Latest / Make Water Work Podcast / Chad Seidel: The Future of Water Quality | Make Water Work 019

Transcript

Chad Seidel: The Future of Water Quality | Make Water Work 019 · Make Water Work Podcast

0:00
water systems have to be responsible for
0:02
ensuring disinfectant residual coming
0:04
out of the taps of all their customers
0:05
buildings. Well, they can't be
0:08
responsible for how a building is built,
0:10
maintained, and operated. And so, while
0:13
I get it, that is a great idea. Um, that
0:17
isn't how that system can work, but we
0:19
absolutely want to get at the heart of
0:21
what's the problem there. so it can be
0:23
meaningfully addressed and those who can
0:25
be a part of resolving the problems can
0:27
be not just held accountable but can be
0:29
a part of the solution. Welcome to the
0:32
Make Water Work podcast where we dive
0:34
into the people, ideas, and innovation
0:37
shaping the future of water. I'm your
0:40
host, Isaac Pellerin, and alongside my
0:42
co-host, Megan Glover, the founder of
0:45
120 Water, we bring you insights from
0:47
hundreds of incredible conversations
0:50
we've had over the past 9 years with
0:52
inspiring and energizing leaders in the
0:55
water industry. Each week, we share
0:58
those stories and conversations with
0:59
entrepreneurs, community champions, and
1:02
innovators who are making water work for
1:05
everyone. Whether you're a water
1:07
professional, a curious innovator, or
1:09
simply passionate about our most
1:11
precious resource, this podcast is for
1:13
you. Let's get started.
1:17
Well, welcome to today's Make Water
1:20
podcast where Isaac and I are speaking
1:22
to all of the wonderful people in our
1:23
industry that are making water work day
1:26
in and day out. And Isaac, who do we
1:28
have today?
1:29
>> Um, so we have Chad Sidell today who
1:32
we've known for a while. And you know,
1:34
when I think about um you know, Chad and
1:37
the work that he's done, he's really um
1:39
met a need for the industry um and we
1:42
were talking about it just just before
1:44
the podcast and I'm excited to to dive
1:45
into um into his story, but he's the
1:48
president and founding member of Corona
1:50
Environmental um and he also um is on
1:53
the water and health advisory council um
1:55
and just has so much knowledge about um
1:59
water policy and the science behind it
2:02
and the chemistry behind it to um to
2:04
make water work for the the customers
2:06
that they serve and then serve the
2:07
industry at large. So Chad, welcome to
2:10
the Make Waterwork podcast.
2:12
>> Thanks so much for having me and thanks
2:14
for being a part of the water community
2:16
to do just that. Make it work. We need
2:18
that for everybody.
2:19
>> Indeed.
2:20
>> Yeah. And we we love asking every guest
2:22
that comes on on our on our show. We
2:25
find that everyone um has a story about
2:28
how uh how water found them. So Chad,
2:31
how did water find you?
2:34
>> I guess I'll try to keep it brief, but
2:37
uh little diversion all the way back in
2:39
high school. I thought I was going to go
2:40
straight into politics and uh worked in
2:44
the Idaho State Senate my senior year of
2:47
high school, which is a fascinating
2:49
experience. Highly recommend anybody
2:50
that can leave high school to go into a
2:53
real world experience like that. It's
2:54
awesome. Um and there I realized that
2:58
those who I most respected in that arena
3:01
uh were not just career politicians but
3:04
rather practitioners of what they did
3:06
each and every day whether it was
3:08
lawyers uh business people frankly one
3:10
that I most admired was a Harvard
3:13
educated sheep rancher who would
3:16
literally be found outside of the Senate
3:18
sessions in his shepherd's trailer um
3:21
leading actually one of the most
3:22
successful businesses in the state But
3:24
that led me to decide instead of going
3:26
straight into politics with a public
3:29
policy focus to get a technical degree
3:32
instead. Went to Montana Tech in
3:35
beautiful but Montana and studied
3:37
environmental engineering which suited
3:39
me. Um math and science I think uh came
3:42
easy to me worked really well for me.
3:44
And then that led to grad school at the
3:45
University of Colorado at Boulder where
3:48
I met a really really influential uh
3:50
mentor to me, Scott Summers, who uh
3:53
connected me into the policy space
3:56
shortly thereafter. He was the last
3:58
professor I talked with about needing to
4:01
get some research funding to support my
4:03
master's degree. And he didn't have
4:04
anything because he had just moved to
4:06
Colorado from University of Cincinnati.
4:08
but he had been a part of the very first
4:10
meeting in Washington DC that was
4:13
talking about the technical aspects of
4:15
the forthcoming stage 2 disinfection
4:17
byproducts rule and he knew that others
4:19
needed technical support on that. So
4:21
that became the basis of my master's
4:24
thesis and for more than 25 years now
4:26
I've been at that interface between the
4:28
technical understanding of policy and
4:31
the implementation of those things and
4:35
how do we actually make meaningful
4:37
progress to protect public health and to
4:39
make it work for water utilities and for
4:42
people that are needing to pay their
4:44
water bill each and every month.
4:46
>> Yeah. So, so Chad, walk us through then
4:50
um your founding of Corona. Um because
4:53
as I understand it, you were a big, you
4:55
know, big engineering firm prior to
4:57
founding Corona. And I was telling
4:58
Isaac, I I just I admire you and and why
5:01
you started your company because I think
5:03
you were really feel, you know, filling
5:04
a niche that maybe some of the the
5:07
larger engineering firms just may not
5:09
have more focus on. So can you kind of
5:11
walk us through that journey from your
5:13
time um up up until you know forming
5:17
Corona?
5:18
>> Well, it's certainly been a journey. So
5:20
in that early uh formative stage of
5:24
graduate school at University of
5:25
Colorado Boulder, my master's thesis
5:28
research actually was financially
5:30
supported by uh EPA funding to some
5:33
contractors where uh Maguire
5:35
Environmental Consulting was really
5:38
doing all the work associated with that.
5:39
Mike Magcguire, frankly, a pillar of our
5:42
community. AP Black Award winner, John
5:44
Le award winner, has a huge appreciation
5:47
for the history of drinking water in
5:49
this country. I got to learn from him.
5:51
They funded my master's research. They
5:53
were the contractor doing that technical
5:55
work. So, that's where I started and and
5:57
that was a place that was very much like
5:59
what we're trying to do at Corona, meet
6:01
the need of questions and concerns um
6:05
that aren't typical engineering
6:07
projects. Um, from there I went to a
6:10
larger firm because that firm was
6:12
acquired. Ended up joining another
6:13
smaller firm that had a little bit more
6:15
of a focus on those more tangible
6:17
interface between policy and reality.
6:20
That firm also was acquired by a larger
6:22
firm. And then I started Corona with
6:24
others that had gone through some of
6:26
those similar processes and came to the
6:28
realization that there are firms have to
6:32
be purpose-built for what they achieve.
6:34
If you want to have a firm that does the
6:36
niche, never been done before unusual
6:39
water quality data policy things, you
6:42
need a firm like Corona because other
6:44
larger firms aren't built to do that. If
6:46
you want a firm to oversee a
6:49
billion-doll infrastructure program that
6:51
needs lots of design and project
6:53
management, you aren't coming to us for
6:55
that. You need other firms that do that
6:56
kind of work. And so, I think you're
6:58
right, Megan. there there was a
7:01
there was a gap in our community that
7:04
wasn't being filled sufficiently when we
7:07
started Corona Environmental Consulting
7:09
gosh 13 plus years ago now. Um and we've
7:13
seen the need for it continue. Um,
7:16
grateful for that. Grateful for the
7:18
opportunities we have to step in and and
7:20
solve uh sometimes really emergency
7:22
responses, but also some proactive
7:25
responses to beg the question, how can
7:26
we be doing better in drinking water for
7:28
public health protection?
7:30
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I as as you've um you
7:33
know, in your career, you've got had the
7:35
opportunity to work with so many
7:36
different utilities of different sizes.
7:38
Um what are some of the biggest
7:40
challenges that you feel like utilities
7:42
are facing um um right now especially
7:45
from your purview um from water quality
7:47
standpoint?
7:48
>> That's a big somewhat loaded question.
7:51
Um
7:53
the the I think there's challenges in a
7:57
lot of different ways. Uh but most of
7:59
the time I think it's simply an
8:01
undervaluing of what water service is
8:04
that leads to resource constraints and
8:06
then having to beg questions of how do
8:09
we prioritize our resources to address
8:11
the most significant needs. Like if we
8:13
had infinite dollars and staff
8:16
resources, we would be up todate with
8:19
our pipeline replacement programs and we
8:21
wouldn't have main bras failing uh in
8:24
our systems each and every day. We would
8:26
have already replaced lead service lines
8:29
where they remain and are a concern for
8:31
public health uh protection. We wouldn't
8:34
encounter conditions with chemical
8:35
spills going into our rivers that then
8:38
uh contaminate the water supply for tens
8:40
or if not hundreds of thousands of
8:42
people like we've had to address in the
8:43
past. We wouldn't have conditions where
8:46
disinfectant residual uh is well managed
8:48
in a water system but it goes into a
8:50
building and they don't know that they
8:51
have to do something that leads to
8:53
Legionella concerns and Legionnaire's
8:55
disease outbreaks because those would be
8:56
addressed. But unfortunately we do live
8:59
in a resource constrained world and we
9:02
can't just snap our fingers and go and
9:04
make everything better with respect to
9:05
that. So, we have to prioritize where we
9:08
put our efforts and water systems are
9:10
really at this tough intersection
9:12
because they have expectations of their
9:15
customers and in places where they're
9:17
not as engaged with their customers, the
9:18
expectation is usually,
9:21
I don't want to even know about you and
9:22
keep my water bill as low as possible.
9:25
>> Yeah.
9:26
>> And then you have other stakeholders
9:27
like regulatory agencies that have
9:30
increasingly stringent requirements and
9:32
expectations like I don't want to have
9:34
lead in water. I don't have PAS in
9:36
water. But I also know that the cost of
9:38
implementing those things could come at
9:40
the consequence of delaying or in some
9:43
cases completely preventing other
9:45
improvements that might be also
9:46
necessary for maintaining water supply
9:49
operation and all those things. So we
9:52
try to work in that space as best we can
9:54
helping water utilities to meet all
9:56
those objectives um and hopefully make
9:58
it a win-win for everybody involved. But
10:01
generally speaking, it's always going to
10:02
take more financial support from
10:04
everybody involved.
10:05
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. This going
10:08
going off script like we normally do,
10:10
Isaac, just cuz we hear things. I'm
10:12
like, I I want to unpack that a little
10:13
bit more. I mean, you mentioned, Chad,
10:15
that you guys see sometimes like the
10:18
most interesting or worse or the worst.
10:19
your you you you insert your words
10:21
there, but do you think based on your
10:23
experience um and what you see in a day
10:26
in dayout basis, there are water quality
10:29
issues that that maybe we're not
10:31
addressing either at a national and
10:33
regional level that do deserve more
10:35
focus because they may be more prevalent
10:37
than than the average person might be
10:40
aware.
10:42
I I do uh believe that it's a common
10:46
theme in my uh classic stump speech that
10:49
I try to give when anybody gives me a
10:52
platform to say anything. Um and and the
10:55
way that that it presents itself is that
10:58
while the Safe Drink Water Act has made
11:00
huge progress in establishing
11:04
expectations for water systems here in
11:06
the US, we're 50 years in with the Safe
11:09
Drink Water Act and we still have a high
11:12
proportion of water systems, mostly the
11:14
smallest, that aren't meeting those
11:16
expectations. and the additional
11:19
regulatory constraints that are being
11:20
applied to water systems broadly while
11:23
they will by and large be possible to be
11:25
met by the larger systems. There are
11:27
more and more small systems that are not
11:29
able to do that and frankly unwilling to
11:31
do that for lots of other reasons
11:33
leading them to fail in one way sh or
11:36
another. uh whether it means they just
11:39
totally advocate the role and
11:40
responsibility of complying or in some
11:43
cases they just legitimately give up and
11:45
walk away from the water system and they
11:48
don't continue to provide that service.
11:50
And so um I think it's less about the
11:54
regulatory non-compliance than it is
11:56
about the risk of water systems failing
11:58
and not being able to supply water.
12:00
There's high-profile examples of that in
12:03
recent years, but I'm more focused on
12:07
the ones that get literally no attention
12:09
where there are communities that really
12:11
have not had portable water supply for
12:13
over a decade in the United States. And
12:15
it's 2025. And that's where I think we
12:18
need to shift the focus to bring
12:20
everybody up to a legitimate floor of
12:23
expectations of portable water supply in
12:26
today's day and age before we try to
12:28
raise the ceiling or raise the bar so to
12:30
speak of what we should be doing for
12:31
everybody everywhere else.
12:32
>> That's really interesting. I love the
12:34
way you frame that of what do we do to
12:36
raise the floor because I think there's
12:39
>> um you know you hit on it with
12:42
>> there's the hope highprofile
12:44
failure water system um stories but um
12:48
but there's
12:50
you know 90% of water utilities serve
12:53
populations of 10,000 or less 85%
12:56
operate with three or fewer employees
12:58
and what's at risk of asset failure
13:03
meaning a community doesn't have access
13:06
to the water services that make it a
13:09
community in the first place.
13:11
>> Yeah.
13:11
>> And it's not always an asset as in like
13:14
a pump fails or uh something in the
13:18
water supply changes. Sometimes that
13:20
asset is that person.
13:22
>> Yeah. I we work with countless water
13:24
systems where if that person isn't able
13:27
to come in to address the need on that
13:29
day,
13:30
>> it isn't going to be done and that
13:32
system is not going to meet those
13:33
expectations and there's nobody behind
13:35
them. And so I'm a huge proponent of
13:39
really deliberate push to further
13:42
consolidate water systems. Yeah.
13:43
>> Not in a way to take autonomy away, but
13:46
rather to bolster capacity. And you
13:49
know, when I've worked with systems that
13:50
have accomplished those things, the
13:53
relief for that person is tangible and
13:57
they can think about, oh, I can actually
13:59
go on PTO and not worry about that pump
14:03
that I know was going to fail and I've
14:05
always been the person to put the
14:06
band-aid on it,
14:06
>> right? And so I think we we owe it to
14:09
those communities to bootstrap ourselves
14:11
to together in a better way whether
14:13
physically with physical connection or
14:16
virtually with managerial consolidation
14:18
to address those needs.
14:20
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, so what is your, you
14:23
know, with all of these competing
14:25
priorities and, you know, limited
14:27
resources like Chad, how do you guide
14:30
your customers or or even, you know, as
14:32
you're, you're a mentor in the industry,
14:34
like how do you guide systems and
14:35
helping them prioritize to the best of
14:37
their ability what they they can
14:39
accomplish, right, under their under
14:41
their structure? Do you do you do that
14:42
at all?
14:44
>> I always try to just keep it really
14:46
simple. focus on the things that matter
14:48
most and that are most impactful that we
14:50
know the most about. And that what that
14:53
means is in drinking water, you know,
14:55
we're going on a century plus of
14:56
understanding that filtering and
14:58
disinfecting water is important for
15:01
public health protection. That needs to
15:03
be accomplished everywhere for everybody
15:06
all the time. And there are countless
15:08
places where that isn't being done
15:10
particularly well. And that leads to
15:12
these types of really dramatic public
15:14
health upset conditions where the people
15:18
impacted we know who they are. We
15:20
actually know the names of the people
15:22
who get counted as the statistics for
15:24
having a waterbornne disease impact and
15:26
unfortunately sometimes death as
15:29
compared with other things in the water
15:31
quality community that are certainly a
15:33
priority. I mean, if you go to any water
15:36
related conference these days, the
15:38
primary subject matter are things that
15:40
are
15:42
less certain about their public health
15:44
impacts and not as immediate in terms of
15:47
their public health impacts. And so, PAS
15:49
certainly fall into that category. I
15:51
would say microplastics is even more so
15:53
in that category. And so I the the
15:56
precautionary principle often shifts
15:59
attention to those things that we know
16:01
the least about because we could
16:03
potentially be the most worried about
16:05
it. But my counter to that is we know
16:08
that it's not like a century ago where
16:11
we were legitimately counting deaths per
16:13
thousand from waterbornne disease. We
16:15
don't see that. We can't attribute the
16:18
names impacted by those health
16:19
implications like we can the waterbborne
16:21
disease ones. So, let's not lose our
16:24
focus on maintaining and improving upon
16:26
the waterborne protections as compared
16:29
to these other things. And like I
16:30
started, I'd love it if we could do all
16:32
of that.
16:32
>> Yeah.
16:33
>> Just knowing that there isn't always
16:34
enough time or money to do all of it
16:36
right now. Let's do the things that
16:38
matter most first.
16:39
>> Yeah. Yeah. And and can you um for those
16:41
listening because you and I have talked
16:42
about this, Chad, and you and I know
16:44
Isaac had talked about that. But for
16:45
those who may not be as familiar with um
16:48
like the impact of a waterborne disease
16:51
versus like a PAS and even a lead for
16:53
that matter, can you just kind of in
16:54
layman's terms like what what is the
16:56
impact of having a a waterbornne disease
16:59
outbreak versus lead in your drinking
17:01
water?
17:03
>> Yeah, I'll make it really tangible. Um,
17:06
so last year, uh, we were asked to be,
17:11
uh, called in to help Grand Rapids, uh,
17:14
Minnesota, not Michigan, uh, address
17:16
what at the time was the beginnings of
17:19
what looked like it could be a
17:20
Legionnaire's disease outbreak. And
17:21
Legionnaire's disease is the most
17:24
substantial waterbornne public health
17:27
concern related to drinking water that
17:28
we're facing today. It's on the rise. It
17:30
is a bacterial pneumonia that is caused
17:34
by inhaling water droplets that contain
17:36
Legionella bacteria, Legionella
17:38
pneumophila specifically. And when
17:41
somebody uh is diagnosed with
17:43
Legionnaire's disease, it's a really bad
17:45
case of pneumonia. And so in the case of
17:47
Grand Rapids, Minnesota, there ended up
17:50
being 34 confirmed cases. We do believe
17:54
there were likely countless others
17:55
because it's a really hearty bunch there
17:57
in that community that likely didn't
17:59
want to go to the doctor. But
18:00
unfortunately, of those 34 uh confirmed
18:02
cases, there were two deaths. We know
18:04
who these people were that died
18:06
associated with that. And there are
18:08
things that could have been done to uh
18:11
mitigate those risks earlier and perhaps
18:13
better to avoid that. And this is the
18:16
same in other cases where Legionaire's
18:18
disease is leading to death. Um it's not
18:21
the only thing that's a waterbborne
18:22
disease uh concern in drinking water,
18:24
but it's the most substantial that we're
18:26
facing today that I'm advocating we put
18:28
more attention to. You know, on the
18:30
other hand, there's other key risks that
18:32
we're trying to address in drinking
18:33
water. You mentioned lead and PAS. I'd
18:36
add to that uh arsenic and uh
18:39
disinfection byproducts. Arsenic is a
18:42
naturally occurring thing that just
18:43
happens to be in the water. We know it's
18:45
a carcinogen at concentrations relevant
18:48
in drinking water. just like
18:49
disinfection byproducts that come as a
18:51
consequence of adding disinfectant which
18:53
is good to protect against the microbes
18:55
but has this carcinogenic um counterpart
18:58
that we have to balance.
19:00
Those are issues that we know are a
19:02
concern but but we can't attribute those
19:05
risks specifically to that uh initial
19:09
factor in any given person's individual
19:12
death. even more so for PAS and those
19:16
health implications which cancer is one
19:19
of the areas that EPA has said is a
19:21
driver although other international
19:23
health bodies don't subscribe to that
19:26
same school of thought um but there are
19:28
other impacts like uh some of the
19:32
cholesterol impacts or vaccine e
19:34
efficacy they're they're less uh we're
19:39
less able to ascribe how those risks are
19:41
really felt in the populations in our
19:43
communities. Um and then the the the
19:45
last one on lead, we we um have all the
19:49
evidence that says it causes
19:50
neurodedevelopmental impacts
19:52
particularly in kids and obviously for
19:55
for uh uh newborns um specifically
19:58
during pregnancy and we want to avoid
20:01
those risks but there's it's not as
20:03
directly measurable as I was impacted by
20:07
this waterbornne uh disease issue
20:10
whether it was Legionella or
20:11
cryptoperidium or even more esot ic
20:14
things like we've got called in to
20:15
address like neglaria fallery the
20:17
so-called brain eating amoeba
20:19
exceedingly rare completely preventable
20:22
but still has happened in this country
20:24
so that's where I just want us to focus
20:26
on let's make sure we got all that
20:28
really good and nailed down and then
20:30
let's tackle these things that we think
20:32
yeah that could also be a problem yeah
20:34
>> let's also not let that get worse
20:35
>> yeah it's not it's what's a contributor
20:38
versus the cause like you know to say
20:41
it's like we we know that uh lead and
20:43
some of these other might have
20:44
contributed factors to larger public
20:46
health issues, but some of these other
20:48
waterbornne illnesses are the cause of
20:50
death.
20:51
>> Safe to say. Yeah.
20:53
>> Yeah.
20:54
>> Oh, Chad, I bet I bet you're the uh the
20:56
joy of the cocktail party or the dinner
20:57
party, right? With all of your knowledge
20:59
on these subjects.
21:01
>> Yeah. Like any of us in the water
21:03
community, I think we're generally known
21:04
as the water nerd in any of those
21:06
situations. and I will uh engage in the
21:09
conversation when folks ask me to, but I
21:12
generally try not to just jump into that
21:14
agenda right off the bat.
21:16
>> Yeah, it's not what I lead with when I
21:18
introduce myself.
21:18
>> So, let me tell you about that brain
21:20
eating amoeba
21:21
that one time.
21:23
>> Yeah. I do I am curious too. Um just as
21:26
you were talking about that, I was
21:27
thinking about the work that you do with
21:29
the water health advisory council. Um
21:31
can you talk a little bit about um how
21:33
that council came together and and what
21:36
its mission is and and um yeah what that
21:39
work is?
21:41
>> Yeah, glad to. So the water health
21:43
advisory council actually started before
21:45
I knew about it. was brought together uh
21:47
by a number of folks within the water
21:49
community representing views from
21:51
utilities, research organizations, some
21:54
other nonprofits, water utilities, and
21:57
academics with the intent to bring
22:01
just unbiased technical information to
22:04
support these types of objectives of how
22:06
do we prioritize public health
22:08
protection in drinking water in
22:10
particular and how do we bring um
22:12
information to inform those topics. And
22:15
so I was I think first asked to come and
22:18
talk to the council about an issue. I
22:21
think initially it might have been about
22:22
disinfection byproducts and then that
22:24
conversation kind of transitioned into
22:26
conversations around uh PAS and
22:29
questions that were arising uh even
22:31
maybe 5 years ago there. Um, and I was
22:34
grateful to be asked to become a part of
22:36
the council and and really proud of the
22:38
work that we're doing to achieve that
22:39
mission of developing and sharing
22:42
communicating information on these
22:43
subjects with a broader audience than
22:46
just the drinking water community
22:48
because there are decision makers that
22:50
are making decisions that impact how we
22:53
operate in the water community that need
22:56
a better understanding and appreciation
22:57
of that. Sometimes it's about funding
22:59
for things in federal and state
23:01
legislatores. Sometimes it's policym
23:03
actually passing laws that would address
23:05
things in that regard. And so, uh, the
23:07
water health advisory council is is, I
23:09
think, doing a good job of becoming
23:10
better known as a place to go for that
23:12
type of information for those parts of
23:14
the community.
23:16
>> Yeah. Yeah, it certainly has. I I really
23:18
enjoy the the resources that that come
23:20
out of that. Um because so much of what
23:24
we see in policy that like there are
23:28
things that need to happen from a policy
23:30
standpoint, but operationalizing it at
23:32
the utility level like like
23:34
understanding like the connecting the
23:37
dots of what makes a good policy,
23:40
>> what makes a and then even into the
23:41
community level because I think Chad um
23:44
you can probably help educate our
23:45
listeners and us like you can have you
23:48
know decent policy and the utility and
23:51
follow that policy. Sometimes once water
23:54
flows into a private or commercial
23:57
entity, that's where the jurisdiction
23:59
gets a little muddy and and as we know
24:01
working in like lein schools programs
24:03
and and you know Chad, you brought up
24:05
Legionella um you know there are water
24:08
issues inside these facilities that
24:10
aren't necessarily the jurisdiction of
24:12
the regulators and I think it's really
24:14
interesting the work that you're doing
24:16
around that and I think the advisory
24:18
helps to kind of bridge and kind of
24:19
bring awareness that we have to think
24:21
about the entire EOS ecosystem and how
24:23
water flows and and how we have to like
24:26
bring all of those stakeholder groups
24:27
together. Is that is that kind of a fair
24:29
statement too of kind of what what the
24:31
exposure that you're trying to bring to
24:32
the um to the advisory group? Indeed,
24:36
it's really about shining a light on the
24:38
bigger picture of how uh water is used,
24:42
what its importance is. And I think
24:44
that's one of the key things that the
24:46
council has been able to do is uh make
24:48
inroads and become a trusted adviser
24:50
with other u entities whether it's folks
24:53
on Capitol Hill, US Conference of Mayors
24:56
for example, um policy makers at state
24:59
houses that are being asked to consider
25:01
legislation about subjects like
25:04
microplastics or PAS or Legionella,
25:07
which I think in their their at at the
25:11
heart of them, they're well intended.
25:14
but they don't always have an
25:15
understanding or appreciation about what
25:18
they would actually accomplish. And like
25:20
anything that's driven with some
25:21
political aspects, there are winners and
25:24
losers. And generally speaking, the
25:26
water utility community isn't in those
25:28
conversations and often ends up losing
25:30
out because of it. And so we're trying
25:32
to just simply raise the awareness of
25:34
these issues. So there is a place to go
25:37
to give a better uh more clear and more
25:40
complete picture of these concepts and
25:41
these they're complicated.
25:43
>> It's complicated. Yeah. Yeah. How and
25:45
and what are the key areas do you think
25:47
that the the water utilities lose in
25:50
that scenario, Chad? I'm I'm curious.
25:53
>> Well, I think there's a couple of
25:55
examples. Um gosh, in the in the tenure
25:58
we have here at Corona Environmental, we
25:59
get involved in so many things that then
26:01
drive policym. Um whether it was the
26:05
chemical spill in the Elk River in West
26:06
Virginia or brain amoeba in Louisiana.
26:09
Uh more recent examples would be
26:11
wildfire impacts on water systems and
26:13
then obviously Legionaire's disease
26:15
things. Each one of those examples that
26:17
we got to be at the forefront of
26:19
addressing, understanding, and resolving
26:22
leads to uh u these drives, sometimes
26:26
grassroots and sometimes just
26:27
politically driven to uh say we need a
26:29
law for this. And so, you know, there's
26:31
examples of of of legislation that's
26:34
been introduced that says we need much
26:36
bigger water storage tanks and more fire
26:39
hydrants to be able to fight wildfires
26:42
from water systems. with no regard for
26:44
the fact that that will be detrimental
26:47
to the current expectation we have for
26:50
maintaining disinfectant residual,
26:52
minimizing disinfectant byproducts for
26:54
the public health protection aspects of
26:55
providing portable water each and every
26:57
day. And I could say the same example
26:59
for the Legionella uh responses. There
27:01
have been some bills introduced that
27:03
would say water systems have to be
27:05
responsible for ensuring disinfectant
27:07
residual coming out of the taps of all
27:08
their customers buildings. Well, they
27:11
can't be responsible for how a building
27:13
is built, maintained, and operated. And
27:16
so,
27:16
>> while I get it, that is a great idea.
27:19
Um, that isn't how that system can work,
27:22
but we absolutely want to get at the
27:25
heart of what's the problem there. So,
27:26
it can be meaningfully addressed and
27:28
those who can be a part of resolving the
27:30
problems can be not just held
27:32
accountable, but can be a part of the
27:34
solution.
27:34
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And funding, too, too.
27:37
Yeah. It's the it's the education of
27:38
what's possible and then what funding
27:40
are you going to give these systems to
27:42
then meet the demands of the you know
27:44
policy that you're putting in place,
27:46
right? Um
27:47
>> yeah,
27:48
>> and that rarely comes with those types
27:50
of legislation.
27:51
>> Yeah.
27:52
>> And I I think that that one of the
27:53
things that I've I've appreciated
27:55
because I didn't come into the water
27:58
sector until uh 2018, but is the way
28:00
that water as a as a topic forces
28:04
important political conversations. It it
28:07
forces us to say, hey, where is the
28:09
chain of custody? Where does the
28:10
liability therefore who should be
28:12
responsible? And how do we h
28:14
>> how do we value it at each each um each
28:18
level of that um chain of custody is the
28:21
only word I can think of probably
28:22
because you're you're in you're in your
28:23
lab and there's there's chain of custody
28:25
all um all over there. It's it's
28:29
important to recognize water is one of
28:31
the most supported issues by communities
28:34
across the country and it's becoming an
28:37
even stronger issue in almost all the
28:41
political polling. So if you know we're
28:43
day after election day there haven't
28:44
been as many substantial water issues on
28:46
the ballot just yesterday but in the
28:48
last 5 years those ballot initiatives
28:52
about water have been widely supported.
28:55
So Texas most notably has had really
28:58
significant ballot initiatives about
29:00
investing in water infrastructure
29:03
driven largely by uh policy makers and
29:06
others in the water advocacy space
29:08
highlighting the need to invest in water
29:10
to sustain our communities. And
29:12
sometimes that's by showcasing water
29:15
systems that have failed because they
29:17
didn't have that or where development of
29:19
our communities and bringing on new
29:21
technologies has not been possible
29:23
because there just wasn't enough water
29:24
to support it. Whether it's new data
29:26
centers or it's uh just new parts of the
29:29
community where we just need better
29:31
infrastructure to meet those needs,
29:33
water can be a very unifying
29:37
subject in our communities, whether it
29:39
is just to have it or to rally around
29:42
making it better or to rally around
29:44
making it accessible for those who
29:46
haven't had it before. And I think those
29:49
it's really those stories that I love
29:51
the most about being part of this
29:52
community because while I am a
29:54
self-professed water nerd will geek up
29:57
about geek out about the most technical
29:59
chemistry or uh uh data details.
30:04
At the heart of it, you want people to
30:05
open up the tap in the morning, be able
30:07
to use it confidently and reliably. And
30:10
you know, just last week I heard a story
30:12
about a community in California that's
30:14
still they're over a decade without
30:15
having had portable water.
30:18
Young woman went to college out of that
30:20
community. Great success story.
30:22
Incredible student. And basically the
30:26
first day in the dorm wanted to go to
30:30
dissuade the roommate to not use the tap
30:32
water. And the roommate was like, "Well,
30:34
why?" And that young woman realized she
30:38
had not ever had security in having safe
30:41
and affordable and reliable water. And
30:43
it's 2025 in the United States and we
30:45
got communities that aren't there.
30:47
>> We got to get there. So that's that's
30:49
why I love the unifying effect of water.
30:50
And we should leverage that, capitalize
30:52
on it,
30:53
>> gain better attention, resources, and
30:56
support and go out and address those
30:57
most pressing problems.
30:58
>> Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I I mean you you
31:01
brought it up so just to double click on
31:03
maybe what folks um aren't aware of what
31:06
just passed in in Texas was it was like
31:09
a proposition
31:10
>> four
31:12
where I mean is it 1% of all income
31:15
taxes now going into the fund it's
31:17
either one or 2% which is really in a
31:21
really innovative way to fund at a state
31:25
level ongoing water infrastructure and
31:28
quality needs. needs and you know ensure
31:31
that communities have access to funding
31:34
to make sure they have portable drinking
31:36
water. It's a circular economy. You have
31:38
to have the funding to fix the issue.
31:40
>> Yeah. I think there there's two sides of
31:42
that that they've been cognizant of and
31:44
they've been following uh how others
31:46
have been working to address this and
31:47
some other examples on on one hand
31:50
they've been open to the
31:53
the starting of that process. You got to
31:55
start with assessing what the needs are.
31:57
You need a legitimate needs assessment
31:59
to understand where water systems are
32:02
to what degree they are already failed
32:04
at risk of failing or what will likely
32:07
lead to them failing. And we generally
32:10
don't have the answers to those
32:11
questions um in most places these days.
32:14
Some states do a better job than others.
32:16
But then on the other side is what you
32:17
were just saying Megan when you invest
32:19
in water the return on those investment
32:22
are many more dollars than the dollars
32:24
you put in. And it manifests in ways for
32:26
the local community and for others in a
32:29
broader community that come to help
32:30
solve those issues. And so that's why I
32:32
think there's there's good support.
32:34
People can support it locally and policy
32:36
makers can support it because it
32:37
supports their you know their broader uh
32:40
constituency.
32:41
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I think that passed like
32:43
by 80 80% an overwhelming majority. Now
32:45
you're always going to have folks that
32:46
are you're never going to get 100%. You
32:48
know, but I mean that's as bipartisan as
32:50
it comes, right? And I feel like, you
32:52
know, we're seeing that play out in the
32:53
polls and water is good for for
32:55
business.
32:55
>> Mhm.
32:56
>> It really is. It's not a partisan issue
32:58
at all. People really want to be able to
32:59
do what they can do there.
33:00
>> Yeah.
33:00
>> Yeah. Yeah.
33:01
>> Yeah. And you you hit on you uh I'd love
33:05
to get your take on this. Um we didn't
33:07
prepare for this uh for this question at
33:10
all, but um but you mentioned data
33:12
centers. And so I mean I'm curious from
33:14
your perspective from a water health and
33:15
advisory standpoint, what is it? What do
33:18
we think about um data centers in terms
33:21
of water quality? I and I'll just before
33:24
you answer the question, I'll just say
33:26
like I've just been noticing an
33:28
opportunity for
33:30
um the public to understand the value of
33:33
water because they're hearing, hey, they
33:35
use a lot of water. Hey, that's our
33:36
water. So, it's a little bit of like a,
33:38
oh, that's a resource. What does our
33:41
community want to do it? But I'm also
33:42
curious from a um water quality
33:45
standpoint how you see that.
33:48
Yeah, it it's interesting. Water quality
33:50
rarely comes up in the conversations
33:52
about how data centers uh may implicate
33:55
the communities where they're being
33:56
implemented. There's a handful of water
33:59
utilities that have a long history of
34:00
supporting data centers already. We know
34:03
how to meet those needs. While they can
34:05
be a significant water user, they're
34:08
really advancing everything they can to
34:10
be able to limit the amount of water
34:11
they need and the way that they reuse
34:13
water. Um, so I'm actually less
34:15
concerned about the water use and
34:17
quality implications under the current
34:19
conditions of how they're using it or or
34:22
needing to use perhaps a bit more of it.
34:24
I I'm I'm more concerned about what
34:26
happens after that when the technology
34:29
changes that then doesn't require that
34:31
water use because that parallels other
34:35
situations when you know in some of the
34:37
rust belt communities when industry went
34:39
away that was a big water user. you're
34:42
left with all this big infrastructure
34:44
that then is oversized to meet the needs
34:46
of what remains and can't be well
34:49
addressed to maintain the public health
34:51
conditions for the conditions or for
34:53
that community that's left behind. And
34:54
so I I'm more worried about the after
34:57
than I am about the now. And I think
34:59
there just needs to be um
35:03
>> the costs of addressing the after
35:05
>> need to be built into addressing the
35:07
now. That
35:09
>> that is a really glad I asked that
35:10
question. Yeah, I'm glad you did too
35:12
because I was just talking to I've in
35:14
the past week I've had conversations
35:16
with two um water leaders. One who is
35:19
experiencing lot of a lot of population
35:22
growth and so um they need to you know
35:25
it's going to take 5 years to um build
35:27
the infrastructure to meet the
35:29
population growth demands. Um, but then
35:31
another one that is trying to operate at
35:35
a 80% of they only have 80% of the rate
35:38
base because of so much industry
35:40
leaving. And so now they're left with
35:42
>> that's hard.
35:43
>> How do you raise you can't raise rates?
35:45
Like we're trying to support
35:48
a drinking water infrastructure.
35:50
>> Um, but we don't have the population um
35:53
anymore to support it. that that's a key
35:55
indicator of likelihood of a water
35:59
system going to fail is population
36:02
decline. And and it manifests in just
36:04
oversized aging infrastructure that's
36:07
too expensive to replace, lack of of
36:10
sufficient staff to operate and maintain
36:12
those systems. And just when you have
36:17
limited resources to address needs that
36:19
are bigger than what you've got, you
36:21
just by you can't do it all. And so
36:24
something's got to give. And so that's
36:25
kind of brings us full circle to the
36:27
back back to the beginning of the
36:29
conversation of we have to be able to
36:31
identify those things and prioritize
36:33
those needs. And I really do think we're
36:36
now at a place in our communities where
36:38
the next 10 years, certainly the next
36:41
50, even more so, is going to be more
36:43
defined by our ability to sustain what
36:46
we've accomplished than to be able to
36:48
accomplish more. And I think the risks
36:50
we face are more about degrading what
36:52
we've accomplished than accomplishing
36:54
beyond where we've come. And and that's
36:56
a very different paradigm than the way
36:59
that we've worked in the water utility
37:01
community for the last 50 years under
37:02
the Safe Drink Water Act. And
37:04
unfortunately, the act doesn't really
37:07
speak to those issues. It has an
37:09
expectation to just keep pushing to do
37:11
more and layer on more. And I just hope
37:14
that we can uh use it effectively to do
37:17
so while not letting what we've already
37:19
accomplished erode in any way.
37:22
>> Well said. Well said. So I I think um
37:25
this has been you know fascinating and
37:27
you know you are you and and your firm
37:30
Krono you guys are such experts in in
37:32
the space and I so I think if you were
37:33
going to leave our our guests with some
37:36
parting words if you had to prioritize
37:38
one transformational thing um that needs
37:42
to be accomplished in our industry say
37:44
over the next you know 10 years anything
37:46
else you'd add or would you say it's
37:48
focus on the infrastructure we've
37:49
already built? curious what's your
37:51
answer to that?
37:52
>> I I really think it's it's
37:54
organizational. I think I would ask
37:57
water systems that are capable.
38:00
Generally, that means larger.
38:03
Look around you. Look within your water
38:05
system and those systems that are within
38:07
your system that are smaller or
38:09
contiguous or within not too far away
38:12
that you could assist. Maybe not
38:15
completely through consolidation,
38:17
physical or organizational, but in some
38:20
way make those connections. We need a
38:22
better, stronger fabric of water
38:24
utilities to address the needs that
38:26
we're going to have to overcome in the
38:27
coming years. And so that's where I
38:29
think it starts. Got to start
38:30
organizationally. Yeah, I'm a water nerd
38:33
that would run experiments here at our
38:35
lab or run data analysis on the servers
38:37
we've got with all those out there in
38:38
the office. Um, that's a part of it, but
38:41
it's got to start with the
38:42
organizational steps because without
38:43
that, we're just going to have all these
38:45
little fragmented systems that can't
38:47
respond, that don't have the capacity,
38:48
and even though we could solve the
38:49
problem, they wouldn't be able to
38:51
sustain it anyway.
38:52
>> Yeah.
38:52
>> Yeah. Ah, that's
38:54
>> that wisdom.
38:55
>> Yeah, that is that is a great place to
38:57
leave it.
38:57
>> Tell you of getting old. That's that's
38:59
what that means.
39:00
>> Somebody says wisdom. Wisdom.
39:01
>> Oh my gosh.
39:03
Oh, well, thank you so much, Chad, for
39:06
um for making the time to um to to speak
39:09
with us and and our listeners. Um this
39:12
has been such a great conversation and
39:14
and we really appreciate not just this
39:16
conversation, but the impact that you've
39:18
been having um to make water work.
39:20
>> Yeah.
39:21
>> Yeah. Thanks for the opportunity. Thanks
39:23
for what you're doing to invest in the
39:25
water community. I appreciate that each
39:27
of you have come into this community
39:29
from having been elsewhere before that
39:31
and I appreciate that you're bringing
39:33
others into it. We we've got a great
39:35
community here that has a terrific
39:37
opportunity to do meaningful things for
39:39
our communities. Um we got to keep
39:41
growing it. So it's uh it's a great
39:43
objective. It's worth doing and I'm glad
39:45
to be a part of it.
39:46
>> Yeah. Thank you so much, Chad.
39:51
>> Megan, I always love any opportunity to
39:53
get to connect with um with Chad. He's
39:55
had such a big impact on the water
39:58
quality um community and is um always
40:01
featured um in in those conferences and
40:04
in those conversations and puts out such
40:06
good quality work.
40:07
>> Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. I'm
40:09
encourage anybody to read everything
40:11
that you can that has his name on it. Um
40:13
he's obviously not only a savant on the
40:16
water quality and the chemistry side of
40:18
things, but what I also appreciate with
40:20
Chad is he understands the policy side
40:23
as well and he's able to kind of uh
40:26
marry those two issues in a way that
40:28
practically makes sense for our water
40:30
ecosystem, whether that means the
40:32
utility, the community. And that's why I
40:35
just I I appreciate my conversations and
40:37
how he approaches to water quality
40:39
issues all the time in our industry and
40:41
grateful for his advocacy and support.
40:43
>> Yeah.
40:43
>> Yeah. Yeah. He's he is he's incredible
40:46
and thank you so much for tuning in to
40:49
this Make Waterwork podcast. Um, we love
40:52
getting to have conversations with folks
40:54
like Chad and love to hear from you um
40:57
on any uh conversations that you've
40:59
enjoyed listening to um or any other
41:01
people that you would like to hear from
41:03
on this podcast. Um we really appreciate
41:07
when you like, share, follow, and
41:09
subscribe. And we can't wait to have you
41:12
join us for next week's conversation.
41:14
Thanks for listening to the Make Water
41:16
Work podcast. If you enjoyed today's
41:19
episode, please take a moment to like,
41:21
share, and subscribe so you never miss a
41:23
conversation. We'd love to hear your
41:26
thoughts and questions. Connect with us
41:28
on LinkedIn or send us a message.
41:30
Together, we can make water work for
41:32
everyone.