. Assessment of Techniques to Evaluate and Demonstrate the

Safety of Water from Direct Potable Reuse Treatment Facilities; Report No.WRRF-13-14; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA (in progress).

Salveson, A. Guidelines for Engineered Storage for Direct Potable Reuse; WRRF-12-06;

WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA (in progress). Salveson, A. Blending Requirements for Water from Direct Potable Reuse Treatment

Facilities; Report No. WRRF-13-15; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA (in progress).

Slovic, P. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception; Earthscan: New York,

NY, 2010. Steine-Darling, E.; Salveson, A. Enhanced Pathogen and Pollutant Monitoring of the

Colorado River Municipal Water District Raw Water Production Facility at Big Spring Texas; Report No.WRRF-14-10; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, (in progress).

Trussel, S. Equivalency of Advanced Treatment Trains for Potable Reuse; Report No.

WRRF-11-02; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, in progress). Walker, T.; Stanford, B. Critical Control Point Assessment to Quantify Robustness and

Reliability of Multiple Treatment Barriers of DPR Scheme; Report No. WRRF-13-03; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, (in progress).

Walker T.; Stanford B. Development of Operation and Maintenance Plan and Training and

Certification Framework for Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) Systems; Report No. WRRF-13-13; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, (in progress).


Appendices

Contents Appendix A: Utilities and Agencies In-Depth Interviews: Respondent List & Discussion Guide….174 Appendix B: State Legislators In-Depth Interviews: Respondent List & Discussion Guide………..181 Appendix C: Health Professionals In-Depth Interviews: Respondent List & Discussion Guide……185 Appendix D: Special Interests In-Depth Interviews: Respondent List & Discussion Guide………..188 Appendix E: Key Findings from Opinion Research by FM3………………………………………..191


Appendix A

Utilities and Agencies In-Depth Interviews

RESPONDENT LIST & DISCUSSION GUIDE RESPONDENT California Rancho California Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District City of Escondido Olivenhain Municipal Water District (north San Diego County) Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Padre Dam Municipal Water District (east San Diego County) Upper San Gabriel Valley Water District (east of Los Angeles area) City of San Diego Public Utilities Department Helix Water District (east San Diego County) Orange County Water District (Fountain Valley, CA) West Basin Municipal Water District (coastal Los Angeles area) Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation District (north San Francisco Bay Area) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California City of Santa Cruz Texas El Paso Water Utilities City of Brownwood City of Lubbock City of Wichita Falls Colorado River Municipal Water District (Big Springs, TX) Arizona City of Phoenix City of Scottsdale Tucson Water Other United States Raleigh Public Utilities Department, NC Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources, GA Clearwater Public Utilities Department, FL Australia Yarra Valley Water Water Corporation (Western Australia)


Questions Regarding Potable Reuse - Agency Version January 2014

Name: ____________________________________________ Interviewer: ______________ Organization: ____________________________________________ Date: ______________

1. I want to talk with you today about your water supply and one specific alternative you may be considering now or in the future: potable reuse. But as background for our discussion, can you tell me a little bit about your existing water resource portfolio? Specifically:

1a. Where do you get your existing water supply?

1b. How does your community view that water supply in terms of quantity? In other words, do most people think you have enough water to meet demands? Yes No Unsure/DK

Comments:

1c. What about quality? Do people in your community or service area believe the current

water supply is from a “pristine” source? Or do they believe your water source is impacted by upstream users or legacy contamination or in some other way? Pristine source Impacted Unsure/DK Comments:

1d. Have you surveyed community members to see what percentage of your customers drink water from the tap without using some type of filter? Or the percentage of customers who buy bottled water for drinking purposes? No, have not surveyed Yes, have surveyed

1da. What percentage drinks unfiltered water from tap? __________ 1db. What percentage buys bottled water? __________

1e. Assuming you know there is a certain percentage of people who do NOT use water

straight from the tap for drinking and cooking purposes, what is their rationale for this?


[Are they concerned about taste, odor or safety, for example?] Taste/flavor Odor Clarity Safety/Health Fluoride Other _________________________________________

1f. Was your customers’ view of the safety or taste of your current water supply a driver

for you to consider augmenting your supply with alternative sources, such as potable reuse? Yes No Unsure/DK

Comments:

2. Is your utility/city planning a potable reuse project?

Unsure/DK No Yes 2aa. If so, where are you in the process?

2ab. What is your schedule for project implementation?

2ac. What factors are involved in determining the schedule? 2ad. How much water would be produced each day? 2ae. How does that compare to your total water demand?

2b. Are you considering indirect potable reuse (IPR) or direct potable reuse (DPR)?

IPR DPR Both Unsure/DK

2c. What are your reasons for considering either IPR/DPR/Both?

2d. If you did not consider DPR at all, why not?


3. Was/is your community (or members of the public) supportive of potable reuse?

Yes No Mixed Unsure/DK

Comments:

3a. What about your policymakers – are/were they supportive?

Yes No Mixed Unsure/DK

Comments:

3b. In both the case of the public and of policy makers, how was this support manifested?

3ba. Public support comments:

3bb. Policymaker support comments:

4. Were/are there opponents of your project?

Unsure/DK No Yes. 4a. If so, what were/are their key issues of concern (please name the top three

issues): “Yuck” factor Health and safety Environmental Population growth


Government distrust Other____________________________________________________________________________

Comments:

4b. How (or where) were those concerns expressed?

Public project meetings City council meetings Agency/project website Newspaper commentary/Letters to editor Radio/TV programs Email Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) Dedicated websites Blog posts Other____________________________________________________________________________

Comments:

4c. Have you made or do you plan to make any changes to the project plan or design

based on this opposition?

5. What types of community outreach and communication with the public did you do (or are you doing)?

5a. What did you do that you felt was successful or worked well?

5b. What did you do that was not successful?

5c. Were there any different outreach activities you used as the project moved from one phase to another? No


Yes 5ca. What are/were they?

5d. What major concerns about potable reuse are you hearing from your community?

6. Do you have a potable reuse pilot or demonstration project in place? No

Yes, 6a. If so, what types of communication activities do you engage in related to

the pilot project?

6b. What have been the most successful pilot-project related communication strategies you implemented? 6c. Are there any that were less successful?

7. Have you experienced any regulatory challenges and political challenges that make public

acceptance of potable reuse more difficult to achieve? Unsure/DK No Yes. 7a. What were they?

8. Did anyone emerge as a champion or key advocate for the project? Unsure/DK No Yes. 8a. Who was this champion(s), what was his or her position in the community?

8b. Was having this champion(s) helpful in terms of gaining project support? Yes No


Unsure/DK Comments:

9. Moving forward, what do you see as the most significant public acceptance challenge as more communities consider new water sources like potable reuse?

10. What do you think are some of the greatest challenges to educating the public, elected officials and media about the benefits of new water sources such as potable reuse?

11. What specific recommendations would you offer utilities, water districts or advocates seeking support for potable reuse projects?


Appendix B

State Legislators In-Depth Interviews

RESPONDENT LIST & DISCUSSION GUIDE

RESPONDENT Northern California NAME DISTRICT* TITLE/POSITION Jerry Hill 13 S Senator Joanne Roy 13 S Legislative Aide Bethany Westfall 17 S Legislative Director

Matt Martinez 9 A Staff member Marc Levine 10 A Assembly Member Ryan Ojakian 10 A Legislative Director Susan Eggman 13 A Assembly Member Dave Stammerjohan 13 A Chief of Staff Dr. Bill Quirk 20 A Assembly Member Ryan Pierini 20 A Legislative Aide Richard Gordon 24 A Assembly Member Mark Stone 29 A Assembly Member Craig Scholer 29 A Legislative Aide Luis Alejos 30 A Assembly Member Bob Frendeburg 30 A Chief Consultant Jesse Cuevas 31 A Legislative Consultant and Water Consultant Southern California Holly Mitchell 26 S Senator Elyse Gyor 26 S Legislative Director & Water Consultant Lawrence Cooper 33 S Legislative Consultant Jesse Gipe 36 S District Representative Ben Hueso 40 S Senator Aracely Campa 40 S Legislative Director

Ken Cooley 8 A Assembly Member Amanda Kirchner 8 A Legislative Director Sue Frost 8 A Vice Mayor City Heights Katerina Robinson 43 A Legislative Aide Guy Strahl 50 A Legislative Director Alf Brandt 63 A Legislative Director Toni Atkins 78 A Assembly Member Deanna Spehn 78 A Policy Director Kimberly Craig 78 A Staff Lorena Gonzalez 80 A Assembly Member Howard Quan 80 A Legislative Aide Statewide Dennis O’Conner Principal Consultant Senate Committee Natural Resources

& Water *S=Senate District A=Assembly District


Discussion Guide Regarding Potable Reuse – Legislators Version

April/May 2014

Name: Interviewer:

District/Position: Date:

1. Have you read or heard anything about recycled water issues in your District? In the State?

No Yes. What have you read and/or heard?

2. How familiar are you with recycled water?

Not at all Only a little A moderate amount A great deal Don’t know

3. Are you familiar with the terms Indirect Potable Reuse, Direct Potable Reuse or Potable Reuse? (Define terms after asking for familiarity.)

Yes No Unsure/DK

3A. Is your community (district or members of the public) supportive of potable reuse?

3B. Are any utilities or cities in your district planning a potable reuse project?

Yes No Unsure/DK


4. What do you think about potable reuse and potable reuse projects? Do you support potable reuse projects? What would you want to know that would be useful in your decision-making process about this issue? (Probe for types of studies they might want to see, information that should be available, even format of information…)

5. Are you familiar with technology such as high pressure membrane filtration or reverse osmosis?

Yes No Unsure/DK

6. Are you aware that since 1962 Potable Reuse has been used in various locations and more recently in Orange County (operating since 2008), San Diego demonstration plant since 2011, and Silicon Valley AWP Center due to open in June 2014?

No Yes Unsure/DK

7. Have you or an agency in your district already conducted a survey about potable reuse? (If so, where and what were the results?)

8. What do you see as the most significant public acceptance challenge as more communities consider new water sources like potable reuse?


9. What do you think are some of the greatest challenges to educating elected officials about the benefits of new water sources such as potable reuse? (Regulatory challenges?)

10. What specific recommendations would you offer utilities, water districts or advocates seeking support for potable reuse projects?

11. Now, after having this conversation, do you have any new questions or concerns about potable reuse?

12. The WateReuse Association wants to keep legislators, agencies and health officials informed about Potable Reuse. How would you like to receive information about this issue?

Web E-mail Phone Mail Newspaper TV Radio Other


Appendix C

Health Professionals In-Depth Interviews

RESPONDENT LIST & DISCUSSION GUIDE

Discussion Guide Regarding Potable Reuse - Health Professionals Version April-June 2014

Name: __________________________________________ Interviewer: _________________ Organization: _________________________________________ Date: __________________ 1. Have you reviewed recycled water proposals?


RESPONDENT TITLE ORGANIZATION James Crook Ph.D., P.E.

Environmental Engineering Consultant

Dr. Richard Gersberg

Professor/Division Head

Environmental Health, Graduate School of Public Health at San Diego State University

Gary Rotto

Director of Health Policy

Council of Community Health Clinics, San Diego County

Leah Walker

Environmental Services Manager Formerly Technical Specialist, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management

City of Petaluma, CA California Department of Public Health


2. Are you familiar with the terms: In-Direct and /or Direct Potable Reuse? (Interviewer will explain and refer to this as potable reuse throughout the rest of the interview).

Yes No Unsure/DK

3. Do you have knowledge/experience with reverse osmosis?

Yes No Unsure/DK

4. What do you think about the use of highly purified recycled water or potable reuse?

Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Comments:

5. Have you read or reviewed reports on highly purified recycled water or potable reuse?

Yes No Unsure/DK If yes, any stand out? ___________________________________

6. Are you aware that direct potable reuse is currently used in Big Spring, Texas and

Windhoek, Namibia and is being considered for use in other states in the U.S.? Unsure/DK No Yes

7. Significant evaluation, and possibly research, will be required before criteria can be written

for DPR. What issues or unknowns need to be resolved before you would have the information you need to permit DPR?

8. The Drinking Water Program is convening an expert panel to investigate the feasibility of developing criteria for direct potable reuse. Are you confident that this panel will help resolve concerns you and your fellow regulators may have with direct potable reuse? (The Expert Advisory Panel is required by SB 322 and to investigate and is to report to the Legislature on the

feasibility of developing uniform water recycling criteria for direct potable reuse). Yes No


Unsure/DK Comments:

9. CDPH has approved impaired sources in the past. Do you see direct potable reuse as similar or distinctly different? If different, why? Similar Distinctly different Comments:

10. According to Governor Brown, investigating the feasibility of criteria for direct potable reuse

is past due. Do you think public water systems in your area need the option to use direct potable reuse?

Yes No Unsure/DK Comments:

11. Are you familiar with the research effort underway by the WateReuse Foundation to address knowledge gaps regarding direct potable reuse?

Yes No Unsure/DK

12. Would you be willing to support potable reuse if it meets CDPH criteria? Unsure/DK Yes No. Why?

13. The WateReuse Association wants to keep health officials informed about potable reuse. How would you like to receive information about this issue?

Web E-mail* Phone* Mail* Fax Newspaper TV Radio Other_______________________________


Appendix D

Special Interests In-Depth Interviews

RESPONDENT LIST & DISCUSSION GUIDE RESPONDENT TITLE ORGANIZATION Brenda Adelman Chair Russian River Watershed Protection Committee Gary Brown Executive Director & CEO Orange County Coastkeeper Julian Canete Policy Director CalAsian Chamber of Commerce Julia Chunn-Heer Policy Manager Surfrider Foundation (San Diego County) Don McEnhill Executive Director Russian Riverkeeper Tom Yarish Member Sonoma County Water Coalition Maria Ramira President San Diego Fil-Am Nurse Association Frank Lopez Public Policy Director Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Discussion Guide Regarding Potable Reuse - Special Interest Version April/May 2014

Name: ________________________________________ Interviewer: _______________ Organization: ______________________________________ Date: _________________

1. Have you read or heard anything about recycled water issues in your area? In the State?

No Yes. What have you read and/or heard?

2. How familiar are you with recycled water?


3. Are you familiar with the terms Indirect Potable Reuse, Direct Potable Reuse or Potable Reuse?


(Interviewer will explain and will refer to this as Potable Reuse throughout the rest of the interview).

Yes No Unsure/DK

4. How concerned are you about the use of highly purified recycled water for potable reuse?

Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Why ____

5. What do you think about potable reuse and potable reuse projects?

6. Are you familiar with the technology high pressure membrane filtration such reverse osmosis?

Yes No Unsure/DK

7. Are you aware that since 1962 potable reuse has been taking place in various locations and more recently in Orange County (operating since 2008), San Diego demonstration plant since 2011, and Silicon Valley AWP Center due to open in June 2014?

No Yes Unsure/DK

8. Are any utilities or cities in your area currently planning a potable reuse project?

Unsure/DK Yes No

9. Do you support potable reuse projects? What would you want to know that would be useful

in your decision making about this issue? (Probe for types of studies they might want to see, information that should be available, even format of information…)


10. Moving forward, what do you see as the most significant public acceptance challenge as

more communities consider new water sources like potable reuse?

11. What specific recommendations would you offer utilities, water districts or advocates

seeking support for potable reuse projects from the community?

12. Have you surveyed your organization and /or community regarding recycled water or water supply related issues?

Unsure/DK Yes

Can you comment on any findings? No. Why?

13. Do you think your organization would be willing to support potable reuse?

Yes No. Why? Unsure/DK

14. Now, after having this conversation, do you have any new questions or concerns about

potable reuse? No Yes. What are they?

15. The WateReuse Association wants to keep those interested informed about potable reuse.

How would you prefer to receive information about this issue?

Web Facebook Twitter E-mail Phone Mail Newspaper TV Radio Other ________

Appendix E Key Findings from Opinion Research by FM3

Appendix Page 191

1

Focus Group Methodology

• Four two-hour moderated discussions with City of SanDiego and Santa Clara County residents

• Held April 28 and 29, 2014• One group of men and one group of women in each

location• Otherwise designed to reflect the demographic

diversity of the local population, with a mix of ages,ethnicities, partisan affiliations, and socioeconomicstatuses

• Those with detailed knowledge of recycled water, orwho work in related occupations, were screened outfrom participation


2

Telephone Survey Methodology

• Telephone survey of 1,200 randomly-selected voters:– 600 in the City of San Diego

– 600 in the Santa Clara Valley Water District

• Interviews were conducted via landline and cell phones• Survey conducted June 4-11, 2014• Interviews in English and Spanish• The margin of sampling error is +/-2.8% at the 95%

confidence level– Margins of error for population subgroups will be higher

– Some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding

• Selected comparisons to statewide June 2014 surveyconducted for the California Water Foundation

3

Outline of Presentation

I. Context for Attitudes on WaterIssues

II. Perceptions of Recycled WaterIII. Initial Attitudes Toward Potable

ReuseIV. Identifying PersuadablesV. Impact of MessagingVI. Conclusions


4

5

Ext./Very Ser. Prob.

78%

53%

49%

47%

44%

40%

26%

Q2. ^Not Part of Split Sample.

37%

20%

20%

15%

19%

15%

10%

41%

33%

29%

32%

25%

25%

16%

14%

26%

28%

31%

27%

29%

22%

6%

14%

15%

18%

21%

24%

48%

7%

7%

8%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

^The statewide drought

^The adequacy of local water suppliesto meet future demands

Waste and inefficiency in localgovernment

Jobs and the local economy

The quality of public education in localschools

The amount people pay in local taxes

^Drinking water quality

Ext. Ser. Prob. Very Ser. Prob. Smwt. Ser. Prob. Not Too Ser. Prob. DK/NA

I'd like to read you some problems facing your area that other people have mentioned. Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious

problem, somewhat serious problem, or not too serious a problem in your area.

Concern about the drought in target communities runs very high.


6

35%

35%

29%

21%

16%

19%

17%

50%

47%

40%

45%

36%

28%

29%

15%

17%

27%

32%

44%

50%

52%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Current drought conditions in California

Water shortages due to more frequent droughts

Government waste and inefficiency

Jobs and the economy

^Water pollution

Climate change

The amount you pay in taxes

Ext. Ser. Very Ser. Smwt./Not Too Ser. DK/NA

The drought and water shortages remain major concerns for voters across the state.

Data from June 2013 FM3 Statewide Survey

Ext./Very Ser. Prob.

85%

82%

70%

66%

52%

47%

45%

I'd like to read you some problems facing California that people have mentioned. Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, a

somewhat serious problem, or not too serious a problem in California.

7

73%

34%

27%

35%

40%

34%

39%

41%

36%

20%

32%

36%

36%

37%

32%

33%

32%

25%

17%

23%

17%

15%

19%

13%

12%

20%

10%

9%

7%

10%

8%

12%

11%

6%

5%

5%

5%

5%

7%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

May 2014

July 2013

May 2010

November 2009

August 2009

March 2009

June/July 2008

October 2007

August 2002

Strng. Agr. Smwt. Agr. Smwt. Disagr. Strng. Disagr. DK/NA Total Agree

Total Disagr.

93% 6%

66% 28%

63% 32%

71% 24%

77% 18%

66% 29%

72% 21%

73% 24%

61% 31%

The consensus that California is in a severe drought is greater than at any time in the past decade.

“California is currently in the middle of a severe drought.”



8

48%

43%

7%

1%

1%

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

A serious crisis

A significant problem,but not a crisis

A minor problem

Not really aproblem at all

All/None/DK/NA

Total Crisis/Significant Problem

91%

Which of the following would you say best describes the current shortage of water supplies in California:

In fact, a plurality of voters statewide now sees water supply issues as a “serious crisis”…

Demographic Group

% Crisis

% of Electorate

All Voters 48% 100%Very Liberal 63% 13%

Small Media Market 62% 14%Liberal Democrats 58% 22%

Liberals 57% 29%HH Income

Under $30,000 57% 14%

Central Valley 57% 13%Environmental

Volunteer 57% 12%

EnvironmentallyEngaged 56% 26%

Very FarmDependent 56% 24%

Women Ages 18-49 56% 19%Independents

Ages18-49 56% 13%

Ages 30-39 56% 12%Ages 75+ 55% 11%


9

Which of the following would you say best describes the current shortage of water supplies in California:

…which is a sizable increase from the last few years.

48%

19%

26%

29%

43%

48%

55%

53%

7%

23%

13%

14%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2014

2011

2010

2009

A serious crisis A significant problem, but not a crisis A minor problem Not really a problem at all All/None/DK/NA

A Serious Crisis/

Significant Problem

91%

67%

81%

82%



10

30%

34%

15%

17%

4%

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

31%

32%

16%

16%

4%

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

DK/NA

Total Agree63%

Total Disagree

33%

Because of climate change, California should expect to be in a

drought for the foreseeable future –it’s the “new normal,”

California should expect to be in a drought for the foreseeable future – it’s the “new normal.”

Voters recognize the existence of a “new normal,” with or without climate change.

Total Disagree

32%

Total Agree64%


11

14%

20%

11%

8%

37%

9%0% 20% 40% 60%

Very favorable

Somewhat favorable

Somewhat unfavorable

Very unfavorable

Neutral

Don't know/NA

Total Favorable

34%

Q1.

San Diego SCVWD

Voters have generally positive attitudestoward their water agency…

Total Unfavorable

20%

Total Neutral/DK/NA

46%

18%

27%

4%

2%

42%

7%0% 20% 40% 60%

Total Favorable

45%

Total Unfavorable

6%

Total Neutral/DK/NA

49%

Would you say that you have a generally favorable, neutral,or unfavorable opinion of your local water agency?


12

Total Sat.

Total Dissat.

88% 11%

71% 25%

56% 11%

54% 34%

Q3.

48%

35%

21%

15%

39%

37%

34%

39%

6%

13%

7%

19%

12%

15%

34%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Providing a dependable, reliablewater supply

Providing high quality tap water

Responding to customer questionsor concerns

Charging reasonable rates

Very Sat. Smwt Sat. Smwt. Dissat. Very Dissat. Don't Know

I am going to read you several different aspects of the service provided by your local water agency. Please indicate whether you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat

dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with that aspect of your water agency’s service.

…particularly with the agencies’ performance delivering high quality tap water, charging reasonable rates and

providing a dependable water supply.

13Q4.

Unfiltered water straight from the tap

21%

45%

Bottled water31%

Other/DK/NA

3%

Thinking about the water that you drink at home, do you most often drink?

Most voters do not drink waterstraight from the tap.

Tap water that is filtered in your home, either at the sink, through the

refrigerator, or through a pitcher

Total Not Tap Water

76%


14

Unfiltered Tap Water Filtered Tap Water Bottled Water21% of the Electorate 45% of the Electorate 31% of the Electorate

Republicans Ages 50+ Asians/Pacific Islanders Interviewed in Spanish Ages 75+ HH Income $100,000+ African-Americans Ages 65+ Ages 30-39 Latinos

Ages 65-74 Republicans Ages 18-49 High School Educated Use All/Mostly Landline College-Educated Men Income Under $50,000

Whites Post-Graduate Educated Non-College Educated Women Post-Graduate Educated Four-year College or More Some College or Less

Republican Men Homeowners Non-College Educated Men Ages 50+ Four-year College Graduates Voters of Color

Women Ages 50+ College-Educated Women Some College Education Men Ages 50+ Have Children at Home Renters

Four-year College or More Santa Clara San DiegoSanta Clara Republicans Democrats Ages 18-49

College-Educated Women Democrats Ages 18-49 Ages 18-29 Republicans Democratic Men Interviewed on Cell Phone

Water Preferences by Demographic Group

15

Major/Minor

Reason

71%

70%

50%

Q5. Asked only of those who do not drink straight tap water (76% of Sample)

46%

45%

30%

25%

25%

20%

29%

29%

49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Safety or health concerns abouttap water

Poor taste or smell of tap water

It's more convenient to drinkfiltered or bottled water

Major Reason Minor Reason Not a Reason DK/NA

I am going to read some reasons other people have given for not usually drinking water directly from the tap. Please indicate whether each item is a major reason why

you don’t drink unfiltered tap water, a minor reason, or not a reason.

Of those who do not drink tap water, safety and taste are the most significant

reasons they avoid it.


16

SUNNYVALE MALE: I remember when I was young, the doctor was surprised

because I actually had kidney stones and I was only like 21. They told me not to drink

tap water because of the calcium and all the minerals, so that’s why I’ve chosen bottled

water ever since.

SUNNYVALE FEMALE: I can’t describe it. It’s kind of like an earthy, kind of almost metallic kind of taste. I don’t know if it’s just because I started

drinking the filtered and bottled water that it tastes worse. I used to be able to kind of

crossover and now I just can’t.

SUNNYVALE FEMALE: The other thing is when they put chloramine in

the water. The fact that it could dissolve a goldfish overnight really

concerned me. That really bothered me that I would be giving this to my

family.

SAN DIEGO FEMALE: I’m concerned about carcinogens,

because I don’t know what’s in there and I don’t know [what will happen] in decades from now... like you say you’ve been drinking it since you

were a little girl.

SAN DIEGO MALE: This water quality is maybe potable, but that doesn’t mean it is reallygreat for you. It doesn’t mean that it will kill you right away, but there may be long-termcasualties involved. Some of these dissolved minerals. It does have dissolved minerals inthere. No one is going to really be able to say this water is dangerous because it might take20 years or 30 years to really have an effect on you.

Focus Group Comments on Tap Water

17

Total Agree

Total Disagree

81% 16%

73% 21%

70% 20%

67% 28%

Q6. Asked only of those who drink bottled water (31% of Sample)

51%

44%

35%

40%

31%

29%

34%

27%

10%

14%

13%

16%

6%

6%

7%

12%

6%

10%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Bottled water is sealed andprotected

The bottled water source is saferthan my tap water

Bottled water is tested beforebeing bottled

Bottled water must meet stricterquality standards than tap water

Strg. Agree Swmt. Agree. Smwt. Disagr. Strg. Disagr. DK/NA

I am going to read you a list of reasons why people think bottledwater is safer than their tap water. Please tell me whether you

agree or disagree with the following statements.

Bottled water drinkers have a number of misperceptions of its quality.


18

19

26%

46%

13%

14%

0%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Very familiar

Somewhat familiar

Not too familiar

Not at all familiar

Don't know/NA

Total Familiar

73%

Total Not Familiar

27%

Are you familiar with the concept of recycled water?

Q7.

Most voters are at least somewhat familiar with recycled water.


20

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65-74 75+ 18-49 50+ 65+

Total Familiar Total Unfamiliar Don't Know/NA

(% of Sample) (16%) (18%) (21%)(11%) (50%)

7. Are you familiar with the concept of recycled water?

Recycled Water Familiarity by Age

Familiarity also increases with age, though modestly.

(16%) (50%)(29%) (10%)

21

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

High SchoolEducated

SomeCollege

Education

Four-yearCollege

Graduates

Post-GraduateEducated

SomeCollege or

Less

Four-yearCollege or

More


(% of Sample) (15%) (23%) (61%)


Recycled Water Familiarity by Education

There is a very strong correlation with education; familiarity rises with educational

attainment.

(35%) (38%)(26%)


22

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$0-$50,000 $50,000-$100,000 $100,000+


(% of Sample) (24%)

Recycled Water Familiarity by Household Income

(30%)


(31%)

Similarly, there is an income correlation with higher-income voters more aware.

23

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Homeowners Renters


(% of Sample) (60%)

Recycled Water Familiarity by Residence

(35%)


Homeowners have greater familiarity than do renters.


24

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Men Women


(% of Sample) (48%)

Recycled Water Familiarity by Gender

(53%)


Men indicate greater familiarity than do women.

25

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Latinos African-Americans

Asians/Pacific

Islanders

Whites Voters of Color


(% of Sample) (16%) (6%) (39%)(56%)


Recycled Water Familiarity by Ethnicity

Generally speaking, Latinos had the lowest level of familiarity with recycled water…

(12%)


26

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

English Spanish


(% of Sample) (93%)

Recycled Water Familiarity by Language of Interview

(8%)


…and respondents interviewed in Spanish had drastically lower levels of awareness.

27

SAN DIEGO MALE: I think a lot of people think it is not clean. I think that is

false. There are treatment plants that process that type of water and they go

as far as recycled water, they were transforming it from human waste, liquid

waste, to drinkable water. I saw the process where it goes through

something called reverse osmosis where even viruses and bacteria are

removed and it is so pure that it would be corroding to your system.

SUNNYVALE FEMALE: I don’t think I would drink it. I’d use it for my laundry though. I’d use

it for my laundry or dishwashing, but I don’t think I would drink it.

SUNNYVALE MALE: The water has gone through some kind of a

chemical treatment before it reaches us, so the awareness that it’s not the purest is what

comes to my mind.

SUNNYVALE MALE: I have a vision of water that’s kind of like gray with soapy bubbles on top.

SUNNYVALE MALE: I feel it’s a good practice

because it is being used in other countries as well.

Focus Group Comments on Recycled Water


28

Non

-pot

able

use

s (2

)Gardening (5)Lawns (5) Landscaping (4)Not for drinking (3)Wash laundry (3)Car wash (3)Agriculture (3)Flushing (2)Large scale projectsBig trucksFor showers onlyCisternsLimitedIrrigationPoolPressure washingSink to lawnGood for plantsDon’t mix with

fresh supplySprinklersGolf coursesShopping centersIndustrial use

Saf

ety

Dirty (10)Un-potable (6)Unsafe (6) Drainage/

wastewater (4) Grey water (4)Unhealthy (3) Toilet waste (3) Leftover

particles/ sediment (3)

Sewer (2)Not pure (2)Diseased (2) Soapy (2)GrossChildren at riskToxicWill not drink itSomewhat cleanUsedGrimySomeone else’s

germsUnsanitary

Oth

er C

once

rns

Funny taste (6)QualitySmellGround

contaminationCautionUnknown contentUnnaturalBathing with two

peopleUnpleasant PointlessBrown grass/dead

treesQuestionableWeak/poor will

sufferTaking away from

environmentOil

Con

serv

atio

n (7

)

Necessary (7) Sustainable (5)Future (4) Better for

environment (4)Recycle (4)/Reuse (3)Drought (4) Responsible (4)Helpful (3) Cost-effective (3)Less waste (2)Our children (2)Useful (2) Smart (2)Increased water

supplies (2)Increase jobs (2) Reduce fresh water

use (2)Reclaimed (2)Good practiceIntelligent use of

resourcesMore waterNo new waterClimate changeCleanSafe Improves water

quality

Pro

cess

Expensive/cost (9) Source (5)Technology (4)Educate people (4)Filtered (3)Processed (2)Research (2)What chemicals?How long?StorageAvailableReservoirs/lakesRevenue sourcePossibleTesting TreatmentAllay fearsMechanical systemsPlumbingSome already do thisMust be done wiselyShort/long term goalsPre-usedFor profit/greedFinesConfusingMisunderstoodBiofilters

Focus Group “Mind Map” for Recycled Water(Combined Results from All Groups; #’s Indicate Frequency With Which Terms Chosen)

29

47%

31%

7%

8%

7%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Don't know/NA

Total Support

78%

Total Oppose

15%

Do you support or oppose recycling water for local reuse on a community-wide scale?

Q8. Asked only of the 73% familiar with recycled water

Among those familiar with recycled water, most support its use.


30

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Asians/Pacific

Islanders


Total Support Total Oppose Don't Know/NA

(% of Sample) (15%) (5%) (37%)(58%)

8. Do you support or oppose recycling water for local reuse on a community wide scale?

Recycled Water Support by Ethnicity

Even among those familiar with recycled water, communities of color are less supportive.

(12%)

31

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65-74 75+ 18-49 50+ 65+


(% of Sample) (14%) (19%) (22%)(12%) (48%)

8. Do you support or oppose recycling water for local reuse on a community wide scale?

Recycled Water Support by Age

While younger voters are less familiar with recycled water, those familiar are more supportive.

(16%) (51%)(29%) (10%)


32

81%

76%

75%

69%

68%

68%

16%

21%

21%

25%

27%

26%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Using water more efficiently for farming and agricultural purposes

Conserving more water

Capturing rainwater for local use

Cleaning up contaminated groundwater

Increasing sustainable, local water supplies

Expanding the use of recycled water

Strng. Supp. Smwt. Supp. Smwt./Strng. Opp. DK/NA

I’m going to read several different approaches to addressing California’s water supply issues. Please tell me whether you generally support or oppose each approach.

Voters statewide rank expanded use of recycled water among their highest priorities.

Total Supp.

97%

97%

96%

94%

95%

94%


33

Total Acc.

Total Unacc.

93% 4%

90% 5%

86% 5%

64% 26%

34% 54%

Q9. Asked only of the 73% familiar with recycled water

77%

72%

66%

34%

12%

15%

18%

20%

31%

22%

7%

8%

10%

12%

14%

15%

40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Gardening and landscaping

Irrigation

Industrial uses

Household uses, such as laundry,showers, and dishwashers

Drinking water

Comp. Acc. Smwt. Acc. Neutral Smwt. Unacc. Comp. Unacc. DK/NA

I am going to read you a list of potential uses for recycled water. Please indicate whether you consider each item to be a completely acceptable, somewhat acceptable,

somewhat unacceptable, or completely unacceptable use for recycled water.

Locally, voters approve of all potential uses ofrecycled water… except drinking.


34Q10.

Yes62%

No23%

Don't know/NA

14%

Do you believe that it is possible to further treat recycled water usedfor irrigation to make the water pure and safe for drinking?

Voters are confident that it is possibleto treat recycled water to

drinking water quality standards….

35

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Think it is Possible to RecycleWater for Drinking

Do Not Think it is Possible Don't Know/NA

Total Acceptable Total Unacceptable Neutral/DK/NA

(% of Sample) (65%)

Acceptability of Recycled Water for Drinking by Belief in its Feasibility

(22%)

9e. I am going to read you a list of potential uses for recycled water. Please indicate whether you consider each item to be a completely acceptable, somewhat acceptable, somewhat unacceptable, or completely unacceptable use for recycled water. Drinking Water

(13%)

. . . but even those who believe that do not necessarily accept the idea of potable reuse.


36

3711. Would you support or oppose indirect reuse of recycled water in your community?

One approach is indirect reuse of recycledwater for drinking. Indirect reuse of recycledwater involves taking wastewater that comesfrom the sewer system; treating and purifyingit to high standards; and then adding it backto groundwater, reservoirs, or rivers, lakesand streams. From there, it is treated again,as all water supplies are, before being sent tohomes and businesses for all purposes –including drinking.

One approach is indirect reuse of recycledwater for drinking. Indirect reuse of recycledwater involves taking wastewater that comesfrom the sewer system; treating and purifyingit to high standards; and then adding it backto groundwater, reservoirs, or rivers, lakesand streams. From there, it is treated again,as all water supplies are, before being sent tohomes and businesses for all purposes –including drinking.

Description of IPR Provided


38

34%

28%

13%

18%

7%0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Don't know/NA

Total Support

62%

Total Oppose

31%

Would you support or oppose indirect reuse ofrecycled water in your community?

Q11.

A majority of voters support indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking.

39

36%

18%

17%

16%

8%

7%

5%

5%

3%

2%

2%0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Water shortage/Drought/Limited clean water supply

It’s a good use of resources/Reduces waste

Recycled water is/will/must be safe to drink

Trust filtering system/Process to clean the water/Filtered to high standards

There are multiple cleansings/Including nature’s cleansing

It’s necessaryRecycled water is already used for

drinkingDon’t see a reason to oppose/Seems

logicalNature/Rain filters/treats water the same

wayWill save money/Inexpensive

Favor idea of reusing/recycling water

Why would you SUPPORT indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community?

Q12a. Open end; Responses grouped; Asked of indirect potable reuse supporters only

This support is motivated by a general desire to conserve and not waste water.


4012a. Why would you SUPPORT indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community? Open end; Responses grouped; Asked of indirect potable reuse supporters only

Because I feel safer with it being cleaned twice than only once, because it would have less contaminants.

I would support indirect use of recycled water because it would be potentiallycleaner than what’s going in there now.

Verbatim Comments from Indirect Potable Reuse Supporters

I think the contamination issues would be lessened with indirect reuse.

I’m pretty sure it’s done in other parts of the world, so I’m confident that it’s okay.

I would support indirect use of recycled water because it seems like a good solution to the drought problems.

I would support it because the natural system of recycling water

is reliable and natural.

I would support it because it is filtered twice and diluted in a larger source.

I feel like it goes through nature’s filter, through the groundwater.

41

36%29%

11%10%

9%7%

4%4%

3%2%2%

1%0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Why would you OPPOSE indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community?

Q12b. Open end; Responses grouped; Asked of indirect potable reuse opponents only

Opponents are largely concerned about potential health impacts of some kind.

Don’t trust/Unfamiliar with filtering/Quality standardsUnsafe/Unclean/Health concerns

Just don’t want to drink it/Personally reuse

Don’t want to drink sewer waterNo process is 100% effective/Some pathogens/

toxins can never be removed (includes medications)Don’t know enough about it

Chemicals are used in treatment of waterPossible contamination of natural water sources/

groundwater/rivers“Human factor”; potential for human error/negligence in

water treatmentMistrust of government

Lack of available test/study/research results

Will taste bad


42

Verbatim Comments fromIndirect Potable Reuse Opponents

12b. Why would you OPPOSE indirect reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community? Open end; Responses grouped; Asked of indirect potable reuse opponents only

I think if it is landscaping water this won’t be good because of all the

minerals that are toxic in the water.

Even though it is treated, it can never be

100% treated for germs. It can only be 99 percent free of all

viruses.

Because it is not safe and it is very, very dirty. It has

chlorine, pee, and other garbage in

the water.

I’m not clear what their “high standards” are, and it makes me nervous.

I feel the safeguards aren’t there. It would be done by the government, andwouldn’t be done very well.

Honestly, as soon as you said “sewer water” I was opposed. I don’t know. I just don’t want to drink sewer water.

4313. Would you support or oppose the direct reuse of recycled water in your community?

One approach is direct reuse of recycledwater for drinking. Direct reuse of recycledwater involves taking wastewater that comesfrom the sewer system; treating and purifyingit to high standards; and then sending itdirectly to homes and businesses for allpurposes – including drinking.

One approach is direct reuse of recycledwater for drinking. Direct reuse of recycledwater involves taking wastewater that comesfrom the sewer system; treating and purifyingit to high standards; and then sending itdirectly to homes and businesses for allpurposes – including drinking.

Description of DPR Provided


44

16%

24%

17%

36%

7%0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Don't know/NA

Total Support

40%

Total Oppose

54%

Would you support or oppose the direct reuseof recycled water in your community?

Q13.

Initially, most voters opposedirect potable reuse.

45

19%

24%

17%

35%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Don't know/NA

Total Support

43%

13 by Split. Would you support or oppose the direct reuse of recycled water in your community?

DPR Introduced First DPR Introduced After IPR

This is particularly true when the idea of DPR is introduced AFTER voters have heard about IPR.

Total Oppose

51%

13%

24%

18%

38%

7%0% 20% 40% 60%

Total Support

37%

Total Oppose

56%


46

0%

20%

40%

60%

Men Women


(% of Sample) (48%)

Initial DPR Support by Gender

(53%)

Women express a higher degree of discomfort with DPR than do men.

13 Total. Would you support or oppose the direct reuse of recycled water in your community?

47

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65-74 75+ 18-49 50+ 65+


(% of Sample) (16%) (18%) (21%)(11%) (50%)


Initial DPR Support by Age

The youngest voters are comfortable with DPR, but support declines with age.

(16%) (50%)(29%) (10%)


48

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

18-49 50+ 18-49 50+


(% of Sample) (24%) (23%) (27%)(25%)


Initial DPR Support by Gender by Age

Combining these variables, women over 50 stand out as key opponents.

WomenMen

49

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Democrats Independents Republicans


(% of Sample) (44%)

Initial DPR Support by Party

(32%)


(25%)

GOP voters also have significant initial reservations.


50

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Men Women Men Women Men Women


(% of Sample) (19%) (13%)(15%)


Initial DPR Support by Party by Gender

Among both Democrats and independents, women are more opposed than men.

RepublicansDemocrats

(25%) (17%) (12%)

Independents

51

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

18-49 50+ 18-49 50+ 18-49 50+


(% of Sample) (21%) (15%)(12%)


Initial DPR Support by Party by Age

A similar pattern emerges when Democrats and independents are divided by age.

RepublicansDemocrats

(23%) (19%) (10%)

Independents


52

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Asians/Pacific Islanders



(% of Sample) (16%) (6%) (39%)(56%)


Initial DPR Support by Ethnicity

Though a small sub-sample, African Americans have more reservations than others.

(12%)

53

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

High SchoolEducated

SomeCollege

Education

Four-yearCollege

Graduates

Post-GraduateEducated

SomeCollege or

Less

Four-yearCollege or

More


(% of Sample) (15%) (23%) (61%)


Initial DPR Support by Education

Though support for DPR increases with education, even highly-educated voters are opposed…

(35%) (38%)(26%)


54

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Men Women Men Women


(% of Sample) (19%) (19%) (33%)(28%)


Initial DPR Support by Education by Gender

…and the impact of education seems to be primarily among men.

College-Educated Non-College Educated

55

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Total Favorable Total Unfavorable Neutral/DK/NA


(% of Sample) (40%)

Initial DPR Support by Water Agency Favorability

(13%)


(47%)

Those with positive attitudes toward their water agency are more accepting of DPR.


56

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Unfiltered Tap Water Filtered Tap Water Bottled Water Other/DK/NA


(% of Sample) (21%)

Initial DPR Support by Primary Source of Water at Home

(31%)


(3%)

Interestingly, those who actually drink unfiltered tap water are more accepting of DPR.

(45%)

57

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No DK/NA


(% of Sample) (63%)

Initial DPR Support by Belief in Recycled Water Safety

(23%)


(14%)

Even many of those who believe in the feasibility of recycling water for drinking

initially decline to support DPR.


58

0%

20%

40%

60%

Have Kids at Home No Kids at Home


(% of Sample) (28%)

Initial DPR Support by Children at Home

(70%)


Parents have more concerns about DPR than do those without children at home.

59

0%

20%

40%

60%

San Diego Santa Clara


(% of Sample) (50%)

Initial DPR Support by Community

(50%)


DPR support is somewhat more advanced in San Diego than it is in the SCVWD.


60

44%

26%

20%

7%

7%

6%

6%

2%

1%

1%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Drought/Lack of clean water supply

Conservation/Good use of resources/Better than wasting water

Trust water quality/filtering process/guidelines

Recycled water has been used previously here/other places

Makes economic sense; inexpensive/will lower water rates

There is no reason to oppose (no reason not to)/The right thing to do

It’s necessary

The technology exists to do so

Recycled water is safe/clean

It would be good to use for gardening/irrigation

Why would you SUPPORT direct reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community?

Q14a. Open end; Responses grouped; Asked of direct potable reuse supporters only

A desire for an expanded water supply is the primary motivation for DPR supporters.

6114a. Why would you SUPPORT direct reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community? Open end; Responses grouped; Asked of direct potable reuse supporters only

Because I think that the Water Authority would have guidelines on the water

quality and as long as the water met that guideline I would not have a problem.

The water is purer than what we are getting out of the reservoirs.

Because water is a very valuable resource, and we need to use

every last bit of it to supply water in the San Diego area.

It’s the right thing to do, the morally correct thing to do.

Because things are so far advanced that you can do anything with wastewater.I’ve lived on a boat, and we’ve made water out of salt water, and we recycledwaste water and used it to clean the boat.

Verbatim Comments from Direct Potable Reuse Supporters

Because you can purify it. It might sound gross, but definitely can be

cleaned properly for drinking.

If we have no choice, and it’s safe and good for the

environment, and keeps the water bills low, then I’m okay.


62

40%26%

19%10%

7%3%3%3%

2%2%

1%1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Why would you OPPOSE direct reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community?

Q14b. Open end; Responses grouped; Asked of direct potable reuse opponents only

Disbelief in the efficacy of the treatment system is the biggest obstacle.

Don’t trust filtering process/system

It would be unhealthy/unsafe to drink

Just don’t want to/feel comfortable drinking it

Don’t want to drink “sewer water”

Don’t know enough about it

Concerned of more chemicals in water (used to clean it)“Human factor”; potential for human error/negligence in

water treatmentNo process is 100% effective/Some pathogens/toxins

can never be removed (includes medications)Lack of available test/study/research results

Will taste bad

Too expensive

Don’t trust city officials to ensure water quality

6312b. Why would you OPPOSE direct reuse of recycled water for drinking in your community? Open end; Responses grouped; Asked of direct potable reuse opponents only

It’s a mental thing. The idea that it was once sewage…it’s a mental thing that

you have to get over.

I think there are educational barriers which will put people back to

drinking bottled water, which is bad for the environment.

I oppose direct reuse of recycled water. Chemicals

from industry can leave toxins in the water.

There is a chance of unintentional violations of the process that might

cause contamination.

I would only oppose it for drinking. I don’t think science has the right answersfor purifying it for drinking at this time.

Verbatim Comments fromDirect Potable Reuse Opponents

I just want to be sure that the water district filters it enough to drink. I don’t trust the

water district to do that correctly.

I would like to see other cities in the U.S. implement it first. At this time, I

don’t think it is 100% safe.


64

21%29%

25%24%24%24%24%24%24%24%24%

23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%23%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

All VotersRepublican Men

HH Income $50,000-$100,000Homeowners

WhitesAges 50-64

RepublicansMen Ages 50+

Republicans Ages 50+Independents Ages 50+

Republicans Ages 18-49Interviewed in English

Ages 50+Santa Clara valley WD

College Educated MenWomen Ages 50+

Democrats Ages 50+Ages 65+

Asians/Pacific IslandersAges 65-74

Ages 75+

There are only minor demographic differences in the degree to which voters support indirect reuse over direct reuse.

Support Indirect/Not Direct

(Support Indirect/Not Direct)

65

Total Agree

Total Disagree

72% 24%

66% 30%

52% 38%

49% 49%

Q16.

38%

34%

23%

25%

33%

32%

30%

25%

13%

16%

22%

22%

12%

15%

16%

27%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Recycled water may includecontaminants

Recycled water may fail to meetwater safety standards

Recycled water may taste bad

The concept of recycled water justmakes me uncomfortable

Strg. Agree Swmt. Agree. Smwt. Disagr. Strg. Disagr. DK/NA

I am going to read you a list of concerns some members of the public have expressed about direct reuse of recycled water for drinking. Please tell me

whether you personally agree or disagree with that concern.

Safety concerns drive reservations about direct potable reuse.


66

67Q13 Total/Q18/Q20.

40%

56% 59%54%

39% 36%

7% 5% 5%0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Initial SupportAfter SafetyInformation After Messages

Total Support

Total Oppose

Don’t Know/NA

Though they are initially opposed, voters quickly become more comfortable with direct potable

reuse after information about safety.Do you support or oppose direct reuse of recycled water in your

community for all household purposes, including drinking?


68

Intensity of support for DPR also goes up sharply with more information.

Q13 Total/Q18/Q20.

16%

25%30%36%

22%19%

0%

15%

30%

45%


Strongly Support

Strongly Oppose

Do you support or oppose direct reuse of recycled water in your community for all household purposes, including drinking?

69

San Diego voters become much more supportive of direct potable reuse

after hearing more about it…

Q13 Total/Q18/Q20. Do you support or oppose direct reuse of recycled water in your community for all household purposes, including drinking?

43%

58%62%

52%

38%34%

5% 4% 4%0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%


Total SupportTotal Oppose

Don’t Know/NA

(San Diego)


70Q13 Total/Q18/Q20. Do you support or oppose direct reuse of recycled water in your community for all household purposes, including drinking?

36%

54% 57%55%

39% 39%

8% 6% 5%0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%


Total Support

Total Oppose

Don’t Know/NA

(Santa Clara Valley Water District)

…and SCVWD voters also become more supportive, although somewhat more modestly.

71

Segmenting the Population by Consistency of Support for DPR

Consistent Support: Voters whoconsistently indicated they wouldsupport direct potable reuse of recycledwater.

Consistent Oppose: Voters whoconsistently indicated they wouldoppose direct potable reuse of recycledwater.

Swing: Voters who do not fall into anyof the other categories – remainingconsistently undecided or switchingpositions.

The following slide shows demographicgroups that disproportionately fall into onecategory or the other.

Consistent Support: Voters whoconsistently indicated they wouldsupport direct potable reuse of recycledwater.

Consistent Oppose: Voters whoconsistently indicated they wouldoppose direct potable reuse of recycledwater.

Swing: Voters who do not fall into anyof the other categories – remainingconsistently undecided or switchingpositions.

The following slide shows demographicgroups that disproportionately fall into onecategory or the other.

Consistent Support

38%

Consistent Oppose

32%

Swing 31%


72

Consistent Support Swing Consistent Oppose38% of the Electorate 31% of the Electorate 32% of the Electorate

Ages 18-29 Ages 75+ Interviewed in Spanish Independents Ages 18-49 Women Ages 50+ African-Americans

Independent Men Non-College Educated Women High School Educated College-Educated Men Whites Republicans

Men Ages 18-49 Santa Clara Republicans Ages 50+ Democrats Ages 18-49 Democratic Women Republican Women

Democratic Men Republican Women Republican Men Ages 18-49 Interviewed in English Republicans Ages 18-49

Use All/Mostly Cell Phone Women Women Ages 50+ Men Ages 50+ Latinos

Interviewed on Cell Phone College-Educated Women Voters of ColorRenters Ages 50-64 Use All/Mostly Landline

HH Income $50,000-$100,000 Have Children at Home Have Children at Home San Diego Post-Graduate Educated Ages 65+

Demographic Profiles of the Segments

73

Positive Movers Negative Movers21% of the Electorate 2% of the Electorate

Ages 75+ Interviewed in Spanish Whites Latinos

Some College Education Independent Women Democrats Ages 18-49 Asians/Pacific Islanders

Democrats Voters of Color Democratic Women Independents

Non-College Educated Women Have Children at Home Democratic Men Women Ages 18-49

Republicans Ages 50+ HH Income $0-$50,000Interviewed in English Non-College Educated Women Some College or Less Independents Ages 50+

Renters Interviewed in EnglishUse All/Mostly Landline Have Adult Children

Post-Graduate Educated Four-year College or MoreDemocrats Ages 50+ Homeowners

Key Subsets of Swing Voters Who Move to Support or Oppose DPR


74

75

Focus group participants preferred “purified water” or “certified water” as descriptors.

DPR Names Sunnyvale San Diego Total Purified Water 13 14 27Certified Water 10 12 22Advanced Treated Water 6 5 11Renewed Water 3 4 7Recycled Drinking Water 3 3 6Refreshed Water 4 1 5New Water 1 2 3Supplemented Natural Water 2 1 3Cyclical Water 0 1 1Blended Drinking Water 1 0 1Reused Potable Water 0 1 1Reclaimed Water 0 1 1Reused Water 1 0 1Renovated Water 0 1 1Rescued Water 0 0 0

(Participants Allowed to Select Up to Three From List)


76

Among “purified water” names, “advanced purified water” was best.

“Purified Water” Names Sunnyvale San Diego Total

Advanced Purified Water 8 10 18

Purified Water 7 6 13

Purified Recycled Water 0 3 3

Purified Wastewater 0 1 1

(Participants Allowed to Select One From List)

SUNNYVALE FEMALE: “Advanced” means they took that extra step. It’s not just purified water, it’s

advanced which sounds better to me.

SUNNYVALE FEMALE: It’s advanced in what way? Like you

put ten different chemicals in there and that’s why it’s advanced?

77

28%

34%

11%

14%

12%0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Strongly favor

Somewhat favor

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Don't know/NA

Total Favor62%

Total Oppose

26%

How would you feel about using advanced treated recycled water as anaddition to the supply of drinking water, that is water treated with

ultra-filtration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation?

Q15.

Even a basic description of the process involved in direct potable reuse inspires more confidence.


78

Total More Conf.

62%

63%

60%

64%

60%

53%

Q17. Split Sample

30%

29%

27%

24%

23%

21%

32%

34%

33%

41%

37%

32%

33%

35%

39%

35%

38%

40%

5%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Much More Conf. Smwt. More Conf. No Diff. DK/NA

I am going to read you a list of facts about direct reuse of recycled water. Pleaseindicate if it makes you much more confident, somewhat more confident, or it makes no

difference to your confidence that direct reuse of recycled water is safe.

Solid majorities say a variety of additional information gives them more confidence in DPR.

The purification process produces water that is purer than bottled water

Drinking water could be tested constantly, in real-time, with online sensors

California’s drinking water standards are among the strictest in the nation, and purified recycled

water would comply with those standardsThe quality of recycled water, once it has been

purified, will be strictly monitored by the California Department of Health

Methods regularly used to purify recycled water include microfiltration, reverse osmosis and

ultraviolet light – similar to the purification process involved in removing salt from ocean water

Methods regularly used to purify recycled water include microfiltration, reverse osmosis and

ultraviolet light

79

50%

40%

33%

27%

34%

33%

41%

46%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very Conv. Smwt. Conv.

84%

73%

73%

(ENVIRONMENT) Using recycled water is good for our environment. The more recycled water we use, the less we have to take out of rivers

and streams and our scarce groundwater supplies. That’s good for rivers, streams, and the fish, plants and wildlife that rely on them.

(PRINCIPLE) We all recycle as often as we can – glass, plastic, paper, even yard waste. It’s the right thing to do. For the same reason, we

should recycle and reuse as much of our limited water supplies as we possibly can. Water is too valuable to be used just once.

(SUPPLY) We need to consider all options to ensure a reliable and locally-controlled supply of water for ourselves and future generations

that will not be dependent on decisions made by agencies in other parts of the state.

(DROUGHT-PROOF) Recycling water is a drought-proof way to help ensure a reliable supply of water to meet local needs, independent of

climate change or weather in other locations.

19. I am going to read you some statements that have been made by supporters of direct reuse of recycled water in your community. Please indicate whether it is very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support direct reuse of recycled water. ^Not Part of Split Sample

Messages about environmental impacts and the principle of recycling resonate strongly.

73%


80

26%

31%

30%

28%

22%

45%

37%

36%

36%

39%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very Conv. Smwt. Conv.

71%

61%

69%

(PURIFICATION) The water purification process uses state-of-the-art multi-stage technology and monitoring. It cleans water to a very high standard,

and ensures that drinking water produced is safe and free of harmful chemicals and toxins.

^(ADOPTION) Several California communities, including Orange County, already use advanced purification processes to produce purified recycled

water suitable for drinking and household use. There have been no problems whatsoever from this use of recycled water.

(RATES) With the economy just coming out of a recession and many families having a hard time making ends meet, we need to make the most

of all of our water resources to avoid further rate increases. Over time, making better use of our existing water supplies through recycling will be

one of the best ways to keep water rates low.(NATURAL PROCESS) The amount of fresh water on the planet does not

change. Through nature, all water has been used and reused since the beginning of time across every river system in the world. Using advanced technology to purify recycled water merely speeds up a natural process –

and in fact, the water produced through advanced purification meets a much higher standard of quality than what occurs naturally.

(SAFETY) Thanks to advances in modern technology, it no longer matters where water comes from. We have the ability to purify any water and make

it healthy to drink.


A variety of other messages are persuasive, though less strongly compelling.

64%

66%

81


Message All Voters Swing Positive

Movers

Environment 50% 58% 65%

Principle 40% 38% 45%

Supply 33% 34% 36%^Adoption 31% 27% 30%

Rates 30% 32% 35%

Natural Process 28% 25% 29%

Drought-proof 27% 24% 26%

Purification 26% 13% 15%

Safety 22% 17% 20%

(% Very Convincing)

Among persuadable voters, the environmental message is also a standout.


82Q21.

68%

65%

63%

27%

30%

30%

5%

6%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

California’s drinking water standards are among the most strict in the nation, and advanced treated recycled water in the

region would comply with those standards

Recycled water could supply as much asten percent of our local drinking water

supplies

Recycled water is currently used tosupplement drinking water in other U.S.

communities

Yes No Don't Know/NA

Would you be likely to accept the addition of advanced treated recycled water to supplement the sources of our drinking water if you learned that:

Three in five voters see a variety of additional information as compelling.

83

77%

74%

72%

71%

67%

71%

65%

19%

20%

22%

23%

20%

24%

22%

60%40%20%0%20%40%60%80%

Total Trust Total Suspicious Difference

+58%

+54%

+50%

+48%

+47%

+47%

+43%

The Department of Public Health

Medical researchers

Medical doctors

Scientists

Nutritionists

The Environmental Protection Agency

Residents of community that already have potable reuse

Top messengers are generally thosewith scientific expertise.

Q22. ^Not Part of Split Sample

I am going to read you a list of people and organizations that may provide information about recycled water. Please tell me if you would generally trust that person’s or organization’s

opinion on this issue, or if you would be suspicious of it.


84

62%

63%

61%

58%

59%

37%

29%

30%

24%

29%

30%

32%

35%

51%

53%

57%

60%40%20%0%20%40%60%80%

Total Trust Total SuspiciousDifference

+38%

+34%

+31%

+26%

+24%

-14%

-24%

-27%

Dentists

Environmental organizations

Independent lab studies

^A professor at a local university

Your local water utility

Your local mayor

A taxpayer advocate organization

Local business owners

Those with a political or economic perspective are less credible.

22. I am going to read you a list of people and organizations that may provide information about recycled water. Please tell me if you would generally trust that person’s or organization’s opinion on this issue, or if you would be suspicious of it. ^Not Part of Split Sample

8522. I am going to read you a list of people and organizations that may provide information about recycled water. Please tell me if you would generally trust that person’s or organization’s opinion on this issue, or if you would be suspicious of it. ^Not Part of Split Sample

Messenger All Voters Swing Positive

MoversDepartment of Public Health 77% 81% 85%

Medical Researchers 74% 79% 85%Medical Doctors 72% 73% 76%

Scientists 71% 75% 78%EPA 71% 71% 75%

Nutritionists 67% 69% 79%Residents of community that already have potable reuse 65% 67% 75%

Environmental Organizations 63% 67% 69%Dentists 62% 68% 73%

Independent Lab Studies 61% 59% 65%Your Local Water Utility 59% 63% 68%

^Professor at Local University 58% 58% 59%Your Local Mayor 37% 36% 40%

Local Business Owners 30% 26% 30%Taxpayer Advocate Organization 29% 27% 31%

(Total % Trust)

Trust in various messengers is similar among persuadable voters.


86

Total Pay Attn.80%74%62%52%52%51%49%48%44%24%10%

Q23.

32%

32%

21%

14%

15%

21%

13%

16%

7%

48%

43%

41%

38%

37%

30%

37%

32%

36%

19%

8%

20%

21%

35%

46%

47%

38%

50%

49%

56%

72%

82%

5%

11%

5%

7%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Def. Pay Attn. Prob. Pay Attn. Not Pay Attn. DK/NA

I am going to read you a list of ways someone might try to get in touch with you with more information about recycled water. Please tell me if you would definitely pay attention,

probably pay attention, or would not pay attention to that method of communicating with you.

Information on the news and from community organizations is most likely to gain attention.

News reportsInformation from community organizations

of which you are a member^Inserts in water bills

Radio ads

Newsletters mailed to your homeInformation sent home with children from

schoolTV ads

Your water agency’s website

Billboards

Facebook

Twitter

87

Urban Water Use

Nature

WW Treatment

Water Treatment

AWT = RO + UV

Process graphics on IPR and DPR were helpful in drawing distinctions, but left some wanting more.

Urban Water Use

Nature

WW Treatment

Water Treatment

AWT = RO + UV

• Focus group participantshad positive reactions tothe process graphics,and found them a helpfulway to draw distinctionsbetween the twoprocesses.

• They liked seeing thethree steps of thetreatment processspelled out.

• At the same time, manyindicated that theywanted more informationabout the treatmentprocess and how it wouldwork.


88

Participants very much liked elements of the fact sheets that described the three-step process.

• Reading details gave them more confidence in the effectiveness of theprocess.

• Participants liked the idea that there were three stages to the process, so thata failure at one stage would be backed up by further treatment to follow.

• Some were relieved to see that no chemicals were involved.

89

Images were also extremely helpful.

• Some participants expressed interest in seeing or touring a treatmentplant.

• Several said that images of the treatment equipment helped ease theirconcerns; although they had no idea how any of the machinery work,its apparent sophistication increased their comfort level.


90

SUNNYVALE MALE: I thought it was a good explanation of the system.

SAN DIEGO MALE: It keeps it simple though. Pretty much anybody can

understand it. I think if you get into that, sometimes you will lose a portion of the

audience.

SUNNYVALE FEMALE: I liked the zapping because it showed a zap, zap and

zap as the purification process went on and there was less and less bacteria.

like that it pointed out SAN DIEGO MALE: I like that it pointed out that wastewater is already put back in the

system for downstream communities to use. It is easy for us to think wastewater just disappears forever and it is gone. It is

already being reused just a little bit later by somebody else after being put back in the

river for the next community to purify. It helps to point out the absurdity of that and

how it is not that absurd to them. Cut off one of those loops or close the loop.

SUNNYVALE FEMALE: It kind of reminded me of like a clip from Sesame Street or something. It went off and explained the whole water process. It was simple in that

way, but I probably would rather see them going to a plant and the different machines they use to filter the water. Like a real tour of the plant or whatever.

Focus Group Comments on Animated Video on DPR

SAN DIEGO MALE: I thought it was informative, but like everybody else said, it was really simplified. I think a

few more details without getting really, really technical would help it a lot.

91


92

Communications Recommendations

• DO leverage public concern about California’s ongoing watershortages to consolidate support for DPR – without relying onthe current drought.

• DO emphasize the role of water agencies, as opposed toother levels of government, in overseeing the process.

• In particular, DO emphasize the role of scientists and publichealth professionals in designing and monitoring the process.

• DO place a special emphasis on communications withwomen, communities of color, non-English speakers, seniors,and less well-educated and affluent communities.

• DO continue to use “advanced purified water” as a term forthe product of DPR.

• DO NOT simply assert that technology has already made itpossible to make any water safe to drink.

93

Communications Recommendations (Cont.)• DO emphasize the three stages of the treatment process.• But DO NOT rely on the words “microfiltration, reverse

osmosis, and ultraviolet light” alone – provide some briefexplanation.

• DO highlight the frequency and sophistication of monitoringand testing processes.

• DO note that public health and environmental protectionagencies have reviewed and approved the DPR process.

• DO use images to reinforce the effectiveness and complexityof the treatment process.

• DO highlight the successful implementation of DPR in othercommunities.

• DO draw comparisons to the health and safety of bottledwater.


94

Communications Recommendations (Cont.)

• DO appeal to the broader principles ofenvironmental protection and recycling asrationales for expanding the use of recycledwater.

• DO NOT rely on arguments that DPR will end upreducing rates.

• DO NOT rely on elected officials, taxpayeradvocates or business owners as messengers –they do not speak to the health issues at the coreof public concerns.

1999 Harrison St., Suite 1290Oakland, CA 94612

Phone (510) 451-9521Fax (510) 451-0384

[email protected]


1199 North Fairfax Street, Suite 410

Alexandria, VA 22314 USA

(703) 548-0880

Fax (703) 548-5085

E-mail: [email protected]

wwwwww..WWaatteeRReeuussee..oorrgg//FFoouunnddaattiioonn

Practical Solutions for Water Scarcity

model communication plans for increasing awareness and ...mwdh2o.com/faf pdfs/5b_rw_wbmwd werf...

Documents