Risk Perception: Alternate Sources of Drinking Water

1
Risk Perception Alternate Sources of Drinking
Water

• Virginia Grebbien
• General Manager
• Orange County Water District

2
(No Transcript)
3
We Have All the Easy Water

• New water sources that have perceived risks
  include landscape irrigation, remediated
  groundwater, and indirect potable reuse
• Bay Area parents will not let reclaimed water on
  school grounds
• Indirect potable projects in LA, SD, Dublin-San
  Ramone stopped by public opposition
• Groundwater cleanup is future source of water
• Irvine Desalter Project Navy VOC plume
• Anaheim VOC clean up with Kimberly Clark

4
The Public and New Water Projects

• Today, public is more active than ever
• NIMBY, no growth movements often disguised as
  perceived health risk attacks
• Public acceptance of new water sources can be
  as big of a challenge as the engineering

5
(No Transcript)
6
New Water and Risk

• Providing engineering water quality assurances is
  not enough
• Closer new water gets to human contact, more
  support wanes
• Risk perception and management is part of new
  water business get used to it!
• Benefits of the new water better out weigh the
  perceived risks
• Plan on spending significant funds to communicate
  with stakeholders

7
Trust and Risk Perception

• Best way to succeed with new water project is to
  have previously built trust in your agency
• Have a track record of doing the right thing for
  the public health
• 1,4 - D, NDMA
• Immediately told public fixed the problem
• Actually gained credibility

8
NDMA in Food

• Some foods contain greater concentrations of NDMA
  than is allowed in water

Milk 90-100 ppt Powdered milk 3,550 ppt
Beer 50-7,700 ppt
Processed meats 2,600-5,350 ppt
Water 10 ppt (Action level)
9
Dr. Peter Sandman on Risk

• Risk is the actual hazard plus what the public
  perceives as hazard
• If you dont adequately address public
  perception, outrage results
• There are ways to reduce risk perception

10
Reducing Risk Perception

• Involve the public in project planning to get
  their buy in
• Emphasize the natural aspects of the project
• Make the project familiar with displays, photos,
  visits to test facilities
• Show the project moral relevance to the
  communitynew water must satisfy a real community
  need

11
Reducing Risk Perception (Cont.)

• Have outside experts that speak in support of
  project
• Be responsive to the publics desire for
  information
• Show the value of the new water

12
Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) provides guidance
for the SARWQH Study
13
SARWQH SAP Members

• Chair Dr. Harvey Collins, P.E., former chief of
  California Department of Health Services (DHS)
• Panel members include
• Richard J. Bull, Ph.D.
• Kenneth Cantor, Ph.D.
• Russell Christman, Ph.D.
• Robert C. Cooper, Ph.D.
• Joseph Cotruvo, Ph.D.
• James Crook, P.E., Ph.D.
• F. Bernard Daniel, Ph.D.
• Daniel A. Okun, Sc.D.

• Joan Rose, Ph.D.
• Jack Skinner, M.D.
• George Tchobanoglous, P.E., Ph.D.
• David K. Todd, Ph.D.

14
Risk Perception Alternate Sources of Drinking
Water

• Many new sources of water involve risk perception
• Need to deal with risk factor
• Plan for it
• Fund it
• Manage it
• If you do, you will be successful

15
(No Transcript)
16
Supportive Elected Officials
Cities
Plus 35 Southern California water agencies
associations
17
Supportive Groups
18
Supportive Businesses
Chambers of Commerce (representing some
18,000 businesses)
19

• Goal Proactive and comprehensive programs
  address existing water quality issues and
  emerging contaminants

20
Monitoring Program Provides Answersto the Public
and the Media
21
Water Quality Programs Address Existing Water
Quality Issues and Emerging Contaminants

• Develop a plan to identify, address, and respond
  to water quality threats in the basin
• Implement Santa Ana River water quality
  protection program as follow-up to SARWQH Study
• Develop plan to evaluate and address emerging
  contaminants

22
(No Transcript)